A dumb question

 

 



And what will happen next?

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

The turning point may be 2016 - 2020

The above chart from here (htp: Global Perspectives) is another of those attempts to perceive underlying order in the apparently random movement of the market and the economy. I've tried the same myself and suggested that the period from 2000 on may be like 1966 - 1982 (the last top and bottom of the market when adjusted for inflation). The interesting thing about the above picture is that the c. 16-year cycle appears to work over a much longer time - starting with the later part of the nineteenth century.

The cycle is not very regular - it varies from about 12 - 20 years - but tend to support my feeling that the real bottom this time may lie in the next 5 - 10 years.

Another quibble is that while some aspects may have a circular form, there are also linear developments that could change everything. One such is China's awakening from its centuries-long economic slumber, with the result that the world's financial centre of gravity is shifting from West to East; another, related to the first, is the unprecedented growth of debt in Western economies. A third is the development of computer technology and lightspeed communications, so that knowledge and expertise that took centuries to acquire can be transferred rapidly to developing economies. What we have lost through folly, we may not be able to regain through hard work.

This is why some commentators have switched their attention to the social, political and military implications of a permanent power shift - from democracies to authoritarian governments of one kind or another. Michael Panzner has tried to follow up the success of his Financial Armageddon with just such a conspectus, but events in the next decades will be determined by even more complex and subtle factors than the ones that led to the crashing end of the twentieth century's money system.

It would be a neat finish to observe that the Titanic had a casino and that the latter didn't have any effect on the iceberg - but (perhaps fortunately for haters of the glib), the ship didn't have a gambling joint. Though there was multimillionaire John Jacob Astor and his cronies, playing high stakes card games in the smoking room.

In short, for those who are focused on the money, I still believe worse is to come than has happened already. Others should remember it's not all about money.

In a nutshell

All the shares of a single stock are valued at the price it last traded at. Sounds a little like how it used to work in the housing market.

"Jim in San Marcos"

The wrecking crew

Jesse explains succinctly how the financiers are deliberately wrecking and looting what's left of the economy.

The money the government gave them isn't being loaned out, but instead is shoved into the stockmarket to create yet another illusory boom - so that more fees and bonuses can be earned. These are taken out of the system (where do they put their own stash?).

When the share-pumping stops, the market collapses again, less the plunder - so it's lower than before and there's even less cash to act as lifeblood for the real economy.

Meanwhile, the rich are, relatively speaking, richer than ever - even than their counterparts in 1929:

This threatens to destabilize society.

Running out of bigger fools?

What's been powering the market? Max Keiser recently opined that the rich have been moving their wealth out of the USA since 9/11, Jesse has alerted us to insider selling, Mr & Mrs Average have been selling their holding and paying down debt, so...?

According to FT Alphaville (htp: Michael Panzner) it's technical/leveraged buying/betting:

Very likely it is still a combination of program trading, short coverings and portfolio managers desperately trying to make up for last year’s epic losses.

And when it becomes painfully clear that there are no more mugs to buy the rubbish off you?

What's good for the [Dow] ISN'T good for the country

Jesse: It is possible that the Fed monetizes sufficiently to reinflate an equity bubble, essentially whoring out the Dollar and the real economy for the sake of the financial or FIRE sector.

This is what I have been thinking - that the stock indices are now fundamentally disconnected from the health of the economy.

"Get out of the market" - RBS strategist

A caller to the excitable Max Keiser's show (htp: Nathan Martin) quotes from a statement by Bob Janjuah at Royal Bank of Scotland, warning clients to cash in and hunker down while the market tests "new lows". (And Jesse says "wealthy insiders are increasingly trying to liquidate investment positions to raise cash and diversify their holdings into cash and hard assets.")

Keiser got wide attention in July when he referred to Goldman Sachs as "scum" and (I think, not incorrectly) said that the practical results of some of their activities were worse than terrorist atrocities. Protests like this make no difference, except that they may relieve hearts clogged with helpless anger: what we've learned recently is that the shameless tenacity of politicians and bankers will outwear public indignation.

But society may change when everyone gives up looking to the the über-scum to help, and concentrates instead on personal benefit and survival. I think I may not even bother to vote in the next General Election.

Oh, and Nathan Martin also directs us to an article by Robert Kiyosaki, who compares the market to a dead frog galvanized by ever-higher charges of financial electricity until "Pretty soon the dead frog will be fried frog." Kiyosaki cites demographic change as a major threat in the long term.

Housing (and the stockmarket) bear rally

For more, see Smith's redoubtable blog.

Next market peak due in... 2018 - if society's still around by then

See here. Back in November, I figured that inflation-adjusted Dow took 16 years to decline from 1966 to 1982, and my guess is that we're on a similar inflation-fuelled ride, so starting with the last peak in 2000, we might think about hitting bottom in real terms in 2016.

On the other hand, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. In 1966 China was... a disaster area. The world economy is much more interconnected now, and the tide is Eastwards, and big business is global. The company you invest in, if US or UK-based, may still be making good profits on its overseas earnings, even if domestic workers are all on the dole.

A recovery for the investors may happen sooner, and the market bottom may not be so deep in nominal terms (currency-adjusted is something else: look at what has happened to the dollar and pound; and what may yet happen). I think there's a big disconnect between the markets and Joe Average, since the extra wealth from 1980 on has mostly accrued to the top layer of society.

The concentration of money into fewer hands means that investment issues must inevitably give way to considerations of maintaining (repairing) the social and political fabric of our democracies.

'Swhat I think...

At some point the equity market will start moving higher and keep going, to fantastic levels perhaps, if a serious inflation sets in. The stock markets in the Weimar Republic were spectacular, if one ignored the reality behind the appearance. We think it is far too early in the game for this, but are keeping an open mind to all possibilities.

- Jesse

But before then, I think we have a date with Mr Stockmarket Crunch. I just don't know when that date is.

Straws in the wind, the flight of birds

Yesterday, I read the entrails and thought the market was due to tank. Today, the FTSE drops 102 points, the Dow 290. Tomorrow - "¿Quien sabe?"

Protecting against inflation

Before we start, please read my disclaimer above!

How do we protect our little wealth against inflation? The gold bugs still enthuse, and it's true that if you'd sold the Dow and bought gold at the start of 2000, and bought back into the Dow now, you'd have multiplied your investment by 5:

But looking at the historical relationship between the Dow and gold, it seems the Dow is already below par.

When Nixon closed the "gold window" (15 August 1971), gold ceased to be a currency backing and became just another thing you could choose to invest in, so let's compare these assets from a little before that turning-point, onwards:

The gold-priced Dow is now well below average. So what are we to make of (I think) Marc Faber's recently-expressed view that an ounce of gold will buy the Dow?

That depends on whether you read this as a statement about gold, or about the Dow. I looked at the Dow in inflation (CPI) terms a while back (December 2008):

If we are in a downwave, then the Dow's bottom is still a lot lower than where it stands now. Extrapolation is always risky, but my curve indicates maybe 4,000 points as its destination. Having said that, the highs of the years 2000 and 2007 are so much higher than might have been extrapolated, that maybe the low will be correspondingly lower. A real pessimist might argue that, adjusted for inflation, the Dow might test 1,000 or 2,000 points sometime in the next few years.

Back to gold-pricing: it's also notable that the Dow is currently still worth some 8 ounces of gold, but in previous lows (Feb. 1933, March 1980) fell below 2 ounces:

So should we still pile into gold, as a hedge against the further collapse of the Dow?

I think not. Firstly, the Dow may well have a rally, since it's fallen so sharply in such a short time. And secondly, this is missing the point, which is that we are looking to protect wealth against inflation, not against the Dow.

So another question is, how does gold hold its value during periods of price inflation? A period some readers may have lived through, is that after the oil price hike of October 1973. Here is what happened in the 5 years from 1974 to 1978:

True, the Dow merely held its value over that time (though it also made some sharp gains and losses) - but gold disappointed. I think this may be because, when prices are roaring up, people start looking for a yield, which of course the inert metal cannot provide.

But let's wind the clock back just a little - let's go back to that closing of the gold window again, and see what happened between August 1971 and the end of 1978:

The massive rise in the price of gold anticipated the inflation of post-1974, and those who got in at the right moment were very well protected. It's also interesting to see what happened to the Dow in the '71 - '74 period - a fall, from which the Dow did not recover (in inflation terms).

Before we start blaming the "G-dd-mn A-rabs" for inflation, let's remember the inadequately-reported fact that monetary inflation was roaring for several years beforehand. The OPEC price rise was a reaction intended to protect the Saudis' (and others') main asset - and you'd have done the same. Yes, it happened suddenly, but like an earthquake, it merely released long-pent-up stresses. Instead, let's blame a goverment that failed to control its finances generally, and spent far too much on war - a retro theme back in vogue today, it seems.

Looking at it from an investor's point of view, once the preceding monetary trend was identifiable, going overweight in gold in the early 70s would have been a sensible precaution.

So I suggest that gold's value as an inflation hedge is for those who anticipate well in advance. And this may be the lesson to draw in relation to the present time:


The inflation protection has already been built-in, for those who bought gold at the right time. The rest of us should note that gold is now above the long-term post-1971 trend:

There may indeed be a spike, as in 1980 - but that's for speculators. For the average person, who wants a "fire-and-forget" longer-term investment, I can't say gold looks like a bargain now.

Nor would I be that keen to get into the stockmarket, unless you're a day-trader. Some may make a killing in the present turbulence, but many will get killed. I'm still looking for that Dow-4,000 moment, and as I explained above, even then it's possible I may lose 50% - 75% in the short-to-medium term.

What else?

Houses? Still too pricey, in relation to average income. Yes, some houses are now selling - it's a thriving auction business at the moment, I understand. But again, housing is above trend.

Bonds? No, indeed. Municipal bonds in the US are offering high yields, for a very good reason; and even national bonds are a worry. The debt has not been squeezed out of the system, since our cowardly politicians have absorbed it into the public finances instead.

Here in the UK, we have National Savings & Investments Index-Linked Savings Certificates (3- and 5-year terms). Between them, a couple could get £60,000 into that haven, and not many of us have that much. I'm not sure about the rules and limits for US equivalent (TIPS), but the general argument applies. Yes, there is the question of how the government will choose to define inflation, but I don't suppose the definition will get too Mickey-Mouse.

Besides, doubtless you'll keep some cash for emergencies (including sudden bank closures), and for bargains (e.g. looking for distressed sales).

And if you've got lots more cash than the rest of us, congratulations, since the rich will get substantially richer. There's no being wealthy like being wealthy in a poor country, or one that's getting poorer. Watch that Gini Index rise.

Is now a good time to invest?

I've just been asked by a client whether he should switch from cash to equities. Here's my view, and it may explain why I haven't earned much from investments over the last few years:

It is not possible to predict the market with any accuracy, but I think I have done well in foretelling the current state of affairs as early as the late 1990s. The market has dropped to half its 1999 peak (again, as it did in 2003), but that is not to say we are now at the bottom. Some (and I am moderately persuaded to this view) think that there may be a "bear market rally" soon-ish - maybe a rise that recovers perhaps 50% of the losses so far - but it is perfectly possible that the underlying trend is still downwards, so there may then be a horrid lurch towards - what? Maybe, ultimately, 4,000 on the Dow and 2,000 on the FTSE.

We are in the middle of an exciting ride and I fear that entering the market at this stage may still be for the adventurous and nimble. Yes, had one invested in mid-2003 and got out, say, late 2007, it would have turned a nice profit; but much depends on the entry and exit points. So as ever, attitude to risk and corresponding watchfulness are key factors.

There is also the question of what asset class to choose. I think domestic and commercial property are still overvalued, relative to income; because of fears regarding other assets, and also because of central bank investment ("quantitative easing" etc) government bonds are very highly priced, which is why the yields are so low (and if interest rates rise, bond values could then drop sharply); equities are depressed, but as dividends decline in very testing economic conditions, they may ultimately be depressed still further. Commodities (e.g. gold, silver, oil) are the subject of some speculation, but owing to shortage of borrowed money to invest with, not quite so much institutional speculation as formerly; even so, gold (for instance) is a bit above its long-term inflation-adjusted average, as far as I can tell - though if inflation takes off, the price could indeed escalate.

And then there is the question of currencies. The pound has lost heavily against the dollar; but some say the dollar may catch us up again. The Euro may also not stay as strong as it is now - several countries within the Eurozone are suffering economic problems and are hampered by the common currency; I have even read speculation that the Euro system may fall apart within a decade, or some states may secede from it.

In short, I still urge caution, and if you do decide to get in, be prepared to move quickly if the market should turn. Meantime, there are relatively safe options such as National Savings Certificates, including the index-linked ones that will at least keep the value of your savings roughly in line with RPI...

Stock market could halve again - more evidence

I've been following this alarming idea recently. Now Russell Napier chips in, citing Tobin's Q as a measure to predict a further 55% stockmarket decline within the next five years (htp: Financial Sense).

I had a look at Tobin's Q last April. Are we coming to some gloomy consensus - except for Karl Denninger, who fears it could be worse?

Michael Panzner interview

Some salient points in Michael's answers:

• The crisis could continue for another decade;
• investors will have to tread carefully and consider the risk of dealing with others;
• dividend yields could increase 2 - 4 times (suggesting that current stock prices could halve or quarter);
• after some more deleveraging during this year, it may be useful to accumulate precious metals

Read it all here; htp: Abnormal Returns

Also linked on AN is a story about Warren Buffett's firm insuring third parties against a long-term market drop. Berkshire Hathaway has taken $4 billion in bets; are they right? Or are they right only in the sense that nominal prices will hold, while inflation will mask the real reduction in value?

A credible, horrible warning

In a fearsome, plain-speaking guide to the long-standing debt problem, Karl Denninger explains why he believes we are now in dire crisis. If the insolvent continue to be bailed out with money that the government itself must borrow from elsewhere, the American government's own credit will be destroyed. And non-Americans are in an even worse plight, in fact may trigger the explosion:

We may be days away from an international credit incident originating outside of the United States. Foreign nations, banks, and businesses have "levered up", or taken more risk, than we have. They too have chosen to lie.

This will hammer the stockmarket:

You have already seen nearly half of your money disappear.
You could see another half disappear - within days.

This is an implication of the graph I did on Sunday (see below), looking at the Dow adjusted for CPI inflation since 1928. A return to 4,500 points would seem to be reversion to the long-term norm - but to have it happen all at once, from its peak last October, is a scary prospect.


UPDATE

Tyler concurs, with respect to the UK economy, because of our dependence on income from financial services and associated services:

"Brown's boom was built on a group of industries that are now facing an Almighty bust..."

Not the end, as long as you and I breathe

Looks like the US is in the process of nationalising the banks and the stockmarket, loosely speaking, and the UK is following suit; now Mish says Russia and China are doing the same. All is falling into government hands.

I've been wondering recently: if, in the idealistic pursuit of universal peace and justice, we ever did manage to establish a World Government, and it became (as all human institutions do), inefficient, bureaucratic, undemocratic, corrupt and more or less evil, how would anybody escape? Where could we go to?

And Denninger is now singing a requiem for American government and democracy; perhaps prematurely - hasn't the often-mocked blogosphere uncovered a depth of feeling among the people in favour of liberty?

The "little hand-mill"

Official figures going back to 1963 show that bank lending has NEVER stopped increasing.

Lowest: 1.1% annualised, for the quarter ending 31 December 1966.
Highest: 44.9% annualised, for the quarter ending 30 June 1972.

Median: 11.9%
Mean: 13.45%

Is it my imagination, or does the graph spike regularly before stockmarket crashes and recessions?

Original BoE data here.

In the late 60s, my school magazine carried a major bank's advert, for 16-year-old school leavers to join them. I aimed at a degree instead. Perhaps I'd have chosen differently if the ad had read "39 thieves looking to recruit trainee".

Denninger calls for a borrower's strike

It lifts your heart a little to read someone who still believes in his country and is unafraid to express moral indignation. Here Karl Denninger advocates getting a home safe for your hard-earned - something the Japanese went into in a big way when their deflation hit.

Speaking of Japan, the Nikkei shows that the stockmarket can disappoint for long periods:

Reversion to mean

Echoing recent comments by Vitaliy Katsenelson (also on Barron's), Jeremy Grantham thinks profit margins will decline towards normal and the Standard & Poor's 500 will head from its current c. 1334 to 1100 in the year 2010 - a drop of about 18%.

Grantham is emphatic that borrowed money is not a stimulant to the economy:

I have an exhibit that shows the 30 years prior to 1982 when the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio was completely flat at 1.2 times. Total debt is defined as government debt, personal debt, corporate debt and financial debt. Then in the 25 years after 1982, the flat line goes up at a 45 degrees angle from 1.2 times to 3.1 times GDP. Massive. In the first 30 years, when debt is flat, annual GDP growth is its usual battleship, growing at 3.5% and hardly twitching. After the massive increase in debt, GDP, far from accelerating, grew at 3%. So debt in the aggregate does not drive the economy. The economy is driven by education, man-hours worked, capital investment and technology.

That last sentence is really pregnant. I'm not sure about the man-hours (the closer we approach peasanthood, the harder we'll work), but I think that on both sides of the Atlantic, we've been falling down on the other three.

In Britain, our government has failed to distinguish between investing in education, and managing it - and where it has tried to do the latter, has pursued a Romantic-heritage political agenda. Capital investment? Going abroad. Technology? Ditto - and eagerly taken up (if not positively filched) by our Eastern trading partners.

I live in what used to be Car City; now, the vast Longbridge site is being redeveloped for housing and shops - in other words, open prison for the new ex-industrial underclass.

But Rome, too, kept control of its plebs with bread and circuses for a couple more centuries, before it fell.