Our main export over the last 20-plus years has been the U.S. dollar. We've run up huge trade deficits, sending dollars over seas to China, Japan, Korea, the EU, the Middle East, and to anyone else who would take them in exchange for their goods. The virtuous cycle has worked until now because the giant vendor financing scheme suited every one's interest. U.S. consumers got cheap goods from overseas and were allowed to spend beyond their means by borrowing cheaply. Export led foreign economies were able to sell into one of the largest consumer economies in the world, keeping their labor forces employed and running up huge surpluses in the process (reserves are a wonderful thing when hard times hit, since you have to pay back international debt regardless of whether you're earning sufficient currency or not).
But what to do with the tsunami of dollars flooding their shores? How to avoid the Renminbi, Yen, Won, Baht, Peso, and Real, among others, from strengthening and thus decreasing the competitiveness of their goods in the world market? Why, recycle all of those excess dollars back into the U.S. by purchasing the (until now) safest investment in the world - U.S. Treasuries. Buying U.S. Treasuries with surplus dollars had the beneficial side effect of keeping U.S. interest rates far lower than they would otherwise have been, in turn stimulating the U.S. consumer to take on even more cheap debt with which to buy more foreign goods.
Clearly though the trend was unsustainable and had to come to an end eventually. At some point the foreign vendors financing our purchases would want to get something tangible in exchange for their store of paper money. Now it increasingly appears that the end is near as America's policy of dollar debasement is obviously vexing the foreign holders of U.S. debt.
China, in particular, appears to be signaling that it is serious about ending the trend. The Chinese have accumulated some $2.2 trillion in U.S. debt, primarily U.S. Treasuries. but lately they have been signaling an end to unlimited Treasury accumulation. Instead they have been diversifying away from US Treasuries by using the roughly $200 billion accumulated each quarter to buy other currencies and assets. More ominously for the U.S. Treasury market, the Chinese are now indicating a desire to actively sell Treasuries in order to buy U.S. strategic assets, according to Chinese official Li Daokui in a statement made at the World Economic Forum.
"We would like to buy stakes in Boeing, Intel, and Apple, and maybe we should invest in these types of companies in a proactive way," Li said at the Forum. "Once the US Treasury market stabilizes we can liquidate more of our holdings of Treasuries," he went on to say. HELLO?
The Chinese liquidating their Treasury holdings isn't a dollar negative if they use the proceeds to buy American assets, but it could send the bond market reeling, driving up interest rates and throwing the United States into recession in the process. The Federal Reserve is already financing the entire budget deficit (and has been for almost two years now). Is the Fed ready to prostitute its balance sheet further by stepping into the breach to buy China's Treasuries if they follow through with their plans to swap out T-bonds for hard assets? Perhaps. But will the rest of the world allow the Fed to get away with it for long? Not likely....
Dollar dumping by the major holders of our debt is a growing possibility, with serious consequences likely, not the least of which are rising interest rates and an economy in recession. Neither bonds nor stocks will weather that particular storm very well.....
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
Recession All But Certain
The government likes to spin the numbers as does Wall Street. Politicians seek re-election and Wall Street seeks transactions. You will almost never hear a fee-based Advisor, insurance agent, or product selling financial planner (all distributors of Wall Street's products) tell you that now is NOT a good time to buy, because they make most of their money from the commissions they get when they sell you something. The positive spin coming from Wall Street economists is often nothing more than cover for their product selling compatriots.
But the data now strongly suggest that we are either already in or will soon be in another recession. The deterioration in financial and economic measures that provides a unique signature that always and only is observed during or immediately prior to U.S. recessions is in place. These include a widening of credit spreads on corporate debt versus six-months prior, the S&P 500 below its level of 6 months prior, the Treasury yield curve flatter than 2.5% (10-year minus 3-month), year-over-year GDP growth below 2%, ISM Purchasing Managers Index below 54, year-over-year growth in total non-farm payrolls below 1%, as well as important corroborating indicators such as plunging consumer confidence. The evidence has 100% sensitivity (these conditions have always been observed during or just prior to each U.S. recession) and 100% specificity (the only time we observe the full set of these conditions is during or just prior to U.S. recessions), according to Dr. John Hussman
We have been forecasting a bear market (20%-40% decline) since late last year with the most likely starting period the spring of 2012 and the second most likely starting period the fall of 2011. The S&P 500 is at 1137 as we write, having peaked in April at 1370.58. A 20% to 40% decline would put the S&P 500 in a range of 822 - 1096. We are mindful of the fact that average valuation for the S&P 500 over the very long term, based on average 10-year trailing earnings, replacement cost analysis, and the dividend growth model is in the 900 range. Our conclusion is that we will likely see 900 or thereabouts in the coming bear market if the European sovereign and banking situation is contained. We could quite possibly see 500 on the S&P 500 if it is not (although 500 might seem like a mind-boggling number to many investors, it should be remembered that we hit 666 intra-day in March of 2009). It's probably also worth pointing out the 500 on the S&P 500 would be about right as a starting point for the next great secular BULL market based on past valuations in 1919, 1946, and 1982. For the record, we are not anticipating a decline to 500, believing that 800-1000 is the more likely floor. But we do feel it's a number worth mentioning since the European banking and sovereign debt crisis could very easily spin out of control, sucking the U.S. (courtesy of our hyperactive Central Bank) into the maelstrom.
Biechele Royce Advisors is continuing to buy good companies when we can find them on sale. We are emphasizing dividend paying blue chip stocks with defensive characteristics. We are watching high-yield bonds with interest and believe a buying opportunity will present itself within the next year. We are still overweight non-dollar assets as we continue to believe that the wildly inappropriate monetary policy currently being conducted in the U.S. has a high probability of sparking strong inflationary pressures before all is said and done. Finally we are waiting to put excess cash to work should we be fortunate enough to experience a market cleansing decline into the 800-1000 area. We have a long and growing list of good companies that we'd love to own at the right price!
But the data now strongly suggest that we are either already in or will soon be in another recession. The deterioration in financial and economic measures that provides a unique signature that always and only is observed during or immediately prior to U.S. recessions is in place. These include a widening of credit spreads on corporate debt versus six-months prior, the S&P 500 below its level of 6 months prior, the Treasury yield curve flatter than 2.5% (10-year minus 3-month), year-over-year GDP growth below 2%, ISM Purchasing Managers Index below 54, year-over-year growth in total non-farm payrolls below 1%, as well as important corroborating indicators such as plunging consumer confidence. The evidence has 100% sensitivity (these conditions have always been observed during or just prior to each U.S. recession) and 100% specificity (the only time we observe the full set of these conditions is during or just prior to U.S. recessions), according to Dr. John Hussman
We have been forecasting a bear market (20%-40% decline) since late last year with the most likely starting period the spring of 2012 and the second most likely starting period the fall of 2011. The S&P 500 is at 1137 as we write, having peaked in April at 1370.58. A 20% to 40% decline would put the S&P 500 in a range of 822 - 1096. We are mindful of the fact that average valuation for the S&P 500 over the very long term, based on average 10-year trailing earnings, replacement cost analysis, and the dividend growth model is in the 900 range. Our conclusion is that we will likely see 900 or thereabouts in the coming bear market if the European sovereign and banking situation is contained. We could quite possibly see 500 on the S&P 500 if it is not (although 500 might seem like a mind-boggling number to many investors, it should be remembered that we hit 666 intra-day in March of 2009). It's probably also worth pointing out the 500 on the S&P 500 would be about right as a starting point for the next great secular BULL market based on past valuations in 1919, 1946, and 1982. For the record, we are not anticipating a decline to 500, believing that 800-1000 is the more likely floor. But we do feel it's a number worth mentioning since the European banking and sovereign debt crisis could very easily spin out of control, sucking the U.S. (courtesy of our hyperactive Central Bank) into the maelstrom.
Biechele Royce Advisors is continuing to buy good companies when we can find them on sale. We are emphasizing dividend paying blue chip stocks with defensive characteristics. We are watching high-yield bonds with interest and believe a buying opportunity will present itself within the next year. We are still overweight non-dollar assets as we continue to believe that the wildly inappropriate monetary policy currently being conducted in the U.S. has a high probability of sparking strong inflationary pressures before all is said and done. Finally we are waiting to put excess cash to work should we be fortunate enough to experience a market cleansing decline into the 800-1000 area. We have a long and growing list of good companies that we'd love to own at the right price!
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Common Mistakes with Wills
Your Will can have a major impact on your family (including your spouse), friends, and favorite causes after you're gone. It is all too common for someone to die without a will, ensuring that their wishes aren't honored in death. Wills allow individuals to specify how they want their assets divided up after they are gone and can greatly impact the individual's legacy - assets distributed smoothly and in accordance with the individual's wishes, or squabbling and legal challenges that can cause hurt feelings and ill-will among your loved ones.
A second common mistake is making surprise decisions on who gets what, which can also lead to hurt feelings and family conflicts. Most people do not want spouses, children and other relatives fighting over their assets when they are gone, but that is exactly what can happen if they don't take the time to explain to their heirs what they plan.
Cutting out a spouse is surprisingly common, but unless you have a prenuptial agreement, your spouse is entitled to receive up to one-half of your estate, whether you write it into your will or not. Have your spouse sign a waiver before your death or expect your estate to face claims afterwards.
At the other end of the spectrum are those individuals who are in a second marriage and leave everything to their spouse. The children from the individual's first marriage can end up with nothing after the spouse dies if he/she has remarried in the interim. One solution is to set up a marital trust within your Will that holds assets for your spouse and then transfers them to your children after your spouse's death, ensuring that your assets stay in the family rather than going elsewhere.
Another common error is forgetting about Insurance/IRA designations. Separate beneficiary designation forms control the distribution of retirement accounts, annuities and life insurance after death. It is critical to complete beneficiary forms for these assets if you wish to avoid probate court, and the costs and publicity that goes with the probate process. Assets titled in your name, as opposed to jointly held with rights of survivorship, without designated beneficiaries will be distributed according to the general instructions in your Will, possibly triggering taxes much sooner than otherwise would be the case.
Please feel free to call or email with questions!
A second common mistake is making surprise decisions on who gets what, which can also lead to hurt feelings and family conflicts. Most people do not want spouses, children and other relatives fighting over their assets when they are gone, but that is exactly what can happen if they don't take the time to explain to their heirs what they plan.
Cutting out a spouse is surprisingly common, but unless you have a prenuptial agreement, your spouse is entitled to receive up to one-half of your estate, whether you write it into your will or not. Have your spouse sign a waiver before your death or expect your estate to face claims afterwards.
At the other end of the spectrum are those individuals who are in a second marriage and leave everything to their spouse. The children from the individual's first marriage can end up with nothing after the spouse dies if he/she has remarried in the interim. One solution is to set up a marital trust within your Will that holds assets for your spouse and then transfers them to your children after your spouse's death, ensuring that your assets stay in the family rather than going elsewhere.
Another common error is forgetting about Insurance/IRA designations. Separate beneficiary designation forms control the distribution of retirement accounts, annuities and life insurance after death. It is critical to complete beneficiary forms for these assets if you wish to avoid probate court, and the costs and publicity that goes with the probate process. Assets titled in your name, as opposed to jointly held with rights of survivorship, without designated beneficiaries will be distributed according to the general instructions in your Will, possibly triggering taxes much sooner than otherwise would be the case.
Please feel free to call or email with questions!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Market Update
The market topping process we wrote about Tuesday is now complete. The stock jockeys bounced the market hard on Wednesday in an effort to avoid a close below the March 16th low (1249), which would have put the top in place and brought in more short term selling. Unfortunately the Wednesday bounce was short lived and itchy trading fingers started pushing buttons on Thursday, pounding the market lower. The S&P 500 basically opened at its high and closed at its low on big volume - just about as negative as you can get from a technical stand point. We will likely get an oversold rally starting either late today or more likely early next week as the speculators (which is almost everyone these days) try to jam the market back into its six month trading range (1249-1370). The rally is likely to fail and further downside testing (perhaps all the way to the low 1100s) is likely by the fall. We continue to think the market will likely rally into year end, following this sell off, with the onset of the real bear market not occurring until sometime next spring. Our best-guess scenario is predicated on the Federal Reserve and/or the Administration coming up with yet another ill-conceived, short term program to support the market, delaying, but not preventing, the inevitable bear market that lurks out there in our future.
Our longer term forecast is unchanged - a bear market within the next 12-18 months that takes the S&P 500 down 20%-40% from its 1370 high. The bear market's underlying causes will include the simple fact that S&P 500 fair value is only about 900, making it an expensive investment currently. Additionally, record net profit margins will revert to their long run mean at some point as the economy continues its slide back into recession, resulting in disappointing earnings from the S&P 500's constituents.
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to buy good companies at great prices as we find them, but has been carrying extra cash in client portfolios and favoring more defensive investments in anticipation of the selling we are now experiencing.
Our longer term forecast is unchanged - a bear market within the next 12-18 months that takes the S&P 500 down 20%-40% from its 1370 high. The bear market's underlying causes will include the simple fact that S&P 500 fair value is only about 900, making it an expensive investment currently. Additionally, record net profit margins will revert to their long run mean at some point as the economy continues its slide back into recession, resulting in disappointing earnings from the S&P 500's constituents.
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to buy good companies at great prices as we find them, but has been carrying extra cash in client portfolios and favoring more defensive investments in anticipation of the selling we are now experiencing.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Recession and the Bear
Last week was a big down week for equities, with most major averages down around 4%. DJIA lost 4.24%, S&P500 down 3.92%, and NASDAQ fell 3.58%. The S&P 500 was down 2.2% for July. Treasuries rallied for the week, with the 10-yr. yield lower at 2.79%. Some of the economic highlights to go with the weak stock market action were:
Q2 GDP disappoints…Q1 revised lower.
U.S. economy grew by only 1.3% in Q2, and Q1 was revised down to a mere 0.4% growth rate.
(Weakness in consumer spending suggests that higher prices for certain food / energy items have played a role in restraining spending.)
0.1% increase in personal spending was the lowest since Q2 2009 in the midst of the recession.
Budget cuts in state/local government contributed to a 3.4% drop in government spending.
It appears that sub-par growth continues to be the path of the economy for the second half.
GDP growth has now decelerated to a level below the 2% threshold that has been a predictor of recession in the past. Jobs and housing are closely linked and both remain a drag on the economy. New home sales fell in June as potential buyers pulled back from the market amid job uncertainty and tough lending standards. Canceled home transactions in June jumped to 16%, way above the 4% level seen in May and the 9-10% range of the last year. Tight appraisals and tough loan underwriting scrutiny are to blame, according to the media. Most of the activity in the housing market are distressed sales.
Technically, the market has broken the uptrend begun on 7 July 2010 and continues the topping process begun 18 February 2011. A drop below the 16 March low of 1249 would put the top in place and sharply increase the likelihood that the secular bear market is resuming. We continue to think it more likely that a retest of the 1 July 2010 low at 1011 won't occur until sometime next spring but a fall retest is a possibility. Regardless, we continue to maintain a defensive posture in client portfolios given that S&P 500 fair value is around 900 and that the economy is clearly slowing.
Q2 GDP disappoints…Q1 revised lower.
U.S. economy grew by only 1.3% in Q2, and Q1 was revised down to a mere 0.4% growth rate.
(Weakness in consumer spending suggests that higher prices for certain food / energy items have played a role in restraining spending.)
0.1% increase in personal spending was the lowest since Q2 2009 in the midst of the recession.
Budget cuts in state/local government contributed to a 3.4% drop in government spending.
It appears that sub-par growth continues to be the path of the economy for the second half.
GDP growth has now decelerated to a level below the 2% threshold that has been a predictor of recession in the past. Jobs and housing are closely linked and both remain a drag on the economy. New home sales fell in June as potential buyers pulled back from the market amid job uncertainty and tough lending standards. Canceled home transactions in June jumped to 16%, way above the 4% level seen in May and the 9-10% range of the last year. Tight appraisals and tough loan underwriting scrutiny are to blame, according to the media. Most of the activity in the housing market are distressed sales.
Technically, the market has broken the uptrend begun on 7 July 2010 and continues the topping process begun 18 February 2011. A drop below the 16 March low of 1249 would put the top in place and sharply increase the likelihood that the secular bear market is resuming. We continue to think it more likely that a retest of the 1 July 2010 low at 1011 won't occur until sometime next spring but a fall retest is a possibility. Regardless, we continue to maintain a defensive posture in client portfolios given that S&P 500 fair value is around 900 and that the economy is clearly slowing.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Laddered Bond Portfolios
I received a call from a Dow Jones newspaper reporter yesterday asking me my thoughts on laddered bond portfolios as a strategy for income in retirement. She was under the impression that I was not in favor of them - possibly from something I'd written in the past (although she wasn't able to quite recall what she'd read and I wasn't able to quite recall what I might have written). Anyway, we had a very pleasant half hour conversation about laddered portfolios, fee-only versus fee-based (brokers) advisors, variable annuities, and properly diversified multi-asset portfolios...among other investment topics.
But I thought I ought to pass on my thoughts on laddered bond portfolios to my readers, since it was the primary reason she called.
I think a laddered bond strategy makes quite a bit of sense for retirees, but only as a part of a properly diversified multi-asset portfolio. I am not in favor of single asset portfolios for anyone, let alone a retiree. Putting your eggs all in one basket is never a good idea, even if it is in the supposedly safe basket of Treasury bonds, which I personally believe carry quite a bit of risk currently. (Bill Gross of Pimco is on the same page by the way as his firm - the largest bond investor in the world - is currently completely out of Treasury bonds according to statements the bond king has made in recent months).
Bonds were known as certificates of confiscation back in the early 1980s, before the great bond bull market kicked off in 1982. Bond investors had lost their shirts over the prior 15 years or so as interest rates had risen steadily along with inflation. Negative real rates eroded bond wealth steadily for better than a decade. However, Paul Volcker's Federal Reserve changed all of that by committing to sound monetary policy designed to bring down inflation and restore the stability of the dollar as a store of value. Bonds have proven a splendid investment ever since... until now.
It is highly likely that inflation will continue to rise and, with it, interest rates over the next decade. We may have another year or two to wait before the trend really gathers steam, but without drastic changes in U.S. monetary and fiscal policy, the odds of a long bond bear market are high. A laddered dollar bond portfolio is not where you want all of your assets in such an environment. Yes bonds will mature yearly and can be reinvested at higher rates, but the bonds in you portfolio will lose value. Any sales necessitated by unexpected cash needs will result in losses. And generating capital losses in bond investing is a cardinal sin. Even more dangerous is the strategy of attempting to "ladder" a bond mutual fund portfolio, given that bond mutual funds have a perpetual duration - duration is a measure of bond price sensitivity to changes in interest rates. The longer the duration the bigger the price moves in a bond, and perpetual is as long as you can get.
Far better to build a properly diversified multi-asset portfolio for our retiree that might include a laddered bond portfolio to go with the high-quality dividend paying blue chip stocks, the dollar diversifying international assets, and the inflation hedging tangible assets (real estate and commodities primarily).
The S&P 500 is rallying short term after moving into oversold territory, but is likely to at least retest the recent low at 1256. It is still too early to tell if the correction is merely the pause that refreshes on the start of a topping process that will ultimately lead to the next downleg in the ongoing secular bear market. We reiterate that fair value for the S&P 500 is in the 900 area and that the economy is now showing clear signs of slowing - a combination that would suggest prudence is the better part of valor at the moment.
But I thought I ought to pass on my thoughts on laddered bond portfolios to my readers, since it was the primary reason she called.
I think a laddered bond strategy makes quite a bit of sense for retirees, but only as a part of a properly diversified multi-asset portfolio. I am not in favor of single asset portfolios for anyone, let alone a retiree. Putting your eggs all in one basket is never a good idea, even if it is in the supposedly safe basket of Treasury bonds, which I personally believe carry quite a bit of risk currently. (Bill Gross of Pimco is on the same page by the way as his firm - the largest bond investor in the world - is currently completely out of Treasury bonds according to statements the bond king has made in recent months).
Bonds were known as certificates of confiscation back in the early 1980s, before the great bond bull market kicked off in 1982. Bond investors had lost their shirts over the prior 15 years or so as interest rates had risen steadily along with inflation. Negative real rates eroded bond wealth steadily for better than a decade. However, Paul Volcker's Federal Reserve changed all of that by committing to sound monetary policy designed to bring down inflation and restore the stability of the dollar as a store of value. Bonds have proven a splendid investment ever since... until now.
It is highly likely that inflation will continue to rise and, with it, interest rates over the next decade. We may have another year or two to wait before the trend really gathers steam, but without drastic changes in U.S. monetary and fiscal policy, the odds of a long bond bear market are high. A laddered dollar bond portfolio is not where you want all of your assets in such an environment. Yes bonds will mature yearly and can be reinvested at higher rates, but the bonds in you portfolio will lose value. Any sales necessitated by unexpected cash needs will result in losses. And generating capital losses in bond investing is a cardinal sin. Even more dangerous is the strategy of attempting to "ladder" a bond mutual fund portfolio, given that bond mutual funds have a perpetual duration - duration is a measure of bond price sensitivity to changes in interest rates. The longer the duration the bigger the price moves in a bond, and perpetual is as long as you can get.
Far better to build a properly diversified multi-asset portfolio for our retiree that might include a laddered bond portfolio to go with the high-quality dividend paying blue chip stocks, the dollar diversifying international assets, and the inflation hedging tangible assets (real estate and commodities primarily).
The S&P 500 is rallying short term after moving into oversold territory, but is likely to at least retest the recent low at 1256. It is still too early to tell if the correction is merely the pause that refreshes on the start of a topping process that will ultimately lead to the next downleg in the ongoing secular bear market. We reiterate that fair value for the S&P 500 is in the 900 area and that the economy is now showing clear signs of slowing - a combination that would suggest prudence is the better part of valor at the moment.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Correction
The market is finally starting a correction that could eventually turn into a full fledged bear market, depending on what policy decisions the administration, the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and the Chinese make in response to a slowing economy in the U.S. and rising inflation overseas. The S&P 500 has lost 7.7% since its 2 May peak of 1370.58 (5.3% of that loss coming in June). The next key support is 1249 - the 16 March low. Selling pressures sufficient to take out the 1249 support level would sharply increase the likely of further significant downside testing. There is strong support for the S&P 500 from 1150 down to 1000 however, making the onset of a full blown bear market unlikely in the next few quarters. Tops take time to form and it is more likely that a bounce off of 1249, or perhaps off of 1220 support (10.9% pullback) will see the S&P 500 rally into year end and finish somewhere near the May 2 high of 1370.
Nevertheless, a renewal of the secular bear market this year can't be ruled out. S&P 500 fair value is in the 900 area, net profit margins are at record levels (and will certainly fall going forward), and the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing. As well, the Chinese are tightening monetary policy and the ECB is talking about tightening monetary policy - both entities would like to deflect inflation away from their shores.
On the other side of the ledger is the President's desire to win re-election. It is very likely that Obama will take steps to bolster the economy short term (and by extension the stock market) in order to win re-election. No post WWII incumbent has won re-election with unemployment above 7.2%, which means Obama must do something fairly quickly to light a fire under the jobs market if he hopes to serve a second term.
Likewise, Ben Bernanke continues to send signals that QE2 will not be the end of his monetary largess. He apparently remains determined to use every monetary policy tool in his tool box to keep the stock market afloat while the banks continue to repair their shattered balance sheets. Bernanke is likely to trot out another initiative immediately on the heels of QE2's end on 30 June. Our forecast is still for a resumption of the bear market sometime in the next 12 to 18 months, but we continue to believe that we are more likely to feel the Bear's bite in 2012 than 2011.
We continue to look for high-quality dividend paying blue chips to buy. We also continue to invest in shorter duration fixed income investments, given the likelihood of rising interest rates in coming years. Finally we continue to invest in nondollar assets that will provide a hedge against purchasing power loss as the shortsighted policies pursued by politicians (on both sides of the aisle) and the Federal Reserve all but ensure rising inflation over the next decade.
Nevertheless, a renewal of the secular bear market this year can't be ruled out. S&P 500 fair value is in the 900 area, net profit margins are at record levels (and will certainly fall going forward), and the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing. As well, the Chinese are tightening monetary policy and the ECB is talking about tightening monetary policy - both entities would like to deflect inflation away from their shores.
On the other side of the ledger is the President's desire to win re-election. It is very likely that Obama will take steps to bolster the economy short term (and by extension the stock market) in order to win re-election. No post WWII incumbent has won re-election with unemployment above 7.2%, which means Obama must do something fairly quickly to light a fire under the jobs market if he hopes to serve a second term.
Likewise, Ben Bernanke continues to send signals that QE2 will not be the end of his monetary largess. He apparently remains determined to use every monetary policy tool in his tool box to keep the stock market afloat while the banks continue to repair their shattered balance sheets. Bernanke is likely to trot out another initiative immediately on the heels of QE2's end on 30 June. Our forecast is still for a resumption of the bear market sometime in the next 12 to 18 months, but we continue to believe that we are more likely to feel the Bear's bite in 2012 than 2011.
We continue to look for high-quality dividend paying blue chips to buy. We also continue to invest in shorter duration fixed income investments, given the likelihood of rising interest rates in coming years. Finally we continue to invest in nondollar assets that will provide a hedge against purchasing power loss as the shortsighted policies pursued by politicians (on both sides of the aisle) and the Federal Reserve all but ensure rising inflation over the next decade.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Stocks For The Long Run?
There are at least a few academics who argue that stocks are too risky for retirement portfolios and that an all bond portfolio is more appropriate for retirement portfolios, given the much more predictable return streams of bonds versus stocks. Bond portfolios can be constructed to ensure that cash flows match known cash needs throughout a retirement plan. Unfortunately, bonds are not particularly good at preserving purchasing power when inflation unexpectedly makes an appearance (Biechele Royce is forecasting rising inflation over the next 10 plus years). Stocks, then, are a necessary evil for investors who fail to save enough during their accumulation years - the vast majority - to make it possible to survive in retirement on an all bond portfolio.
Okay, okay time out.... You are puzzled because I'm dissing stocks for the long run aren't you? I mean, the baby boomers grew up in the stock friendly world of the 1980s and 1990s. We were told that stocks always deliver a superior return over the long run and that most of us should just forget about bonds and pile into stocks as long as we were looking at a 10-year plus time horizon. We were told that we'd end up with far more wealth in retirement by sticking with the superior long run returns of stocks. Well.... we weren't really getting the whole story when it comes to stock returns versus bond returns as it turns out.
The fact is that bonds have far outperformed stocks over the last 10 years, to the tune of 5.23% per annum, and have kept up with stocks over the last 20 and 30 year periods with far less volatility. The fact is that investors over the last 30 years would've been far better off sticking with bonds ONLY. But that must be a very unusual occurrence right? Not really. It turns out that there have been a number of very long periods during which bonds were superior to stocks. The period 1803-1857 comes to mind - bonds trounced stocks handily and it wasn't until 1871 that stock investors managed to break even. Stocks failed to match bonds once again from 1929 -1949 and stocks didn't manage to break even until the early 1960s. We've had a huge bull market in bonds since 1982 and it may not be quite over yet.
But it is probably coming to an end, given that nominal interest rates aren't likely to fall much further absence outright deflation - something that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says isn't possible if a central bank is willing to keep printing money, as ours clearly is. So back to stocks for the long run then? We don't think so given the tremendous over valuation that currently exists. It is hard to get excited about loading up on stocks when they are trading some 45% above fair value.
And that leaves us with a conundrum - neither stocks nor bonds are particularly attractive for the long run right now, making it a difficult time to be an investor. I am holding cash and gold stocks personally, along with a position in a single stock. I have a list of companies I intend to buy when the next big sell off hits, likely sometime in the next 12-18 months.
Biechele Royce Advisors builds properly diversified portfolios (mine is not) and is currently overweighting nondollar assets, tangible assets, and big blue chip dividending paying U.S. companies. We continue to buy good companies at great prices as we find them.
Okay, okay time out.... You are puzzled because I'm dissing stocks for the long run aren't you? I mean, the baby boomers grew up in the stock friendly world of the 1980s and 1990s. We were told that stocks always deliver a superior return over the long run and that most of us should just forget about bonds and pile into stocks as long as we were looking at a 10-year plus time horizon. We were told that we'd end up with far more wealth in retirement by sticking with the superior long run returns of stocks. Well.... we weren't really getting the whole story when it comes to stock returns versus bond returns as it turns out.
The fact is that bonds have far outperformed stocks over the last 10 years, to the tune of 5.23% per annum, and have kept up with stocks over the last 20 and 30 year periods with far less volatility. The fact is that investors over the last 30 years would've been far better off sticking with bonds ONLY. But that must be a very unusual occurrence right? Not really. It turns out that there have been a number of very long periods during which bonds were superior to stocks. The period 1803-1857 comes to mind - bonds trounced stocks handily and it wasn't until 1871 that stock investors managed to break even. Stocks failed to match bonds once again from 1929 -1949 and stocks didn't manage to break even until the early 1960s. We've had a huge bull market in bonds since 1982 and it may not be quite over yet.
But it is probably coming to an end, given that nominal interest rates aren't likely to fall much further absence outright deflation - something that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says isn't possible if a central bank is willing to keep printing money, as ours clearly is. So back to stocks for the long run then? We don't think so given the tremendous over valuation that currently exists. It is hard to get excited about loading up on stocks when they are trading some 45% above fair value.
And that leaves us with a conundrum - neither stocks nor bonds are particularly attractive for the long run right now, making it a difficult time to be an investor. I am holding cash and gold stocks personally, along with a position in a single stock. I have a list of companies I intend to buy when the next big sell off hits, likely sometime in the next 12-18 months.
Biechele Royce Advisors builds properly diversified portfolios (mine is not) and is currently overweighting nondollar assets, tangible assets, and big blue chip dividending paying U.S. companies. We continue to buy good companies at great prices as we find them.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Presidential Cycle
The S&P 500 sold off two weeks ago, losing 1.72%. Energy was the hardest hit, declining close to 7%, followed by materials, which was down 3.77%. Defensive sectors such as Staples and Telecom were flat or only down slightly. The overall market traded basically flat last week until a Friday sell off closed it out near its recent lows.
So much for the very short term action. Longer term the S&P 500 is trading 45% above fair value, according to Jeremy Grantham of GMO ($108 billion under management), who pegs fair value at 920 for the S&P 500. Grantham’s estimate of fair value gibes with both Tobin’s Q and Shiller’s P/E (very good long term measures of stock market fair value). All of which means equity investors are still playing with fire. Hide out in bonds? Not Treasury bonds, at least not according to Bill Gross of Pimco fame. Bill has informed the world that Pimco has sold all of its Treasury holdings ahead of the end of QE2 (set to finish up at the end of June).
Grantham had thought that the combination of QE2 and the third year of the presidential cycle could push the S&P 500 back to between 1400 and 1600 by October of this year – putting it back into bubble territory. (Grantham is a student of bubbles in various asset classes throughout history and measures them against average valuations. He uses a two standard deviation divergence from long-term fair value to mark a bubble – what is supposed to be a once in 44 year event). Grantham now thinks it much less likely that the S&P 500 will reach the 1400-1600 level by fall, given its failure to advance farther by now. Historically, the market has advance 20% in the first seven months of the third year of the Presidential cycle (started last October). The entire return, on average, for the 48 month cycle is only 21%, meaning investors can expect a whopping 1% return from the S&P 500 over the next 41 months based solely on the Presidential cycle. Of course, these are only averages for the Presidential cycle and don’t take into account things like the current overvalued state of the market or the current jobless recovery (negatives for likely future returns.)
Bottom line for investors (and yep I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record) is that the market remains very overpriced and a dangerous place to be right now. Healthy levels of cash will ensure that any 20% to 30% decline from current levels in the next few years will make it possible to buy cheap assets that will provide above market rates of return going forward.
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to buy good companies at great prices as we find them. We are holding extra cash in clients’ portfolios for the inevitable rainy day that is coming, likely in the next 12 to 24 months.
So much for the very short term action. Longer term the S&P 500 is trading 45% above fair value, according to Jeremy Grantham of GMO ($108 billion under management), who pegs fair value at 920 for the S&P 500. Grantham’s estimate of fair value gibes with both Tobin’s Q and Shiller’s P/E (very good long term measures of stock market fair value). All of which means equity investors are still playing with fire. Hide out in bonds? Not Treasury bonds, at least not according to Bill Gross of Pimco fame. Bill has informed the world that Pimco has sold all of its Treasury holdings ahead of the end of QE2 (set to finish up at the end of June).
Grantham had thought that the combination of QE2 and the third year of the presidential cycle could push the S&P 500 back to between 1400 and 1600 by October of this year – putting it back into bubble territory. (Grantham is a student of bubbles in various asset classes throughout history and measures them against average valuations. He uses a two standard deviation divergence from long-term fair value to mark a bubble – what is supposed to be a once in 44 year event). Grantham now thinks it much less likely that the S&P 500 will reach the 1400-1600 level by fall, given its failure to advance farther by now. Historically, the market has advance 20% in the first seven months of the third year of the Presidential cycle (started last October). The entire return, on average, for the 48 month cycle is only 21%, meaning investors can expect a whopping 1% return from the S&P 500 over the next 41 months based solely on the Presidential cycle. Of course, these are only averages for the Presidential cycle and don’t take into account things like the current overvalued state of the market or the current jobless recovery (negatives for likely future returns.)
Bottom line for investors (and yep I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record) is that the market remains very overpriced and a dangerous place to be right now. Healthy levels of cash will ensure that any 20% to 30% decline from current levels in the next few years will make it possible to buy cheap assets that will provide above market rates of return going forward.
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to buy good companies at great prices as we find them. We are holding extra cash in clients’ portfolios for the inevitable rainy day that is coming, likely in the next 12 to 24 months.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Real Asset Allocation
"The market tends to be priced in a way that if you want to try to outperform, you have to take the risk of looking like an idiot," according to Ben Inker, the head of asset allocation at Boston-based global money manager Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo & Co. (GMO has approximately $107 billion under management). And looking like an idiot can get you fired in the money management business, which means the markets are not efficient, since money manager behavior is predictable. Career risk is real and money managers do make decisions to avoid taking on career risk. It is far better to lose money together than make money alone. Likewise, it is important to stay up with the Jones when the market is rising. Falling behind the pack in a bull market can get you fired as well. Mutual funds are currently fully invested, with cash levels back to the 2007 lows. Its a curious decision mutual fund managers have made to go "all in" right now given the demonstrably overvalued market and the obvious catalysts for a correction/bear market, unless you understand that it is career risk that is driving the train, not investment risk. Inker's quote bears repeating because it is the alpha and omega of money manager behavior. "The market tends to be priced in a way that if you want to try to outperform, you have to take a risk of looking like and idiot." Inker goes on to explain that to outperform you have to deviate from your benchmark, and that increases the risk of under performance and, in the extreme, looking like and idiot and getting fired. It is no coincidence that fully 75% of the so-called actively managed funds are actually closet indexers according to academics (closet indexers claim to actively manage their funds but actually mimic their benchmark, leaving investors to pay high fees for something they could get for a fraction of the cost by simply investing in index funds). And what is the impact on the market as a result of the career-risk factor? Markets exhibit herd-like behavior, which leads to momentum, and money flowing into whatever strategy is doing best, according to Inker. Valuations rise to extremes within the better performing asset classes and sectors until the gravitational pull of replacement cost exerts itself. Replacement cost (Tobin's Q is a very good long term measure of the relationship between the market and replacement cost) eventually always brings the market back to fair value, but typically with an overshoot to the downside first (as the herd exits in mass, ignoring valuations on the way down just as it did on the way up). Biechele Royce Advisor (like GMO) increases allocations to assets and sectors AFTER they have dropped and decreases allocations to assets and sectors AFTER they have risen, in order to take advantage of a HUGE inefficiency in the markets created by career risk. However, we primarily let individual securities lead us to our over and under weights, using big picture considerations to provide a context for our valuation decisions. In other words, rather than making a broad call on an asset class, we instead do basic business valuation in order to buy good companies at great prices. Likewise we let basic business valuation drive our sell decision, making sure we exit a position once the company has returned to fair value.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Variable Annuities - the New Snake Oil
The cliche of the snake oil salesman is deeply embedded in American cultural in the form of frequent depictions in the movies of those fast talking salesmen touting their wares to a crowd of curious onlookers. Most of you probably have seen a scene from a western in which the smooth talking dandy pitches his wonderful elixir as "good for whatever ails you!" Variable annuities with a guaranteed minimum wealth benefit (GMWB) are increasingly sold in much the same manner. Insurance agents and fee-based "advisors" increasingly push variable annuities on anyone and everyone, regardless of their age, income, and wealth. Frequently these salesmen don't even understand what they are selling, only that they get BIG commissions for selling them. Are you a 78 year-old single woman with Alzheimer, but with $1.3 million in the bank? No problem! You NEED a variable annuity with a GMWB rider. A couple in your mid-60s with two defined benefit plans between you? No problem! You need TWO variable annuities and you definitely need to replace the ones you were already sold in your Roth IRAs with two brand new ones that are waaaaay better! Why are they better? Because they are NEW and generate another commission for ME! The truth is that variable annuities are one of the most oversold products out there because of their big commissions, not because of their actual performance. Now here's a dose of reality courtesy of Dr. Michael Edesess (advanced mathematics and economics), Louis Mittel of Advisor Perspectives, and Robert Huebscher. Variable annuities under perform a passively managed fixed income portfolio by almost 1.60% annually on average based on modeling 100,000 trials using random date-of-death Monte Carlo simulations. In fact, a passive fixed income strategy has a higher internal rate of return (IRR) for all life spans through 113 years of age. The variable annuity returns just can't make up for their higher fees and the cost of the longevity insurance embedded in the product over shorter periods of time. Of course, insurance industry sponsored research "shows" that variable annuities are superior to passively managed fixed income portfolios. However insurance industry studies are flawed to say the least. For instance, industry studies assume that an investor will live to be 90 years of age 100 percent of the time even though the actual probability is only 19%. As well, insurance industry studies "show" that variable annuity income will keep pace with inflation even though inflation has averaged 3% over the last century and the actual nominal median average income increase for variable annuities is only 0.5% per year (far below insurance industry claims). So the next time the snake oil salesman comes a calling, "JUST SAY NO!" Biechele Royce Advisors could sell you variable annuities and make those big commissions, but instead chooses to do the right thing by building you properly diversified stock and bond (fixed income) portfolios to help you achieve a successful retirement. Best Regards, Chris Christopher Royce Norwood, CFA Biechele Royce Advisors, Inc.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Valuations Matter
The table below summarizes very nicely why we continue to view the U.S. stock market as high risk and low return. We have been projecting since the beginning of the year that a 10% to 20% pullback was likely sometime in the first two quarters of 2010 . We think the events in Japan are now serving as a catalyst and believe the correction has begun. The S&P 500 is down 6.2% peak to trough currently and we expect it to fall to at least 1200 before the current pullback is over. A correction to the 200-day moving average would result in a decline of about 12% and is the minimum we expect at the moment. A deeper correction back to 1100 is certainly possible. Biechele Royce will continue to buy good companies at great prices as they come available.
TABLE
10-year S&P 500 total returns by P/E level
***Shiller P/E is currently 24***
Shiller Avg Annual Return
Below 12 16.0%
12 to 16 14.3%
16 to 20 10.3%
20 to 24 6.6%
Above 24 3.5%
5-year S&P 500 total returns by P/E level
***Shiller P/E is currently 24***
Shiller Avg Annual Return
Below 12 16.5%
12 to 16 12.4%
16 to 20 9.3%
20 to 24 11.6%
Above 24 3.2%
(Note the jump in five-year returns for valuations in the 20 to 24 range: it is the result of short-term momentum in bubble markets. The S&P 500 hasn't seen Shiller P/Es at or above 24 except for a very brief period in 1929, and then during the current bubble years encompassing 1999 to the present.)
Please feel free to call or e-mail with questions about the current investing environment...
Regards,
Christopher Royce Norwood, CFA
Biechele Royce Advisors, Inc.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Dividend Paying Stocks Are Superior
Dividend paying stocks outperform with lower volatility. Put another way... non-dividend paying so-called growth stocks are inferior investments. Now that might come as a surprise to many of you who've been suckered into buying growth stocks by your fee-based (stockbroker) advisors (either directly or via growth mutual funds), but the empirical evidence is irrefutable. You are better off buying "stodgy" dividend paying stocks because you will make more MONEY with less RISK.
The latest in a string of studies done by the academic world has once again verified that dividend-paying stocks are better investments than the zero dividend crew. Specifically, a study done by Dr. C. Thomas Howard (Reiman School of Finance) for the period January 1973-September 2010, shows that companies which grew their dividend out performed dividend cutting stocks by more than 10% annually. Companies that merely maintained their dividend outperformed companies with no dividend by 5.29% annually. Let's do some Q&A...
Would you rather have $24,267 or $9,285? Would you rather have $21,288 or $11,977? The first number is what you'd accumulate from 1973 thru September of 2010 if you stuck to dividend growing stocks and made an initial $10,000 investment. The second number represents dividend cutting stocks while the third amount is a portfolio of no change dividend paying stocks and the final number are the GROWTH companies that pay no dividend. Kinda makes you wonder why the brokers are always pushing growth stock mutual funds on you doesn't it?
But it gets even better! You can have the $24,285 portfolio with less risk - as measured by volatility. Dividend growing stocks had a standard deviation of 17.6% versus a standard deviation of 26.6% for zero dividend paying stocks. Standard deviation is a measure of volatility which means lower is better.
Now some of you might point out that there is a tax penalty associated with dividends in non-qualified accounts (qualified accounts such as IRAs, 401(k)s and 403(b)s don't pay taxes and aren't impacted). And you'd be right. However, the out performance of dividend paying stocks more than compensates you for holding them - EVEN IN A TAXABLE
ACCOUNT.
The bottomline (once again) is that investors are far better off buying dividend paying stocks (directly if possible to cut out the mutual fund fees) rather than the high-flying, zero dividend paying growth stocks that are typically pushed by the commissioned based salesmen passing themselves off as investment advisors.
Biechele Royce Advisors buys good companies at great prices. We are currently focusing even more than normal on high-quality dividend paying stocks in our equity portfolios. Fair value for the S&P 500 is between 800-900 and we expect the market to exhibit increased volatility over the next few years as the current cyclical bull market ends and the secular bear market resumes.
The latest in a string of studies done by the academic world has once again verified that dividend-paying stocks are better investments than the zero dividend crew. Specifically, a study done by Dr. C. Thomas Howard (Reiman School of Finance) for the period January 1973-September 2010, shows that companies which grew their dividend out performed dividend cutting stocks by more than 10% annually. Companies that merely maintained their dividend outperformed companies with no dividend by 5.29% annually. Let's do some Q&A...
Would you rather have $24,267 or $9,285? Would you rather have $21,288 or $11,977? The first number is what you'd accumulate from 1973 thru September of 2010 if you stuck to dividend growing stocks and made an initial $10,000 investment. The second number represents dividend cutting stocks while the third amount is a portfolio of no change dividend paying stocks and the final number are the GROWTH companies that pay no dividend. Kinda makes you wonder why the brokers are always pushing growth stock mutual funds on you doesn't it?
But it gets even better! You can have the $24,285 portfolio with less risk - as measured by volatility. Dividend growing stocks had a standard deviation of 17.6% versus a standard deviation of 26.6% for zero dividend paying stocks. Standard deviation is a measure of volatility which means lower is better.
Now some of you might point out that there is a tax penalty associated with dividends in non-qualified accounts (qualified accounts such as IRAs, 401(k)s and 403(b)s don't pay taxes and aren't impacted). And you'd be right. However, the out performance of dividend paying stocks more than compensates you for holding them - EVEN IN A TAXABLE
ACCOUNT.
The bottomline (once again) is that investors are far better off buying dividend paying stocks (directly if possible to cut out the mutual fund fees) rather than the high-flying, zero dividend paying growth stocks that are typically pushed by the commissioned based salesmen passing themselves off as investment advisors.
Biechele Royce Advisors buys good companies at great prices. We are currently focusing even more than normal on high-quality dividend paying stocks in our equity portfolios. Fair value for the S&P 500 is between 800-900 and we expect the market to exhibit increased volatility over the next few years as the current cyclical bull market ends and the secular bear market resumes.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Current Rally
So there I was rereading my last blog and I could sorta kinda understand why some of my readers e-mailed me to sarcastically thank me for my gloomy outlook. To those readers and everyone else let me proclaim...
The world is NOT coming to an end! (and no that's not a change of mind on my part.) My intention in my last blog was to make sure everyone is aware that the economy is sick and likely to stay that way for a long time given the crushing debt load - both public and private. As well, I wanted to make sure you folks understood that the market risk level is extremely high. However...
You can invest prudently, even in today's overvalued stock market, and earn a positive return over the next 10-year period. But chasing momentum, volatility, or credit risk will likely lead to losses over the long-term unless you happen to be a very good speculator. Fair value for the S&P 500 is somewhere around 800-850 based on a number of very good long-term valuation metrics (which are not widely followed by Wall Street because they have limited use for speculators focusing on short term returns). For instance, investors using Tobin's Q, price to trailing 10-year average earnings, and the long-term dividend growth rate as guidelines would have anticipated the 10-year period of negative stock market returns that began in 2000. Currently those valuation metrics are forecasting a return of 3.5% to 4% during the next 10-year period - a big step up but still well below the long-term historical return of 10%.
The current rally is not based on attractive valuations but rather speculative forces chasing higher risk, lower quality assets, egged on by the Federal Reserve's blatant promises of more money printing. Examining return factors makes it painfully obvious that speculators are chasing stocks with the greatest exposure to market fluctuations, commodities, credit risk, small-cap risk, and volatility while avoiding stocks with reasonable valuations, stability, high-quality earnings, and attractive dividend yields. In fact, looking at thirteen week factor returns tells a compelling story of speculation that, when coupled with an overpriced market, makes it almost inevitable that bad things will eventually happen to those investors choosing to play the risk game.
Return sources for the 13-weeks leading into year-end 2010 from high to low were: Market Beta (Risk) - 17.8%; Raw Materials Beta (Commodity sensitivity) - 17.5%; Credit Spread Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - 14.7%; Small v Large Beta (Style sensitivity) - 12.5%; Silver Beta (Commodity Sensitivity) - 10.9%; Sigma Risk (Volatility) - 10.7%; Operating Cash Flow Yield (Valuation) - (- 4%); EPS Stability (Quality) - (-5.6%); Value v Growth Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-5.9%); Return on Invested Capital (Profitability) - (-6.6%); Dividend Yield (Valuation) - (-9.3%); 10-Year T-Note Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - (-9.6%); High v Low Quality Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-15.7%)
Clearly the high risk, low-quality garbage stocks have dominated the rally into year end while lower risk, high-quality stocks have trailed sharply. Tellingly, Operating Cash Flow, Sales/Price, Market Cap, and EBIT/Enterprise value lead all other return factors over the last 10-years, meaning valuation does eventually win out! More specifically, those investors who focus their attention on the underlying value of the businesses in which they are investing will do just fine over the long run as price (eventually) always follows value. Buying good businesses at great prices only adds to both the margin of safety and the ultimate returns. Businesses that are steadily growing cash flows over time create a situation where it is nearly impossible for an investor to lose money - as long as the investor is willing to wait for market prices to reflect underlying values. Which brings us back to current valuation levels....
Given that fair-value for the S&P 500 stands around 800 to 850, it would seem prudent for investors to set aside at least some cash now in order to take advantage of better valuations sometime in the (near?) future. And for those of you reluctant to raise some cash because you're worried about missing the next great bull market? Relax! The gains we are currently experiencing in the market will almost certainly reverse sometime in the next few years and quite possibly in the next few quarters. The fact that net profit margins are currently 50% above their long-term mean (and it is a strongly mean reverting series) all but ensures that corporate profits will begin to disappoint sometime in the next few years (few quarters?) and cause a market sell off back toward fair value. Capital preservation is still the priority of the day and cash is not a dirty four letter word!
Biechele Royce Advisors is holding more cash than normal for its clients. We don't buy stocks unless we can invest in good companies at great prices. We are focused on high-quality, dividend paying stocks in our domestic portfolios and expect to have an opportunity sometime this year to add to our holdings at lower prices.
The world is NOT coming to an end! (and no that's not a change of mind on my part.) My intention in my last blog was to make sure everyone is aware that the economy is sick and likely to stay that way for a long time given the crushing debt load - both public and private. As well, I wanted to make sure you folks understood that the market risk level is extremely high. However...
You can invest prudently, even in today's overvalued stock market, and earn a positive return over the next 10-year period. But chasing momentum, volatility, or credit risk will likely lead to losses over the long-term unless you happen to be a very good speculator. Fair value for the S&P 500 is somewhere around 800-850 based on a number of very good long-term valuation metrics (which are not widely followed by Wall Street because they have limited use for speculators focusing on short term returns). For instance, investors using Tobin's Q, price to trailing 10-year average earnings, and the long-term dividend growth rate as guidelines would have anticipated the 10-year period of negative stock market returns that began in 2000. Currently those valuation metrics are forecasting a return of 3.5% to 4% during the next 10-year period - a big step up but still well below the long-term historical return of 10%.
The current rally is not based on attractive valuations but rather speculative forces chasing higher risk, lower quality assets, egged on by the Federal Reserve's blatant promises of more money printing. Examining return factors makes it painfully obvious that speculators are chasing stocks with the greatest exposure to market fluctuations, commodities, credit risk, small-cap risk, and volatility while avoiding stocks with reasonable valuations, stability, high-quality earnings, and attractive dividend yields. In fact, looking at thirteen week factor returns tells a compelling story of speculation that, when coupled with an overpriced market, makes it almost inevitable that bad things will eventually happen to those investors choosing to play the risk game.
Return sources for the 13-weeks leading into year-end 2010 from high to low were: Market Beta (Risk) - 17.8%; Raw Materials Beta (Commodity sensitivity) - 17.5%; Credit Spread Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - 14.7%; Small v Large Beta (Style sensitivity) - 12.5%; Silver Beta (Commodity Sensitivity) - 10.9%; Sigma Risk (Volatility) - 10.7%; Operating Cash Flow Yield (Valuation) - (- 4%); EPS Stability (Quality) - (-5.6%); Value v Growth Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-5.9%); Return on Invested Capital (Profitability) - (-6.6%); Dividend Yield (Valuation) - (-9.3%); 10-Year T-Note Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - (-9.6%); High v Low Quality Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-15.7%)
Clearly the high risk, low-quality garbage stocks have dominated the rally into year end while lower risk, high-quality stocks have trailed sharply. Tellingly, Operating Cash Flow, Sales/Price, Market Cap, and EBIT/Enterprise value lead all other return factors over the last 10-years, meaning valuation does eventually win out! More specifically, those investors who focus their attention on the underlying value of the businesses in which they are investing will do just fine over the long run as price (eventually) always follows value. Buying good businesses at great prices only adds to both the margin of safety and the ultimate returns. Businesses that are steadily growing cash flows over time create a situation where it is nearly impossible for an investor to lose money - as long as the investor is willing to wait for market prices to reflect underlying values. Which brings us back to current valuation levels....
Given that fair-value for the S&P 500 stands around 800 to 850, it would seem prudent for investors to set aside at least some cash now in order to take advantage of better valuations sometime in the (near?) future. And for those of you reluctant to raise some cash because you're worried about missing the next great bull market? Relax! The gains we are currently experiencing in the market will almost certainly reverse sometime in the next few years and quite possibly in the next few quarters. The fact that net profit margins are currently 50% above their long-term mean (and it is a strongly mean reverting series) all but ensures that corporate profits will begin to disappoint sometime in the next few years (few quarters?) and cause a market sell off back toward fair value. Capital preservation is still the priority of the day and cash is not a dirty four letter word!
Biechele Royce Advisors is holding more cash than normal for its clients. We don't buy stocks unless we can invest in good companies at great prices. We are focused on high-quality, dividend paying stocks in our domestic portfolios and expect to have an opportunity sometime this year to add to our holdings at lower prices.
Monday, December 27, 2010
America Bankrupt/Dangerous Market
We have maintained since late 2007 that both the U.S. and European banking systems are insolvent. Were they required to mark assets to market they would have insufficient assets to cover their liabilities - a basic definition of insolvency. Fortunately for the banks on both continents, central banks have waived the requirement to mark assets to market while the banks attempt to earn enough profits to (eventually) write down bad assets sufficiently to return to solvency. Meanwhile the Federal Reserve has been stuffing its own balance sheet with toxic assets purchased from U.S. banks in an effort to expedite the process. Unfortunately for U.S. taxpayers, the Fed is paying top dollar for toxic assets, ensuring that taxpayers will suffer billions in losses. One example should suffice to make the point. The Fed's Maiden Lane LLC purchased $30 billion from Bear Stearns in order to facilitate Bear's sale to JP Morgan Chase - Jamie Dimon refused to go through with the purchase unless the toxic assets were first removed from Bear Stearn's balance sheet. Outrageously, the Fed allowed Bear to value the assets sold it without so much as a cursory inspection.
The U.S. government is insolvent as well. The number's don't lie! Well, okay they do, but only because government bureaucrats keep changing the accounting treatment to hide the true extent of the situation from the public. The government uses a quasi-cash basis to produce its yearly deficit totals - 2010 is expected to run around $1.3 trillion (almost 10% of GDP!!!) when the numbers are finalized. However on a GAAP basis (using generally accepted accounting principles), the 2010 number is $2.1 trillion - more than 50% higher than the official number. Broader GAAP-based federal deficits that include the unfunded liabilities represented by Social Security and Medicare have been running between $4 and $5 trillion over the last three fiscal years (2010's deficit is approaching $5 trillion).
Now here's the really important part...
The U.S. government can't make up the annual shortfalls through higher taxes as, "there are not enough untaxed wages and salaries or corporate profits to do so," according to Dr. John Williams, a noted private economist. Nor can the government cut spending sufficiently without touching Social Security and Medicare. To wit; the government could cut all other spending and still not eliminate the deficit! The United States will default on some of its liabilities. It is simply a question of when and how. The most likely scenario for default is through a combination of inflation (paying debt off with less valuable dollars) and a reduction in social security and medicare benefits (reneging on promises already made). The public should plan for retirement accordingly...
Meanwhile, the U.S. market is very overbought on a short-term basis and expensive longer term. It is highly likely that we will experience a painful pullback at some point in the next two to four quarters. It is also increasingly likely that the 2011-2013 investing period will result in a loss for the U.S. market and that the next ten years will see returns of only 5% to 6% versus a long run average of between 10% and 11%. Consider the following:
1) S&P 500 more than 8% above its 52 week (exponential) average 2) S&P 500 more than 50% above its 4-year low 3) *Shiller P/E greater than 18 4) 10-year Treasury yield higher than 6 months earlier 5) Advisory bullishness greater than 47% with bearishness less than 27%. (Investor's Intelligence)
“The historical instances corresponding to these conditions are as follows:
1) December 1972 - January 1973 (followed by a 48% collapse over the next 21 months)
2) August - September 1987 (followed by a 34% plunge over the following 3 months) 3) July 1998 (followed abruptly by an 18% loss over the following 3 months) 4) July 1999 (followed by a 12% market loss over the next 3 months) 5) January 2000 (followed by a spike 10% loss over the next 6 weeks) 6) March 2000 (followed by a spike loss of 12% over 3 weeks, and a 49% loss into 2002) 7) July 2007 (followed by a 57% market plunge over the following 21 months)
8) January 2010 (followed by a 7% "air pocket" loss over the next 4 weeks) 9) April 2010 (followed by a 17% market loss over the following 3 months)
10) December 2010 ….?????”
*The U.S. stock market has experienced losses over the following three-year period one-third of the time when Shiller's PE is above 19.5 - the ratio is currently 22.7!
Biechele Royce Advisors is currently overweight cash in its models and is maintaining a strict sell discipline in order to limit price risk in its clients' portfolios. We continue to favor blue-chip, dividend paying stocks in the U.S.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Currency War!
On 11 October we wrote, "The Federal Reserve is going to print more paper dollars, likely beginning shortly after the November elections. The estimates from the folks in the know is a minimum of $500 billion to $1 trillion. The U.S. economy is currently around $14 trillion and public debt is around $12 trillion - so a trillion in freshly printed greenbacks is not small potatoes. Recent comments from the likes of Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Dudley and the recently released FOMC meeting minutes all but assure that the Federal Reserve will act soon and in size. The September/October stock market rally is telling us as much."
NAILED IT!
The Federal Reserve announced on 4 November that they would be buying $600 billion in government bonds beginning immediately and running through the middle of next year. The stated intention is to drive interest rates even lower in an effort to stimulate spending and job creation in order to fight the deflationary threat which the Federal Reserve governers insist is looming. Well, most of the Federal Reserve governers anyway.
In a rare public disagreement with the consensus, FED Governer Warsh announced that he isn't concerned about deflation, citing Dr. Allan Meltzer's position that there is no deflationary threat. Dr. Meltzer, the author of dozens of academic papers and books on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, issued a scathing critique of the Fed just last week saying, "All this is not relevant now, since there is no sign of deflation in the United States. The Fed's claim that there is a risk of deflation should embarrass it." Meltzer's views carry weight since he is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the development and applications of monetary policy. It's time to take notice when Meltzer derides Federal Reserve policy in such strong terms.
So what is the Federal Reserve up to if it isn't slaying the deflationary dragon?
Well, it is almost a certainty that its real goal is to debase the U.S. dollar, making it easier for the United States to pay back the trillions it owes to its citizens, to the Chinese and other sovereign nations, and also making our exports more competitive in world markets. Of course the U.S. can't publicly admit it is following a classic "beggar thy neighbor" policy. Fed Chairman Bernanke isn't about to own up, nor is Treasury Secretary Geithner. On the contrary, Geithner just appeared on CNBC and said (with a straight face) that, "“THE U.S. WILL NEVER DO THAT. WE WILL NEVER SEEK TO WEAKEN OUR CURRENCY AS A TOOL TO GAIN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OR TO GROW THE ECONOMY.” …
So is the rest of the world buying the baloney? Not hardly...
China's Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. just cut its credit rating on the U.S. to A+ from AA because of the Fed's plan to purchase bonds to spur growth and inflation. Dagong Global wrote, "The credit outlook for the U.S. is negative amid deteriorating debt repayment capability and a "drastic" drop in the government's intention to repay debt. The Fed's quantitative easing policy will erode the value of the dollar and is against the interests of creditors." Ouch!
And here is what German Finance Minister Schaeuble had to say about QE2 in an interview with Spiegel magazine last week, "I seriously doubt that it makes sense to pump unlimited amounts of money into the markets. There is no lack of liquidity in the US economy, which is why I don't recognize the economic argument behind this measure." He went on to say that, "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money."
It would appear that the rest of the world understands very well what is going on. But why should the U.S. consumer care if the rest of the world is getting hosed (with dollars)?
INFLATION!!!!!!
Gold is saying the inflationary threat is real, reaching more than $1400 per ounce before pulling back (temporarily most likely). Although it is always difficult to forecast price levels, it is quite possible that gold will reach $2500 per ounce within a few years if the Federal Reserve continues in its madness. The bottom line though is that inflation is bad for savers and good for debtors and U.S. savers will suffer right along with the Chinese, Germans, and Japanese. Inflation erodes wealth. Inflation destroys middle classes. U.S. citizens will suffer greatly in coming years as their purchasing power is dramatically eroded by the inflationary genie that the Federal Reserve appears determined to let out of its bottle.
Biechele Royce Advisors builds properly diversified portfolios using individual stocks and bonds whenever possible to reduce costs. We are currently overweight tangible assets such as real estate, precious metals, and commodities as well as non dollar assets, including international stocks and bonds. It is our belief that Inflation is coming and it could get pretty ugly if Bernanke and his lunatics continue to run the asylum.
NAILED IT!
The Federal Reserve announced on 4 November that they would be buying $600 billion in government bonds beginning immediately and running through the middle of next year. The stated intention is to drive interest rates even lower in an effort to stimulate spending and job creation in order to fight the deflationary threat which the Federal Reserve governers insist is looming. Well, most of the Federal Reserve governers anyway.
In a rare public disagreement with the consensus, FED Governer Warsh announced that he isn't concerned about deflation, citing Dr. Allan Meltzer's position that there is no deflationary threat. Dr. Meltzer, the author of dozens of academic papers and books on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, issued a scathing critique of the Fed just last week saying, "All this is not relevant now, since there is no sign of deflation in the United States. The Fed's claim that there is a risk of deflation should embarrass it." Meltzer's views carry weight since he is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the development and applications of monetary policy. It's time to take notice when Meltzer derides Federal Reserve policy in such strong terms.
So what is the Federal Reserve up to if it isn't slaying the deflationary dragon?
Well, it is almost a certainty that its real goal is to debase the U.S. dollar, making it easier for the United States to pay back the trillions it owes to its citizens, to the Chinese and other sovereign nations, and also making our exports more competitive in world markets. Of course the U.S. can't publicly admit it is following a classic "beggar thy neighbor" policy. Fed Chairman Bernanke isn't about to own up, nor is Treasury Secretary Geithner. On the contrary, Geithner just appeared on CNBC and said (with a straight face) that, "“THE U.S. WILL NEVER DO THAT. WE WILL NEVER SEEK TO WEAKEN OUR CURRENCY AS A TOOL TO GAIN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OR TO GROW THE ECONOMY.” …
So is the rest of the world buying the baloney? Not hardly...
China's Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. just cut its credit rating on the U.S. to A+ from AA because of the Fed's plan to purchase bonds to spur growth and inflation. Dagong Global wrote, "The credit outlook for the U.S. is negative amid deteriorating debt repayment capability and a "drastic" drop in the government's intention to repay debt. The Fed's quantitative easing policy will erode the value of the dollar and is against the interests of creditors." Ouch!
And here is what German Finance Minister Schaeuble had to say about QE2 in an interview with Spiegel magazine last week, "I seriously doubt that it makes sense to pump unlimited amounts of money into the markets. There is no lack of liquidity in the US economy, which is why I don't recognize the economic argument behind this measure." He went on to say that, "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money."
It would appear that the rest of the world understands very well what is going on. But why should the U.S. consumer care if the rest of the world is getting hosed (with dollars)?
INFLATION!!!!!!
Gold is saying the inflationary threat is real, reaching more than $1400 per ounce before pulling back (temporarily most likely). Although it is always difficult to forecast price levels, it is quite possible that gold will reach $2500 per ounce within a few years if the Federal Reserve continues in its madness. The bottom line though is that inflation is bad for savers and good for debtors and U.S. savers will suffer right along with the Chinese, Germans, and Japanese. Inflation erodes wealth. Inflation destroys middle classes. U.S. citizens will suffer greatly in coming years as their purchasing power is dramatically eroded by the inflationary genie that the Federal Reserve appears determined to let out of its bottle.
Biechele Royce Advisors builds properly diversified portfolios using individual stocks and bonds whenever possible to reduce costs. We are currently overweight tangible assets such as real estate, precious metals, and commodities as well as non dollar assets, including international stocks and bonds. It is our belief that Inflation is coming and it could get pretty ugly if Bernanke and his lunatics continue to run the asylum.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Quantitative Easing a.k.a Money Printing
The Federal Reserve is going to print more paper dollars, likely beginning shortly after the November elections. The estimates from the folks in the know is a minimum of $500 billion to $1 trillion. The U.S. economy is currently around $14 trillion and public debt is around $12 trillion - so a trillion in freshly printed greenbacks is not small potatoes. Recent comments from the likes of Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Dudley and the recently released FOMC meeting minutes all but assure that the Federal Reserve will act soon and in size. The September/October stock market rally is telling us as much.
Will quantitative easing(QE2) more effectively stimulate consumption the second time around? After all, the Federal Reserve is estimated to have bought $1.5 trillion in bonds and mortgages between 2008-2010 during the first money printing exercise. Nevertheless, and despite $860 billion in fiscal stimulus thrown in by Congress, final demand grew at only a 1.3% rate in the first four quarters of recovery.
Although the public might not fully appreciate it, the Federal Reserve is boldly going where no central bank has gone before - and the unintended consequences could be disastrous. But what exactly is the Fed trying to accomplish with its radical departure from orthodox central banking? According to a Goldman Sachs report covering a Q&A session with Vice Chairman Dudley, successfully pushing interest rates down will allow those who are able to borrow to do so at lower rates, freeing up some of the income now being spent on debt service. Perhaps more importantly, QE2 will work on other elements of financial conditions, including equity prices and the exchange rate.
And there you have it. QE2 is intended to push the U.S. stock market higher and the dollar lower. The Federal Reserve is targeting the stock market and the dollar... and the smart money knows it, which goes a long way in explaining the recent stock, gold, and commodities rallies. Furthermore, Wall Street investors are also front running the Federal Reserve in the bond market, pushing rates lower without help from the Fed, but with the understanding that the Fed has their backs. (Not coincidently, the Federal Reserve began to signal its intention of carrying out another dollar debasement campaign in early September, just as the S&P 500 looked ready to test the early July low at 1003.)
But what could go wrong? Well first, it is possible that the Federal Reserve QE2 program will be smaller than expected, which would likely result in a bond market sell off. Rising rates could quickly end the stock and commodities market rallies as an already sluggish (contractionary?) economy reacts poorly to a higher interest rate environment. Conversely, the Fed may move HUGE and actually succeed in pushing interest rates down to the point where a falling dollar begins to generate significant inflation. In the latter case, you can expect interest rates to once again start to rise as inflation takes hold. Private bond investors will run for the exits, once again front running the Federal Reserve (with its now even bigger inventory of government bonds).
Who will the Federal Reserve sell to in order to reverse its successful inflation generating policy? What private investor is foolish enough to step in front of that kind of supply? Not the Chinese, who've let Washington know in no uncertain terms that they are opposed to another round of dollar debasement. Yet, unless the Federal Reserve can find a willing buyer for its trillions in bonds, it can not start to drain money from the economy and prevent inflation from ripping out of control. Unfortunately for stock investors, the second scenario will also likely lead to a stock market sell off due to the negative impact rising inflation and interest rates will have on the economy.
All in all it seems to us that investors would do well to sell into the current stock, bond, and commodities market rallies, locking in profits and preparing for a better buying opportunity down the road. Biechele Royce Advisors continues to hold higher levels of cash than normal in its client accounts because we continue to struggle to find good businesses available at great prices.
(Fun Fact: The U.S. stock market has now lost about 80% of its value in gold since the secular bear market began in March of 2000. We see the trend continuing.)
Will quantitative easing(QE2) more effectively stimulate consumption the second time around? After all, the Federal Reserve is estimated to have bought $1.5 trillion in bonds and mortgages between 2008-2010 during the first money printing exercise. Nevertheless, and despite $860 billion in fiscal stimulus thrown in by Congress, final demand grew at only a 1.3% rate in the first four quarters of recovery.
Although the public might not fully appreciate it, the Federal Reserve is boldly going where no central bank has gone before - and the unintended consequences could be disastrous. But what exactly is the Fed trying to accomplish with its radical departure from orthodox central banking? According to a Goldman Sachs report covering a Q&A session with Vice Chairman Dudley, successfully pushing interest rates down will allow those who are able to borrow to do so at lower rates, freeing up some of the income now being spent on debt service. Perhaps more importantly, QE2 will work on other elements of financial conditions, including equity prices and the exchange rate.
And there you have it. QE2 is intended to push the U.S. stock market higher and the dollar lower. The Federal Reserve is targeting the stock market and the dollar... and the smart money knows it, which goes a long way in explaining the recent stock, gold, and commodities rallies. Furthermore, Wall Street investors are also front running the Federal Reserve in the bond market, pushing rates lower without help from the Fed, but with the understanding that the Fed has their backs. (Not coincidently, the Federal Reserve began to signal its intention of carrying out another dollar debasement campaign in early September, just as the S&P 500 looked ready to test the early July low at 1003.)
But what could go wrong? Well first, it is possible that the Federal Reserve QE2 program will be smaller than expected, which would likely result in a bond market sell off. Rising rates could quickly end the stock and commodities market rallies as an already sluggish (contractionary?) economy reacts poorly to a higher interest rate environment. Conversely, the Fed may move HUGE and actually succeed in pushing interest rates down to the point where a falling dollar begins to generate significant inflation. In the latter case, you can expect interest rates to once again start to rise as inflation takes hold. Private bond investors will run for the exits, once again front running the Federal Reserve (with its now even bigger inventory of government bonds).
Who will the Federal Reserve sell to in order to reverse its successful inflation generating policy? What private investor is foolish enough to step in front of that kind of supply? Not the Chinese, who've let Washington know in no uncertain terms that they are opposed to another round of dollar debasement. Yet, unless the Federal Reserve can find a willing buyer for its trillions in bonds, it can not start to drain money from the economy and prevent inflation from ripping out of control. Unfortunately for stock investors, the second scenario will also likely lead to a stock market sell off due to the negative impact rising inflation and interest rates will have on the economy.
All in all it seems to us that investors would do well to sell into the current stock, bond, and commodities market rallies, locking in profits and preparing for a better buying opportunity down the road. Biechele Royce Advisors continues to hold higher levels of cash than normal in its client accounts because we continue to struggle to find good businesses available at great prices.
(Fun Fact: The U.S. stock market has now lost about 80% of its value in gold since the secular bear market began in March of 2000. We see the trend continuing.)
Monday, September 13, 2010
Debt, Inflation, and Governments
The S&P 500 may motor higher if the Federal Reserve implements an aggressive Quantitative Easing program as is increasingly likely. The July bottom may hold and the S&P 500 may take another run at the April 1219 high. Or perhaps the Federal Reserve will wait too long and the combination of a weakening economy and (still) overpriced market will lead to further selling, taking the S&P 500 back to a three digit number in coming months. Predicting short term market movements is a difficult task at best, in part because policy decisions yet to be made can greatly influence the market's path. For the record: we are of the opinion that the probabilities favor a sell off back below 1000 as the market digests the implications of a weakening economy and weaker than expected corporate profits. However, we are far more confident about our prediction of rising inflation in the years to come...
Next year the Federal Government is expected to spend approximately $3.8 trillion, exactly twice as much as the 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion. Amazingly, the federal government has managed to double its size in just one decade. Further, the U.S. has almost doubled its national debt in just the past 7 years. It now totals almost $120,000 per taxpayer. Unfunded liabilities, such as social security and medicare, equate to approximately $355,400 per U.S. citizen. Clearly the United States will default on some of its obligations because there isn't any way that every man, women and child in the United States of America can generate that amount of cash in time to meet all of those obligations as they come due!
But the form of default is critical because it determines who bears the burden, since not all defaults are created equally. For instance, the U.S. government could choose to default on its public debt, leaving foreign governments and U.S. bond investors holding the bag while John Q. Public escapes unscathed. Another option is for the government to renege on some of its social security and medicare promises by curtailing benefits, which means the elderly and poor would bear the brunt of the default. Or the government could decide to let inflation run wild, thus devaluing ALL of the debt it owes to everyone. Savers bear the brunt of this defacto default while debtors cheer (paying debt back with cheaper dollars is much easier to do).
It should be obvious which option is easiest politically. And in fact, inflation has always been the choice of every government everywhere throughout recorded history when too much debt was accumulated. The Federal Reserve has ballooned its balance sheet from $850 billion to $2.3 trillion in the last year or so and will likely explode it again to around $4 trillion over the next year if QE2 is implemented, as is increasingly likely. What is highly unlikely is that the same Fed who failed to see the tech and housing bubbles form, will successfully pull off what amounts to a high wire artist performing without a safety net... blindfolded... as it attempts to siphon all of that extra cash back out of circulation once it deems the economy rescued....
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to overweight non dollar and real assets and under weight fixed income and financial assets. We also continue to strongly prefer dividend paying stocks, which make up the bulk of a stock investor's return in secular bear markets....
Next year the Federal Government is expected to spend approximately $3.8 trillion, exactly twice as much as the 2001 budget of $1.9 trillion. Amazingly, the federal government has managed to double its size in just one decade. Further, the U.S. has almost doubled its national debt in just the past 7 years. It now totals almost $120,000 per taxpayer. Unfunded liabilities, such as social security and medicare, equate to approximately $355,400 per U.S. citizen. Clearly the United States will default on some of its obligations because there isn't any way that every man, women and child in the United States of America can generate that amount of cash in time to meet all of those obligations as they come due!
But the form of default is critical because it determines who bears the burden, since not all defaults are created equally. For instance, the U.S. government could choose to default on its public debt, leaving foreign governments and U.S. bond investors holding the bag while John Q. Public escapes unscathed. Another option is for the government to renege on some of its social security and medicare promises by curtailing benefits, which means the elderly and poor would bear the brunt of the default. Or the government could decide to let inflation run wild, thus devaluing ALL of the debt it owes to everyone. Savers bear the brunt of this defacto default while debtors cheer (paying debt back with cheaper dollars is much easier to do).
It should be obvious which option is easiest politically. And in fact, inflation has always been the choice of every government everywhere throughout recorded history when too much debt was accumulated. The Federal Reserve has ballooned its balance sheet from $850 billion to $2.3 trillion in the last year or so and will likely explode it again to around $4 trillion over the next year if QE2 is implemented, as is increasingly likely. What is highly unlikely is that the same Fed who failed to see the tech and housing bubbles form, will successfully pull off what amounts to a high wire artist performing without a safety net... blindfolded... as it attempts to siphon all of that extra cash back out of circulation once it deems the economy rescued....
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to overweight non dollar and real assets and under weight fixed income and financial assets. We also continue to strongly prefer dividend paying stocks, which make up the bulk of a stock investor's return in secular bear markets....
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Increasing Weakness
The S&P 500 is down almost 4% since we last blogged about the increasing likelihood of renewed recession and market weakness. Unable to retake the flattening 200-day moving average a second time, the market sold off and is now 2.5% below the 50-day moving average. Further, the 20-day moving average is set to fall below the 50-day, which would put the four main moving averages (200, 100, 50, and 20) in bear market order. The Japanese Nikkei is already in a bear market. The S&P 500 was down almost 18% at its low in early July and looks increasingly likely to retest it - and fall below 1000 on a failed retest. Our forecast is based on our outlook for the economy, which continues to show every sign of falling back into recession.
Our December 2009 forecast of at least a 20% pullback in the S&P 500 sometime in 2010 looks increasingly like another solid win for the home team. We had written that the spring of 2010 was the most likely time (missed it slightly as the pullback stopped at 18%) and that the fall was next most likely. Our belief in a 2010 bear market stemmed from a few basic observations. First, the 2009 market recovery went further and faster than any bear market recovery since 1933, leaving the S&P 500 about 35% overvalued based on a number of long term valuation metrics (metrics Wall Street doesn't like to acknowledge because it gets in the way of them selling product to the unsuspecting public). Second, the economic recovery touted by the Fed and the Obama administration just wasn't supported by the numbers. Inventory swings were the main factor in the positive GDP numbers in Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2010. Final demand remained punk, as you would expect given the huge debt load born by the consumer, the lack of credit formation, and unbalanced make up of GDP (the consumers' share had grown to a record 72% during the spending orgy and is likely to fall back to a more sustainable 66% or so in the coming years).
Pair an overvalued, overbought market with an under performing economy and you are likely looking at poor market action going forward - which was our call in December 2009 and remains our call today. Market performance in 2010 has more than justified our cautious stance coming into the year. And unless the Federal Reserve gets busy printing more paper, the S&P 500 looks increasingly like it will sink to new lows for the year. The market is unlikely to test new lows for the secular bear market that began in March of 2000 however, because the Fed is clearly targeting the stock market now as a source of wealth and will eventually get around to supporting it. The Fed is likely to act sooner rather than later with renewed quantitative easing - given Bernanke's latest statements - and that just might give the market a lift into year end, but perhaps starting from the 850-900 level....
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to advocate proper diversification among all major asset classes with emphasis on blue-chip dividend paying stocks in the U.S., tangible assets, and nondollar assets. We continue to believe that inflation will pose a major threat to wealth preservation over the next ten years. Finally, we offer another reminder that secular bear markets require a focus on capital preservation first and capital appreciation second…
Posted by Chris Norwood, CFA(R) at 8:42 AM
Our December 2009 forecast of at least a 20% pullback in the S&P 500 sometime in 2010 looks increasingly like another solid win for the home team. We had written that the spring of 2010 was the most likely time (missed it slightly as the pullback stopped at 18%) and that the fall was next most likely. Our belief in a 2010 bear market stemmed from a few basic observations. First, the 2009 market recovery went further and faster than any bear market recovery since 1933, leaving the S&P 500 about 35% overvalued based on a number of long term valuation metrics (metrics Wall Street doesn't like to acknowledge because it gets in the way of them selling product to the unsuspecting public). Second, the economic recovery touted by the Fed and the Obama administration just wasn't supported by the numbers. Inventory swings were the main factor in the positive GDP numbers in Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2010. Final demand remained punk, as you would expect given the huge debt load born by the consumer, the lack of credit formation, and unbalanced make up of GDP (the consumers' share had grown to a record 72% during the spending orgy and is likely to fall back to a more sustainable 66% or so in the coming years).
Pair an overvalued, overbought market with an under performing economy and you are likely looking at poor market action going forward - which was our call in December 2009 and remains our call today. Market performance in 2010 has more than justified our cautious stance coming into the year. And unless the Federal Reserve gets busy printing more paper, the S&P 500 looks increasingly like it will sink to new lows for the year. The market is unlikely to test new lows for the secular bear market that began in March of 2000 however, because the Fed is clearly targeting the stock market now as a source of wealth and will eventually get around to supporting it. The Fed is likely to act sooner rather than later with renewed quantitative easing - given Bernanke's latest statements - and that just might give the market a lift into year end, but perhaps starting from the 850-900 level....
Biechele Royce Advisors continues to advocate proper diversification among all major asset classes with emphasis on blue-chip dividend paying stocks in the U.S., tangible assets, and nondollar assets. We continue to believe that inflation will pose a major threat to wealth preservation over the next ten years. Finally, we offer another reminder that secular bear markets require a focus on capital preservation first and capital appreciation second…
Posted by Chris Norwood, CFA(R) at 8:42 AM
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Recession Looming
We did get the short term pullback predicted in our 14 July blog. We referenced the 20-day moving average sitting at about 1075 as a likely destination. The actual decline bottomed on 20 July at about 1060 before the S&P 500 motored higher once again, retaking the 200-day moving average in the process. Unfortunately, the S&P 500 was unable to maintain above that long term trend line, peaking at 1130ish in early August, before sliding back below the 200-day (We had written about strong resistance in the 1100-1130 area likely putting a lid on the stock market for the foreseeable future).
The stock market has essentially gone nowhere since last October, validating our concerns about an overpriced market that had climbed too far and too fast after the March 2009 bear market bottom. We have stated repeatedly since last October that it is a high risk market and investors should proceed cautiously. We are even more concerned today because the market has now put in a ten month top and a broad decline is increasingly likely in the fall, or next spring at the latest. It increasingly appears as if distribution is occurring whereby professional investors distribute shares to the public, leaving the public holding the bag when the market decline starts in earnest. One indication of distribution is On-Balance-Volume (OBV), which is showing a negative divergence over the last few months, portending coming weakness.
But what is the fundamental case for a broad stock market decline? Well, how about a return to recession? The probability of another recession (or continuation of the one which started in early 2007) is quite high. Real M-3 (the broadest measure of money supply) is still contracting strongly year-over-year. Recession has followed 100% of the time when real money supply contracts on an annualized basis, typically with a six to nine month lag. As well, the ECRI is now contracting sharply and, again, recession has followed 100% of the time when the contraction is as sharp as now. Likewise, real retail sales are weakening with July real retail sales growth essentially zero - opening up the possibility that Q3 real retail sales will turn negative. Furthermore, a surprisingly bad June trade deficit number will result in a reduction in reported Q2 GDP. The deteriorating trade balance also increases the likelihood of a negative Q3 GDP number. Finally, a developing contraction in housing starts, along with deterioration in a slew of other housing numbers, adds further pressure to an economy already under siege.
Expect a retest of the recent 1010 low on the S&P 500 with a likely decline into the 800 to 900 area within the next six months. Investors should continue to proceed with extreme caution in a very high risk market.
(A major caveat: the Fed appears likely to initiate a new quantitative easing program sooner rather than later, which would provide major support to the stock market, at least in nominal terms.)
The stock market has essentially gone nowhere since last October, validating our concerns about an overpriced market that had climbed too far and too fast after the March 2009 bear market bottom. We have stated repeatedly since last October that it is a high risk market and investors should proceed cautiously. We are even more concerned today because the market has now put in a ten month top and a broad decline is increasingly likely in the fall, or next spring at the latest. It increasingly appears as if distribution is occurring whereby professional investors distribute shares to the public, leaving the public holding the bag when the market decline starts in earnest. One indication of distribution is On-Balance-Volume (OBV), which is showing a negative divergence over the last few months, portending coming weakness.
But what is the fundamental case for a broad stock market decline? Well, how about a return to recession? The probability of another recession (or continuation of the one which started in early 2007) is quite high. Real M-3 (the broadest measure of money supply) is still contracting strongly year-over-year. Recession has followed 100% of the time when real money supply contracts on an annualized basis, typically with a six to nine month lag. As well, the ECRI is now contracting sharply and, again, recession has followed 100% of the time when the contraction is as sharp as now. Likewise, real retail sales are weakening with July real retail sales growth essentially zero - opening up the possibility that Q3 real retail sales will turn negative. Furthermore, a surprisingly bad June trade deficit number will result in a reduction in reported Q2 GDP. The deteriorating trade balance also increases the likelihood of a negative Q3 GDP number. Finally, a developing contraction in housing starts, along with deterioration in a slew of other housing numbers, adds further pressure to an economy already under siege.
Expect a retest of the recent 1010 low on the S&P 500 with a likely decline into the 800 to 900 area within the next six months. Investors should continue to proceed with extreme caution in a very high risk market.
(A major caveat: the Fed appears likely to initiate a new quantitative easing program sooner rather than later, which would provide major support to the stock market, at least in nominal terms.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)