Posts

Market Minute – March 10, 2013

/in /by

It is nice to see the winter finally start to come to a close, with daylight savings restored this morning, the foot of new snow in my front yard notwithstanding. Less pleasant that the onset of spring is the reaction to Friday’s unemployment figures.  I fear that we are seeing a repeat of the market myopia that so widely devastated portfolios in the last financial crisis.

By all means, the report on Friday – a gain of 236,000 jobs for the month of February – is a welcome sign.  Construction spending and hiring continue to increase at a vigorous pace, and the medical industry leads the hiring trend.  But the figures still reflect a troubled situation.

The unemployment rate reflects only those who are looking for jobs; another 130,000 people chose to leave the workforce, hastening the decline in the unemployment rate.  And an equally important measure is the long-term unemployed, which increased to 4.8 million people, or 40% of those reported as unemployed.  Furthermore, the gains in February are tempered by a downward revision of 38,000 fewer jobs in January, which was already a weak month.

We need 150,000 new jobs a month to maintain stable employment given population growth – a level we have yet to maintain during this recovery.  During the financial crisis, we lost over 7 million jobs, which we have not begun to restore, factoring in population growth since then.  Certainly the momentum is in the right direction, but it has been five years since the recession began, and we are only beginning the process of restoring lost jobs and incomes.

When we factor in mediocre economic growth of around 2%, the impact of the sequester cuts, and the consumption-dampening effects of higher gas prices combined with a payroll tax increase, we can see that we are still skating on extremely thin ice in the short-term.

Yet, the stock market has reached an all-time high.

The disconnect is a result of the Fed’s $85 billion monthly monetization program.  By “printing” money in such vast quantities at a sustained rate, they are able to inflate the various markets beyond values that reflect the true economic risks.  Yes, companies are profitable and cash is abundant on their balance sheets, but the prospects for strong continued growth are dubious at best.  We need some impressive magic to make it all work in a way to support these values.  Anything short of magic will be another collapse.

As with every other asset bubble human emotion reigns – with a healthy dose of marketing.  The financial media loves to fixate on stock prices and stock highs.  You cannot walk 50 feet in today’s cities without seeing some headline, quote or other reminder of the stock market and the related hype.  With the strong propensity for people to forget past events and fixate on the immediate market news, the bubble has plenty of fuel to grow to dangerous proportions.

How we proceed from here is with caution.  What we need to remember is that volatility will remain, and until we fix the more pressing issues these market highs are not likely to persist.  As a reminder, our investment strategy reflects these risks through a broad asset allocation that enables growth from stocks as well as several other asset classes.  The success of this long term approach will fluctuate with market distortions, but it is a steady perspective that favors stable growth over extreme highs and lows.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

Market Update: January 2013

/in /by

I am going to make a bold statement here: I declare 2012 the least interesting year since 2006 – at least from a markets perspective. The stock market went up. The bond market went up. Commodities went up, a little. And more importantly, there were no market calamities. We have had a financial disaster every year since 2006: the sub-prime collapse in 2007, the banking collapse in 2008, the market collapse in 2009, the flash crash and Greek collapse in 2010, a political collapse in the United States and Greek collapse (again) in 2011. This year was actually pretty calm: markets generated rather steady gains, and we didn’t reach the brink of collapse. The only exception was the Fiscal Cliff political drama in the last weeks of 2012, and we won’t know how that plays out for a while longer.

A relatively sleepy year notwithstanding, I don’t believe that we are out of the woods yet. In fact, I’m still holding onto some concerns and worries that have affected our decision-making and strengthened our belief that Vodia’s commitment to stable, conservative investment strategies that manage risk effectively is what’s most needed as we make our way in an uncertain future. America, along with other developed economies in the world, is going through one of the deepest set of challenges we have faced as a nation. How we fare, and how the next generation thrives, is dependent on what we all do now.

Market Performance and Apple

The year’s equity market performance was remarkably steady. The market went up for the first three quarters of the year, despite some volatility in the spring. The fourth quarter was a lot bumpier. With a decline of several percent in Q4, the largest companies in the market indices led these declines.

The Q4 decline settled in immediately following the election in early November. With Obama’s re-election, it was clear that capital gains tax rates would rise. With this certainty, there was a large impetus for institutions and folks to realize their larger long-term gains, namely in stocks that have done exceedingly well in the past year such as Apple, Intel, and also Merck.

S&P 500 index performance for 2012: While there was a bounce down in May, it was relatively calm compared to the past five years. The post-election drop was largely driven by uncertainty around tax rates and locking-in long-term gains.

S&P 500 index performance for 2012: While there was a bounce down in May, it was relatively calm compared to the past five years. The post-election drop was largely driven by uncertainty around tax rates and locking-in long-term gains.

I want to focus on Apple for a few moments, not only because it has become a permanent fixture in the media, but also because it has been a longterm holding at Vodia. The tax selling is not the only reason for Apple’s decline, but it was a large part of it initially. With Apple being the largest company in the stock market at the time, it represented a significant part of the market’s daily movement. In fact, institutional portfolios are saturated with Apple and have no further room to allocate to the stock. Hence, any type of short-term aberration, whether it be tax selling or a slow down in growth, has the propensity for a dramatic movement in Apple’s market value. But that was not the entire picture.

Over the past twelve years, Apple created several new markets around portable devices and the software-based ecosystem to support those devices. The devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad or MacBook), the services (iTunes, Apps Store, iCloud or the support services to these offerings), and their operating software (OSX and iOS) all work together in an intuitive and seamless manner. And let me emphasize the intuitive user experience aspect here – whether it is my father or a toddler, nearly everyone can use Apple products. This level of ubiquitous access to technology is unprecedented, and the ramifications for everything from corporate productivity to education are enormous.

This unprecedented accessibility has been reflected in the company’s financial performance. Apple generates over $50 billion in operating cash flow each year – after all expenses are paid (for comparison, this is the equal to HP, Microsoft and Google’s operating cash flow combined). And they continue to grow at impressive rates. This past quarter saw revenue grow at 18% over the prior quarter, with the realization that they could not make enough of their hot products to meet demand. Put simply, they sold nearly everything they could make.

But there are glitches in the story. The cost of making the products has gone up. As a result, Apple profit this past quarter was roughly the same as a year ago, even though sales were up. They are also facing significant competition for the iPhone as knock-off and competitive products have matured. And of course, with the passing of Steve Jobs, we don’t know what markets Apple will reinvent next; one possibility is television, and Tim Cook’s drive to redesign the entire experience.

Although these threats exist, they don’t change the overall picture of Apple’s position in the markets – they are still growing extensively and globally. We have managed the Apple position accordingly, moving from an overweight risky equity at the beginning of the year to a neutral/underweight in the fall. The market decline, however, has placed Apple’s value far out of line with the fundamentals, and with near hysteria surrounding their recent decline we are again viewing them as a potential overweight.

Getting back to the equity markets, Apple’s impact was felt far and wide. Noting that Apple was still up 33% for the year, the S&P 500 with Apple in the index was up 16% for the year, while the Dow Industrials, which does not include Apple, was up by only 10.2%. That is a fairly wide disparity, and one worth tracking. Alternatively, the international markets performed even better, with the MS EAFE developed markets index up 17%. With far less volatility than we have seen in the past five years, it was a decent showing all around.

My overall assessment of equities remains cautious. I still hear the chatter from equity managers to “just stay the course” with the stock market. If you have twenty years to invest and wait, that has usually been a safe and wise way to go. But the pursuant returns (9% per annum for the past twenty years) do not justify the ridiculous volatility from a repeated cycle of price bubble and collapse. And the reality is that few investors have the ability to wait another twenty years. If markets collapse again, waiting to see what happens could prove to be a devastating experiment.

The Economy

What might happen in the next few years is not so clear. Equity performance depends on the ability for companies to grow profits, speculative bubbles aside. Profit growth in a broad sense can only occur with a growing economy. Our economic growth used to be around 4% per annum – a healthy and vigorous pace for a developed nation. But that was back in the 1960s and 70s. Today the pace has dropped to 2% or less when we are not in a recession. It used to take six months to recover lost jobs after a recession; we now are sixty months past the last recession and there is no jobs restoration horizon in sight.

Our economy is still strong – the largest for any single nation in the world. But it is not strong enough to sustain repeated blows: the financial crisis, sub-prime real estate disintegration, financial market dislocations, or political infighting and potentially devastating partisan divisiveness. Each and every one of these has happened in the past five years, and the debt- ceiling debate is still getting postponed. It won’t take too much to cause another recession, or further job loss.

While our growth has slowed considerably, we are still the largest single economy in the world. Sources: CIA Fact Book, Bloomberg

While our growth has slowed considerably, we are still the largest single economy in the world. Sources: CIA Fact Book, Bloomberg

I am optimistic that we will be able to continue growth, but it will have to come with change. Overall, we are witnessing the change from an industrial economy to a digital one. This has generated a level of income and wealth inequality that hasn’t existed since the end of the 19th century. And with changing geopolitical dynamics, we have become a nation driven by fear: not only do we see terrorism as a threat from without, but some believe we must arm every citizen with assault weapons to protect themselves from within. Change is scary.

But change can also be good.

With that change, we must look beyond the trends of the past for new valuation techniques and investment opportunities. It has been five years of disruption as change takes hold, and will at least five more years until we can find some certainty in the economy. To respond to this dynamic in the portfolios, flexibility will be key; awareness is critical.

Change and Disruption

This change is creating vast disruption and opportunity in society and the economy. As we refine our investment strategy, we see at least five primary dynamics to watch in the coming year:

  • Political histrionics – whatever the crisis du jour may be, it can do severe damage to the economy and our prospects. Manipulating the tax system in a haphazard way, for example, created the decline we saw in markets in November and December. The partisan entrenchment needs to stop before it leads to devastating self-inflicted wounds.
  • Investment in infrastructure –there is a need for a coordinated and concerted effort by government (state or Federal) to support and invest in an educated, skilled workforce and new technologies. Without these changes, the US economy will have dismal prospects for accelerated growth in a changing global economy. But Obama’s administration does have an eye towards investing in the workforce, as witnessed by his support of state-run education systems and the community college system. Even such a small change can point to bigger economic gains down the line.
  • Inequality and fairness – we have again reached income and wealth disparity reminiscent of the dawn of the Industrial Age. Moral implications of wealth and economic disparities aside, the economic impact of increasing inequality can be insidious. Income disparity at this level results in a concentration of power in the business and political realms. Witness the past election: the fractious debate over taxes for the highest income brackets and the “47%” was almost comical if it were not so real. Despite widespread fraud during the last financial crisis, all escaped punishment. This gets noticed, people get upset, and they lose confidence in the system.
  • Reshoring – the movement of our manufacturing sector overseas represented a gross misunderstanding of the importance of manufacturing know-how and innovation. There has been a trend to bring it back over the past two years, and it appears to be growing (witness Apple’s announcement to invest $100mm into a new US manufacturing base). It will only help to improve our trade imbalance and create job growth. Our service economy is not strong enough to provide the jobs growth alone – we need to be a manufacturing exporter again.
  • Debt – at all levels we have binged for decades on cheap money and skyrocketing debt. The Federal debt is a minor issue, but the current levels are sustainable if and only if the annual deficits are tempered. The bigger problem is educational and municipal debt. Both are growing enormously, and neither is being correctly measured. Municipal debt could cause a dislocated bond market; educational debt could squash an entire generation of income earners and consumers. Both need serious attention now.

All of these dynamics can be turned into positive change, but the systems are challenged and there is no deus ex machina in the wings. The underlying tension is the consumption cycle; with nearly three-quarters of our economy based on the ability of our citizens to consume, the economy will remain highly volatile and growth will be elusive. We need to get back to consumption levels in the 60% range, and addressing the dynamics above could advance that aim.

Investing for 2013
We are going to stick with an approach and process that has proven successful during these times. Maintaining awareness of the risks and issues, while recognizing that there are dozens more that can create equally devastating losses, is our first step. Overlaying those risks on a growth engine that is stable in some areas and failing in others is the challenge.

The US does have tremendous prospects for the coming years, despite political machinations. Driven by cheaper energy in the form of natural gas and our cultural propensity to innovation and entrepreneurship, I believe the economy will mend to again create sustained growth above 2% per annum. This could take several years, however, given the current trajectory of the factors above.

The rest of the developed markets are a problem, however. With Europe’s outrageous debt levels, socialist policies creating an unsustainable tax burden, and political dysfunction that makes the US look tame, their recession will likely continue for several years.

Emerging markets, with their population expansion, growing middle class, and unabashed theft of advanced technologies, are going to continue to drive global growth. Investing in any one of these markets is going to be a volatile endeavor as dislocating regional trends resolve, while finding companies such as Apple and CAT that sell into these markets mitigates much of that volatility.

Stocks are likely to continue for another positive year simply from the amount of global monetary easing in the markets. In some cases, the valuations will be strong, with high risk premiums assigned to stocks in general. In other cases, bubbles will continue to emerge and deflate – both on the upside and downside. For this reason, we will cautiously look to increase our stock exposure by 5-10% of overall portfolio allocation. Keep in mind, however, that we are still less than half equities in our managed accounts. Some of this increase might be expressed through the use of stock options rather than the actual underlying stock, giving us a little leverage with a capped downside.

Fixed income, the perennial highlight of our portfolios, is where the coming year will be trickiest. Risk premiums are at their lowest in a long time, on top of a yield curve that is historically low. Both of these factors indicate a bond market top. But unlike equities, there is a known floor on bond values (maturity value), providing a natural mitigation to any bond market volatility – as long as we hold individual bonds and not bond indices. As a result, our bond exposure will come down to fund the increase in stock exposure.

Our ability to hold individual assets (bonds or stocks) allows us to manage the systemic risks I’ve outlined. As a result, in our managed accounts we can make up for a lower-than-average stock exposure through strategies such as call options. The individual bonds also give us a natural hedge against bond market volatility. In accounts where we are limited to using exchange-traded funds, the allocations will vary this year to account for higher levels of systemic risk.

We are maintaining roughly the same commodities exposure as this past year – 10-15% of portfolios – but shying away from energy and focusing more on gold and agriculture. The reasoning in simple: inflation. I don’t see inflation on the immediate horizon, but I do see it as a sizeable risk in this era of unprecedented monetary easing.

And finally we will continue to hold larger cash reserves (10-20%) to buffer against systemic volatility and allow us buying opportunities in deeply stressed markets.

Please don’t hesitate to call or write, and I wish you all the best for a manageable winter.

David B. Matias, CPA Managing Principal

Market Update: November 2012

/in /by

Post Election Hopes

As I sit here on the morning after, there are a number of very important points that come out of the results from last night.  Most important, the difference in this election from four years ago is a stark one.  While I am no political pundit, it appears that the Obama campaign won every swing state and Democrats won every closely contested Senate seat except one despite an economy that should have dictated otherwise.  Yet all of those wins were by a much smaller margin, Florida being a good example.  In all of these races, the difference that put Obama over the line was the changing demographic.  Minorities are growing while the white middle class is shrinking.  The Obama campaign was able to tap this trend.  Not only was the Obama campaign also able to command the women’s vote, but the number of women in Congress will now be higher than ever.  In a very positive sign, we are diversifying as a country, and the vote is starting to reflect that diversity.

So the question is: what comes next?  Regardless of your politics, we have a raft of issues that need to be addressed now.  Not just in the coming months and years, but in the immediate.  Irrespective of one’s position on the various topics, the lack of lasting resolution is more damaging than one particular tact or another.  The two issues I’m thinking of now are the fiscal cliff that enacts a raft of automatic budget cuts at year-end, and the expiring tax laws.  Both of which has a dramatic impact on individuals and the economy.

Despite significant frailty, the economy is showing signs of improvement – there would not have been an Obama victory without them.  The most important of which is the improving GDP figures and the housing market.  Real estate prices are showing signs of stability – a significant positive – and personal debt levels are down as well – a function of foreclosures.  The last quarter’s GDP growth increased to 2% from the tenuous 1.3% of the prior quarter.  Without growth, we cannot create jobs.  And without jobs, we cannot grow consumption.  Without more consumption, we cannot grow the economy.  It is a vicious circle that we have embraced – but one that we cannot break right now.

The jobs recovery to date, however, has been anemic.  As you see from the employment chart below, we have barely witnessed any change in the overall employment levels.  Long-term structural unemployment has now become pervasive, with over 1.7 million people unemployed at least 99 weeks.  That statistic, unfortunately, is grossly understated – it does not account for those who have simply given up.  We are employing the same percentage of the population as back in the 1970s, when there was a radically different expectation on quality of life, family structure was more traditional, and the debts were miniscule as compared to today.

US Employment as a Percentage of the Population (Ages 16-65): 1970 – 2012 

As the economy went through the dot-com bubble of the 1990s and the real estate bubble of the 2000s, employment was broadly boosted due to increased spending. Today, with the current recession, those jobs have been erased and we struggle to find a way to recreate the lost jobs. In fact, we are experiencing the same employment levels as the 1970s, when the standard of living was far lower.

Fixation on Debt

There has been plenty of discussion and debate around the level of federal debt.  It is not pretty, but it is not unbearable.  If there is future economic growth, and if there is an ability to stem future deficit spending, then these debt levels are manageable.  The problem we are facing today is the continued deficit spending on top of anemic economic growth.  The two combined is a recipe for disaster, a la Spain-style.  Hence the importance of the election message – we need to deal with the concurrent problems of increasing deficits and a lack of jobs.

State debt, in our view, is far more troubling.  The states don’t have the ability to inflate their was out of their obligations, and those obligations are enormous.  While the public municipal debt market is already $3 trillion, there is at least another $4 trillion in unfunded obligations across the country (and some say more like $7T).  No way to make those payments – and limited ways to borrow to cover them.  Future defaults on these debts or obligations are a strong possibility.  These are typically pension obligations, an area that will have a direct and profound impact on retirement, health care costs, and our ability to consume.  The same problems that we face now as a country could further compound as the states grapple with the realities of poor fiscal management.

The silver lining to the debt story is real estate.  Personal debt, the area that exploded in the last real estate bubble, is actually coming down.  The reason is simple – much of that debt was tied to real estate borrowing.  With so many homes in foreclosure, and much of that personal debt eliminated through bankruptcy, individual debt levels are down dramatically.  It could be a good omen – people can not put those dollars to improving quality of life and building retirements – or a bad one if there is little personal constraint and new debts are accumulated.  How it unfolds will be an important factor for the economy.

The problem with growing debt – whether it be personal or government – is that the debt service eventually tears into your ability to spend on important items.  Those important items could be a car repair, or repairs to a school district.  Either way, it can start to eat at the current quality of life and our future prospects.  In a worst case scenario, that debt is so burdensome that one defaults – such as personal bankruptcy or by devaluing the currency.  A personal bankruptcy is not as bad as it used to be – you no longer have to go to debtors prison and eventually someone will give you a new credit card.  For a country, however, the devaluing of a currency can have a devastating impact.  Other countries refuse to lend at favorable rates, quality of life for those who are paid in the currency declines across the board, and wealth in general is slashed.

The debt accumulation in the US, however, is a byproduct of the bubble economy that we’ve fostered for the past three decades.  As I’ve outlined in my article, “Turning the Economy into a Casino” (from The Intellectual Origins of the Global Financial Crisis, Berkowitz and Tuoy, eds., Fordham University Press, 2012), our economy suffered a decline of our core growth drivers that dates back to the 1960s.  To mask this erosion of economic growth, asset bubbles were fostered through government policies that allowed for a false sense of wealth.  This “wealth” led to greater consumption, the core of economic growth for the past three decades.

But when these bubbles pop, individual consumption contracts drastically and jobs are shed.  A cycle of decline ensues unless you either fix the core growth issues or insert a new bubble.  By my count, we are in the midst of the third major asset bubble in the past 30 years – the Quantitative Easing bubble.  Or free money.  More on that later.

Analysis of 2012

Despite this week, the year to date has been a remarkably calm one despite the underlying tensions.  I believe it is mostly attributed to this bubble.  We see that stock market valuations have again risen to pre-crisis levels, and many corporate earnings have improved in lock-step.  Through the end of October, the market was up by 14% year to date (S&P 500).  The core of that rise, however, is limited to two key areas: iPhones and banking.

The first is centered around Apple, their suppliers and the cell operators.  From Apple to AT&T to Verizon to the iPhone supply chain, and the knockoff iPhones supported by Android, the combined impact of the iPhone on stock market valuations is anywhere from a quarter to half of the market rise year-to-date.[1]  Apple alone, the largest component of the S&P 500 index, represents 13% of the market rise.

Here is the irony – we have seen the profits from the iPhone/smartphone market flow back to some shareholders in the US, but an entire slice of that revenue stream flows to Asia in the form of a negative trade deficit.  Remember that we import roughly a $1 trillion of goods more than we export each year.  Over the past forty years we have rushed to move our manufacturing overseas because of cheap labor.  As a result, we lost both the manufacturing capacity and know-how.  As the late Steve Jobs stated, the US doesn’t have the ability to make the iPhone (labor is 7% of the iPhone cost). A domestically manufactured iPhone and supply chain would have gone a long way in solving our current employment conundrum.  Instead, we handed those jobs over to China and their Asian supply chain vendors.

The second factor is the Fed stimulus and its impacts on the banking industry (what I’m calling the QE bubble or free money).  Low interest rates, subsidized losses and protective regulations have allowed the banks to prosper again and are some of the biggest market gainers this year.  I hear stories of folks who are refinancing at insanely low levels, but those loans are rarely available to people who have less-than-perfect credit.  In effect, the banks are offloading the risk onto the public sector – using free money to generate safe profits and playing with those profits in the markets (witness JPMorgan and my last Market Update).

I fear that these benefits are limited in their ability to repair our domestic economy.  As you can see from the chart below, while we have the largest economy on a per-person basis, we are quickly losing ground to Asia, led by China’s growth.  Combined with the recession that Europe is facing, and the serious debt issues that have fostered their problems, there is a dramatic shift under our feet.  As we move from the industrial age to the information age, I fear that we have lost the ability to capture enough innovation and growth to support our outsized expectations. Put another way, wealth and quality of life expectations for the 99% are going to change.

The Three Largest Global Economies

While the US has been eclipsed by Europe, and China is rapidly catching up given their sustained growth rate (perhaps in ten years), our per capita economy still affords us tremendous wealth as a country.

Prognosis

This is not a condemnation of the US economy, but rather a reality check on where growth is found as an investor.  Many US companies are doing remarkably well.  Their ability to shed employees, improve productivity and fortify their balance sheets will server them for years to come.  There is still innovation in this country, especially in the areas of early stage life science and energy technologies.  In the interim, the ability for the US consumer to push our economy forward is still hampered, and will be until base employment is solved.

Which comes back to my opening points on the election results.  The policies of the next four years need to clear uncertainty while fostering a stable employment base.  The improvements in real estate will help, but we cannot depend on our own consumption to fuel those jobs, and Europe is not going to do it for us either.  Firms such as Apple, that have a truly global revenue base, solid cash and deep penetration into Asia are the growth prospects for the public equity markets.  Domestic firms that maintain stability of cash flow and have managed their risks are good investments for predictable, yet very modest, returns on investment.

In the immediate term, the uncertainty of the next few weeks and months could reek havoc on market psychology.  Apple is a great example.  With the enormous run-up in the past two years, many folks are sitting on large long-term unrealized gains.  With the prospect of capital gains tax rates rising, folks are unloading their Apple shares to lock in the current tax rate.  If those tax prospects were already resolved – and set at a modest increase of say 15% to 20% – much of this panic selling would be averted.  But with uncertainty comes volatility.

As a reality check, Apple’s fundamentals are astounding.  They have well over $100 billion of cash/marketable investments on the balance sheet, and generate another $50 billion each year.  Their growth rate is still projected well into the double digits.  The price to earnings ratio, ex-cash, is 8x (by comparison, J&J is trading at 12x).  And the iPad mini, with gross margins over 50%, is going to explode on the global market and likely change the face of education.

But psychology will always win over reason.  And that unfortunately is the prospect that we face as a nation.  Our demographic is changing, our vote is reflecting those changes, and our economy is drifting in the currents of a dynamic world.  Change is inevitable.  How we manage this moment is paramount to the future of this society.

All the best for the start of the holiday season.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

[1] This is a rough estimate based on the impact that those companies have on the S&P 500, and the amount that iPhone sales and related cellular service contribute to their earnings.

Market Update: June 2012

/in /by

Thus far the first half of the year has kept up to expectations.  The first part of the year was a straight run up in the equity markets.  Unemployment in the US has remained exceptionally high and isn’t coming down, the global economy is still suffering from a dramatic hangover and the euro threatens to break up as I write this update.

(Note that I could have written the exact same paragraph in June 2011 or June 2010.  Hope springs eternal at the start of each year – now we need to see real change before market growth is warranted.)

Our perspective on these events, as outlined in my previous articles on the paradigm shifts in our economy, is that we are only part way through a decade long shift back to a core of economic growth.  Asset bubbles in the 90s and 00s helped to mask the true problems, and those bubbles made the economic situation far worse as each popped in a destructive fashion.  Behind these bubbles, aside from the political aspects, is a financial services industry that has learned to extract a hefty toll from investors with the support of our political system.

Yes, it may be a dour assessment, but the realities are there to be seen.  It is more a function of our willingness to see.

Facebook – Anatomy of a Botched IPO

What many failed to see, or were unwilling to admit, was that Facebook’s initial public offering (IPO) was flawed from the very outset.  Before Morgan Stanley juiced the price, before Facebook’s CFO ignored conventional wisdom, before Goldman Sachs started their own fund to cash in on the hype, Facebook was a bubble created by the financial services industry.  The surprise was not that Facebook was grossly overvalued (as I have asserted for the past six months), but that the bubble popped so soon.

Normally with these bubbles, they perpetuate until the inflated asset is so far down the investor food chain that no one person or institution can make a significant stink about getting fleeced.  Those folks are the “average” retail investor who either believed in the hype and bought the shares at the wrong time, or are heavily invested in mutual funds which are holding the shares.  With trillions of dollars sitting in 401(k) plans with such funds as their only investment choice, the least informed of investors are the ones most harmed.

What was unusual this time was that the music stopped early.  On the first day of trading, the share price struggled to stay positive.  Within a week it had lost 15%.  As of this writing, Facebook is down 27% from the IPO price, and 34% from the high.  This infers an actual loss to investors of $4.3 billion who bought shares in the IPO.  While that seems to be enormous, it is insignificant compared to other overblown IPOs of the past, where hundreds of billions were lost when stock prices came down from dizzying heights at the peak of the dot-com bubble.

But the timing here is different.  The decline began the day after the IPO – concentrating the losses among a handful of early buyers and those who own shares from the IPO.  As a result, lawsuits are piling up and the debacle is still on the front page.

When viewed from afar, there is little doubt that the IPO would not end well.  The initial IPO valuation of Facebook started at $50 billion last winter.  It quickly climbed to $100 billion as Goldman peddled the shares in the pre-IPO market.  Under current SEC guidelines, Facebook could have up to 500 shareholders before being treated like a public company.  These 500 institutions and investors swapped shares, and reaped profits as they cashed out on the hype.

The next step was to allow those 500 to cash out to the public.  That was the IPO.  What was initially supposed to be a $5 billion cash-out became a $16 billion cash-out as the greed spread.  And the bubble would have continued in the public markets if the initial trading was not botched, and if Facebook had not oversized the float.

A good anecdote is a friend’s grandmother who asked her broker to buy shares on Facebook on the day of the IPO because of what she was reading in the newspaper.  She is in retirement and living off the income from their savings.  The misaligned risk of such an investment would have been enormous.  The fact that she was convinced that Facebook would make them money is a revealing insight into human psychology.  (The broker did not buy the shares – fortunately)

JPMorgan (Chase*)

Another good example, but less obvious, is the trading loss reported by JPMorgan.  What was initially estimated as a $2 billion hedging loss ballooned to $3 billion a week later and may reach $5 billion.  The fact that they can lose this much money so quickly is alarming.  The fact that just three weeks earlier their CEO dismissed the rumors as “a tempest in a teapot” is sheer arrogance.[1]  The fact that they were doing this with government insured funds is nauseating.[2]

Remember, JPMorgan’s full name includes “Chase Bank”.  Chase is one of the largest consumer banks in the country.  They sit on $1.1 trillion of customer deposits.  They invest those funds as they see fit to generate larger profits.  Those are the investments they were “hedging” with this trade.  The losses themselves are not going to threaten the viability of the bank, but the pattern is distressing.  It was just four years ago that most of the major banks suffered enormously because of unbridled risk-taking in the sub-prime mortgage market.  Having survived that crisis intact, JPMorgan repeatedly reminded the regulators that they were “special” – because of strong management they do not need strict oversight.  This argument has been at the core of the current debate over bank regulations.

What seems to have happened, consistent with so many debacles in the past twenty years, is that the drive for profit and personal enrichment eventually outstripped common sense.  Don’t be fooled by the technical jargon, fancy strategies or elevated titles.  The mistake they made is simply foolish.  The same trader had previously made some large bets that paid well.  So if big bets can work, let’s make a ginormous bet – as the thinking goes.  The notional value of the bet was so large (estimated at $100 billion) on such an arcane trade (risk of default on just a handful of companies) that they went from playing in the casino to becoming the casino.  As is almost always the case, the trade eventually went against them and they barricaded themselves inside a burning building.

That fire is still burning, and while their CEO is desperately trying to salvage the bank’s reputation (and his job) the lesson is a simple one.  JPMorgan is allowed to gamble in the casino with nearly unbridled risk taking.  Yet they are one in the same as Chase Bank, the depository for millions.  Until the 1990s, this type of combination was strictly forbidden for obvious reasons (which became obvious in the crash of 1929).  Somehow the bankers were able to convince the politicians that bankers were smarter and better than before.  Hence, there was no need for separation between investment banks and deposit banks (also know as the Glass-Steagall Act)[3].  Fast-forward ten years, and the verdict is fairly plain.  Greed does not change.  Bankers are just smarter at making sure that they don’t have to pay for failure.

If the point needs any further clarification – look at the salaries and bonuses at the heart of the crisis.  The CIO in charge of this failed bet made $14 million last year alone.  She is one employee out of dozens who make that kind of money for taking these sorts of bets.  Expand this  across the entire bank, across all the major investment banks, across all developed markets, and it amounts to billions of dollars that are generated from these activities that end up in the pockets of a few.  My statement is a simple one: How does one justify such outsized compensation for potentially irresponsible behavior?  If the investment banks want to pursue these trades then they need to bear the cost of their failures as well without putting the economy at risk.

To be fair, there are plenty of legitimate banking activities that occur every day which create true value in a fair and equitable environment.  The issue I address here is the major investment banks who are too-big-to-fail while being funded with government insured consumer deposits.  They have engineered a government-sanctioned mandate to take irresponsible risks with those deposits while maintaining full protection from failure.  It is a dynamic that creates repeated asset bubbles, in which the repeated loser is the individual investor who has few choices beyond the mutual funds in their 401(k) accounts.  The system does not serve them well.

Iceland, Inc.

While the anecdote of Facebook or JPMorgan may seem limited in scope, the pattern does not end here.  Our next stop is Iceland.  For those of you who don’t remember, the three major banks of Iceland went insolvent in 2008 requiring such a massive government bailout that the entire nation was on the verge of bankruptcy.  As The Economist stated in December of that year, relative to the size of the economy it was the largest banking collapse ever suffered in economic history.

The source of the collapse was – you guessed it – asset bubbles.  In this case, it was cheap loans to foreign investors to support real estate speculation.  Everyone in the financial food chain profited from the speculation until the real estate market collapsed.  The taxpayers were left to clean up the mess.  Governments from around Europe compensated their citizens for deposits lost to these banks, to the tune of billions of euros.  Again, irresponsible risk taking by the banks was condoned by the government until the game ended.  Individuals profited enormously.  Entire economies suffered.

While the Iceland collapse was minor relative to the global economy, the pain was acute in a handful of places.  Greece, however, will not be so localized.  While much has been written here the message is the same:  ridiculous borrowing by the government that was unsustainable and facilitated by you know who – the banking sector.  Greece’s ultimate default – albeit an orderly default – impacted the global banks to the tune of billions.  Those banks are now receiving government funds to supports the losses.  If Greece does not abide by the terms of their bailout or withdraws from the euro the losses will grow rapidly.

And the fun continues as move across the Mediterranean to Spain.  Their banks are now suffering from the effects of a real estate asset bubble. With losses mounting, unemployment reaching 25% and the government doubling their debt to keep it all afloat, a European bailout looks imminent.  Just recently they asked for $125 billion in help from the broader European monetary institutions after insisting that they would not need help.

Here in the US we have a real problem to face.  As Europe goes through their annual summer games of economic Armageddon, we are again facing the prospect of a failed currency, the euro.  It is not clear what would happen if the euro were to break, and it is not clear that the euro could break, but the consequences could be severe.  Again, it would focus on the solvency of the global banks and ultimately how much in government funds are needed to keep them afloat.  The mitigating factor is Germany, the key industrial power in the region that has fueled much of their growth.  With Germany’s cooperation, it is possible to protect the euro and stem any systemic collapse.  The cultural divisions are large, however, and go back decades to the original efforts to bring a single currency to the region.

Here in the US, this government support has spread to every corner of our economy.  The stimulus that has been generated is in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars.  Through extreme monetary and quantitative easing programs by the Federal Reserves, both the bond market and stock market have been propped up.[4]  The ancillary effect has been to provide a massive subsidy for banks – ultra cheap deposits that they can then deploy into profitable investments such as mortgages.  Yes, they need support, and in that support it is believed that unemployment can be ameliorated, but that should not infer that irresponsible risk taking is also condoned.

Investment Perspective

With all this depressing analysis, there are still bright spots in the world.  First, it is in no one’s interest to see the system fail.  Even the financial services sector realizes that if the entire economic equation fails then their profits end.  Whether it be the Greek Parliament or JPMorgan, at some point self-interest must give way to self-preservation.  And while I talk about stalled economies and bailouts, we should not lose sight of the strength in the global economy.  Trillions of dollars in production is generated every month and while the growth may not be all we need to rescue us from our mistakes in this moment, the prospects are strong.

Put another way, all these issues go away with global growth.  Create jobs, increase consumption, increase production, and the cycle supports itself.  While it could be an easy “out” through another job-creating asset bubble, it will take years to get there in a sustainable manner.  In the interim, we just don’t want to inflict too much additional damage in bubbles that mask the problem.  (Yet we continue to ignore the deeper issue regarding the sustainability of the consumption cycle – a topic for a different day)

At Vodia, our investment direction has remained the same as it has over the last four years.  Invest in company stocks that have stable and growing cash flow streams.  Don’t overemphasize our reliance on these stocks, but instead rely on undervalued debt instruments that have greater predictability and protection. Hedge further risks with hard commodities, heavier cash balances, and derivatives where appropriate.

For the summer we are taking a cautious view of Europe with a mildly positive view of the US.  As the US economy mends itself, emerging markets will continue to benefit.  Emerging markets will also benefit from their own prosperity, as local consumption begins to replace exporting as the primary economic driver.  In the immediate term, emerging markets have suffered as consumption in Europe and the US slowed down.  The short term movement in the emerging markets has had a sharp impact down on commodities – positions that we will continue to hold in  moderate quantities as a hedge against the long-term effects of domestic monetary easing programs.

Note that our view of the emerging markets focuses mainly on Asia and the commodities that support these economies.  We currently exclude India from any investment opportunities due to their deep-seated social issues, and avoid direct investments in China for a lack of transparency and long-term sustainability.  Yet China continues to drive the general direction of commodities as the largest consumer in a number of areas.  They need to push for blistering growth to support rapid urbanization of the population, growth that could create substantial economic disruptions if not closely managed.

The global healing process takes time, and will be quite bumpy along the way.  If the euro does break, then those bumps could be quite severe.  That is the challenge that we are addressing today.  But if we get through the summer and Europe plods closer to substantive solutions to a one-currency/multiple economy region, then we again have time for economic growth to reestablish itself.

All the best for an enjoyable summer.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

[1] It was on April 6, 2012 that The Wall Street Journal first reported an outsized derivatives position based out of JPMorgan’s London trading desk ( “London Whale Rattles Debt Markets”).  The trade was so disproportionate to the market that the trader was nicknamed the “London Whale” by the street. Just a week later, when confronted with this information, Jamie Diamond, JPMorgan’s CEO publicly stated that any report of inappropriate risk was overblown and later called it a “tempest in a teapot”.

[2] This loss never put JPMorgan at risk of default.  They generate nearly $20 billion a year in profits and have a capital base that is approaching $200 billion.  Instead, the nature of the loss is the troubling aspect.

[3] Ironically, it was the merger of Citibank and Travelers in 1996 that prompted the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. Their argument at the time was that bankers were more sophisticated now and were able to manage the risks appropriately.

[4] The debate still rages as to whether that was enough stimulus or whether the funds were used effectively – both of which are valid arguments in this current political environment of self-serving deficit hawks.

Market Update: April 2012

/in /by

Spring Is Here and the Birds Are Chirping

This was quite a remarkable quarter: the stock market was up 12.6%, Apple just declared a dividend pushing it above $600 per share, and I hear birds chirping from my window.  Markets around the world are going straight up – what could be wrong in the world?

In my typical dose of caution and concern, there is a lot.  But rather than worry about what might be the issues for us to face – which frankly have not changed a bit since my last Market Update from January 2012 – I’d rather focus on some of the psychology that emerges in these situations.  Unfortunately the history of our “efficient” markets is littered with examples of gross inefficiencies driven by investor psychology.

One simple example is to look at the market volatility from 2011.  The chart below shows the S&P500 for the year of 2011, a chart that I have used in the past.  While the course of the market was remarkable – record setting in fact – the end result was eerily simple.  When looked at from point-to-point (January 1 to December 31), the market was dead flat.

The second chart shows a comparison of January-February on the left side against August-September on the right side.  Two very different charts from the same year – polar opposites in fact.

2011 generated stock market movements at the polar opposites of market theory. The left side is the calm market of January-February, while the right side is the historical choppiness of August-September.

In the first part of the year there was all the buzz of a strong economic recovery, jobs growth, real estate price stabilization and stock market recovery.  As we now know, most of these claims were either false or premature.  What came to the fore later in the year was the reality of debt overload, sovereign defaults, and a European recession.  When you look at the side-by-side, the impact of psychology leaps from the page.  During Jan/Feb of 2011, the market rise was steady, stable and predictable (low volatility).  During Sept/Oct of the same year, the market was choppy, erratic, and unpredictable.

To put this into context, traditional economic and finance theory relies heavily on the notion of efficient markets and statistical trends based in a lognormal distribution of stock market returns. In that paradigm, the likelihood of the right chart occurring is roughly a 6-sigma event.  In more pedestrian terms, these events are likely to occur once every 5,480 years (roughly since the start of history according to the Jewish calendar).  That should give you a moment of pause.

My point is a simple one.  Conventional theories about the economy and markets are severely limited in describing current events.  In many ways, broken.  Yet, the underlying fundamentals of our world are deeply challenged – American society has been turned inside-out, developed economies are carrying debt loads that are unsustainable, and global conflicts are playing out in ways that can no longer be managed.

A more likely explanation for the first quarter performance is a host of factors that have nothing to do with fundamental strength.  I’ve heard one theory of investor boredom – too much bad news has resulted in a form of indifference.  Another theory is manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank – with near-zero interest rates and over a trillion dollars flooded into the banking system, money needs a home to generate profits.  You won’t get it in the traditional bond market, with short-term rates near zero.  But you will get it in the form of dividend paying stocks.

To support the second theory, The Wall Street Journal reported that this year $9 billion of investor money flowed into mutual funds and ETFs with stock-dividend strategies.  All other funds had a net outflow of $7.3 billion. (see Jason Zweig article, “The Dividend-Fund Dilemma” on April 7, 2012).  Investors are chasing some sort of return, irrespective of the risks.  While a stable stock could lose half its value in the matter of a few weeks (such as 2008), the prospect of a 3% dividend yield is enticing enough to warrant the risk.  Wow.

To add a bit of punctuation to those thoughts, take a look at the next chart comparison – the start of 2011 and the start of 2012:

The start of 2012 look eerily similar to the start of 2011. How the rest of this year progresses is the question.

Since the collapse of 2008, we have gone through a number of cycles around volatility that repeat.  I never mean to predict where the market goes next, but I do want to point out the irony of the volatility pattern and the interplay with investor euphoria.

Apple and Facebook

Perhaps another sign of psychology gone awry is Apple.  While Apple is by far my favorite company in the history of the planet (and a stock that many of our clients hold and have handsomely profited on), the psychology around Apple is unmistakable.  Based on strong earnings and the resumption of their dividend, the stock was up 48% in Q1.  That gives them the largest market-cap in the world today of  almost $600 billion.  If Apple were a country, it would place them in the top-20 globally, somewhere behind South Korea and ahead of Poland.  Not bad.  And with $100 billion of cash, they can afford to pay a dividend now.

But what happens next?  Other companies of their size trade at roughly 11x earnings and experience growth rates in the single digits.  Never has a company been this large, and never has such a large company doubled in less than several years.  Yet the headlines defy common sense – “Apple to hit $1,001!”  I’m not sure which part of this is more comical.  Perhaps it is the inference that you should put your money into Apple now because it will soon double to become a $1 trillion dollar company (they would start to rival India).  Or perhaps it is the notion that they’re just messing with you, “Hey – let’s come up with a random number that people will love.  Like $1,000. That’s cool!  No, make it $1,001!  That’s cooler!!!.

Don’t get me wrong – there is a day when Apple will likely hit $1,000 per share (and yes, even $1,001).  But that day is more likely to be years away, with many gyrations in between.  You have market volatility, global conflict and product disappointment all standing between now and then.  You even have the potential for scandal and misdeed.  Apple is like any other company in the end, and while they have succeeded in changing the way that people use technology, it is still just a stock with all the failings that stocks hold.

What we cannot predict, or grasp, is the power of market psychology.  We saw it happen in the late 1990s with the dotcom bubble.  Crazy, stupid predictions were levied against company stocks.  And for a long time, those predictions held because of the sheer power of the herd.  When the bubble finally popped, it was a long fall.  The NASDAQ hit 5,100 at the peek.  It then fell 78%.  Today the NASDAQ sits at 3,000.  That is quite a powerful bubble that inflated in the 90s.  It will happen again.

And we didn’t have to wait long.  This morning, Instagram just sold for $1 billion.  They have no profit, no revenue, and thirteen employees.  (The first half of this article was written two days, before the announcement – honestly!).    Back in the height of the dotcom boom, companies were valued at roughly $2 million per employee despite a lack of profits.  Now, it seems that zero revenue can get you around $70 million per employee.  Insane?  Yes… and no.  Allow me to explain.

Facebook is the acquirer.  They have been trading in the private market at roughly a $100 billion valuation, or 150x earnings (at least they have earnings).  Again, a seemingly insane valuation.  Yet, the valuation is justified because the current buyers expect an IPO in May that will allow them an even higher valuation to sell their shares.  Because of the euphoric stock market, Facebook now has a “currency” – their stock – that allows for the type of transaction we saw this morning.  Without the public equity market, Facebook wouldn’t have the currency to make this deal.  Without a bubble, the equity markets wouldn’t place such a ridiculous value on the company.

But why should this matter if the markets are efficient and everyone has a chance to buy or sell at will?  The grim reality is that someone will be left holding the bag, a devious game of musical chairs.  And I can promise you, as we saw twelve years ago, those left with sizable losses are individuals who chase the markets in hopes of gaining a stronger retirement.  They are the ones that inflate the last bit of the bubble, when the institutional traders have started to make for the exits and the employees of Facebook and Instagram have cashed out of their stock.

While I don’t intend to inspire a debate about social injustice, this pattern has played out before.  And the results dragged down the US economy for a decade now, delaying retirement for millions of folks and stripped away jobs from an otherwise healthy economy.  Bubbles create extensive damage, far more than the benefits that are reaped during the inflation.

Investment Direction

As you will see in our current portfolios, we have maintained a conservative posture despite the market rally.  Our equity positions, at roughly a third of portfolios (or less), have done well on the heels of strong individual stock performance (namely Apple, Intel and Weyerhauser).  We don’t expect this range of outperformance again, but I also don’t expect this market rally to continue at this pace.

The balance of the portfolio is in bonds (40-50%) and commodities (10-15%).  Both have been remarkably stable over the past year, and this quarter is no different.  The bonds are geared to provide a stable income stream at above market rates.  We continue to do so with the use of unusual or illiquid pieces and ongoing in-house research to identify opportunities.  The commodities are a hedge against dollar deflation – a very real possibility as the economy stumbles through the next few quarters.  As the government expands the dollar base through Fed action and we pile up debts at the state and Federal level, the pressure on the dollar will increase.

Finally we continue to look at hedges against future volatility.  It is a very real concern, and could be an immediate problem with just a couple of global events.  As we saw in 2011, most hedges were ineffective as volatility reached well beyond historical trends.  We continue to integrate these lessons learned into our strategy while looking for situations in which the markets can challenge us in new ways.

I know that these updates create a certain level of dejection with a few of my fans, and wish that I could be more enthusiastic about the financial situation.  But the realities are tough to ignore, and I’ve always believed that accurate and full information is far more beneficial as we make investment decisions and life choices.

All the best for an enjoyable spring.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

Market Update: January 2012

/1 Comment/in /by

Overview of 2011

While I am certain to be accused of using clichés in the past, I am somewhat loathe to the majority of them.  In particular, the “roller coaster” ride of market volatility is used again and again and again anytime someone has a bad day in the stock market.  Well, despite my greater sensibilities, here we go.  The market performance in 2011 can be summed up in one phrase: “It was a roller coaster of a ride!”

In the sense that a roller coaster takes you to exciting peaks and nauseating valleys with the speed of a falling asteroid, it has another characteristic that is often ignored.  You get off the roller coaster exactly where you began, except for perhaps some subtle shifts in the earth or cosmos during your ride.  For 2011, the broad US Stock market (S&P 500) ended the year exactly 0.04 points below where it began, for a -0.0003% loss.  Combined with swings of 25% during the year, some of which occurred in the span of just a few hours and minutes, you had the roller-coaster ride of a generation.  In fact, you have to go back to the 1930s to find as volatile and quirky a market.  (To make the point perfectly clear, the market swung from a 3-point gain to its loss in the final 12 seconds of trading).

Another part of the cliché might be the residue that one collects on your ride.  In the same way that an open mouth on a roller coaster will inevitably result in a collection of bugs lodged between your teeth (they are protein), an investor in this market did come away with a nice collection of dividends during the year.  In fact, the 2.1% dividend yield on the market is the sole benefit to maintaining full stock exposure throughout the year.

It turns out that dividends are one of the main themes for stock investors in 2011.  If you had a portfolio of high dividend stocks, you were going to do far better than the broad market as investors sought their relative safety.  Another theme was domestic versus foreign.  We here in the US were fortunate – if you stayed in the market for the duration you came out intact.  Overseas was a far different story.  The most stable of the foreign indices – large-cap developed economy stocks – lost -12% last year.  If you were invested anywhere near the emerging markets, the loss was closer to -20%.

Another theme I’ve noticed is the lack of news about the year’s return.  Whereas I usually see a barrage of in-depth financial articles on the “year in review” they have been scant and thin this month.  Maybe it is early, or maybe this is just the year to forget.  Or maybe it is because there is no good news.  One tidbit I was able to catch is that 84% of large-cap mutual funds failed to beat the market, and most actually lost money.  My favorite whipping post, Fidelity, is a good case in point.  Of the 59 domestic equity mutual funds that they list on their website, six beat the market.  Only three of those beat it by more than 0.5%.  Yet another nail in the coffin of the mutual fund industry.

The message here is a simple one – volatility killed the year.  With so many days with such large swings up and down, it was a market that was going to punish anyone who tried to master it.  No matter what sort of risk you took, it got beaten down.  And while the market did limp back to neutral by the last week of December, it took a heavy toll on all asset classes and investors.

(NOTE:  As an aside, I want to address this disparity between the Dow Jones Industrials Average and the S&P 500.  The Dow was up +5.5% for the year with dividends, as compared to the S&P’s +2.1% rise, a wide disparity for seemingly similar measures of the market.  The difference is in the manner in which the Dow is calculated.  By averaging the prices of just a few companies (30 versus 500 for the S&P), and weighting those companies based on the share price (as opposed to the actual size of the company), the Dow can develop significant distortions.  In this year’s case, IBM with its $100+ stock price, generated half of the Dow’s returns.  Bank of America, on the other hand with a single digit stock price, had a far smaller impact on the Dow even though they lost -50% in value.

In the end, the Dow is not a true representation of the broader market or the general economic situation.  And don’t be swayed by the headlines in The Wall Street Journal promoting the Dow’s performance – the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones… who is now in turn owned by Fox.)

Analysis

The primary culprits from 2011 were politicians, debt and jobs.

Whether you look to the Greek parliament debating if they really need to pay back their debts, or our own politicians debating the best way to torch our economy, we encountered such dysfunction in the US and abroad that damage to the economy was an afterthought.  While I have not yet seen an analysis, I estimate that the debt-ceiling debates took at least 0.5% out of our GDP and increased unemployment commensurately.  Rather than find ways to govern, our leaders are finding new ways to fail.

The debt does not go away, however.  While Paul Krugman has made some interesting points about sovereign debt (namely, you don’t need to eliminate it, just keep it in check with economic growth), debt has grown so rapidly in most developed countries that it now challenges their economic prospects.  The fear is not default, which is irrelevant when you can print money, but instead a currency battle in which your dollars (or euros or sterling) are worth half their value tomorrow.  We saw this in Germany in the 1920s, and it led to disastrous consequences.  It can happen again, and the results will be unpredictable at best.

While debt in its many forms is a fuel for economic growth, in a stagnant economy it can lead to contraction and decay.  The impact that we see today starts with the banking sector.  Largely responsible for providing the credit necessary for business to function and individuals to monetize their future earnings, the banks control trillions in lending and new loans.  With their profits under fire from the excesses of the past decade, and in some cases their very survival dependent on government largess, banks have stopped taking on new risks.  In fact, they are so risk adverse that their behavior is not unlike a child who burns her hand on a stove.  It might take her months before she wanders past to that very stove without fear.  The banks are no better in this economy.

The global banking conundrum would not be as bad if the economy were stronger.  But with joblessness so high (pushing 20% depending on the true measure that you use), any contraction in credit is going to have a devastating effect on many businesses and families.  We have an economy that is rooted in consumption (73% by last measure), and without credit people cut back on consumption, whether it be personal items or new homes.  The problem continues to spiral as you incorporate the housing problems – millions of homes under foreclosure and banks unwilling to address the core of the problem.

The silver lining to debt is that it can become irrelevant over time.  As long as payments are made as expected and the economy moves back into a steady growth scenario the problem becomes self correcting.  We do eventually inflate our way out of the debt burden (over decades however) and investor confidence returns which allows for short-term debt maturities to be rolled over.  While I’m not saying with certainty that our problems will fall away, and a significant moral hazard is likely to develop, there is a road out of this that doesn’t lead to a disastrous outcome.

Outlook for 2012

Unfortunately I don’t have a resounding answer for “what’s next.”  It was a brutal year in 2011, one that emphasized the point that we’re experiencing a tectonic shift in the economy – a function of social and technological changes.  In the way that the last half of 2011 was a week-by-week affair, this year may be much more of the same.  There will likely be a period of relief where the market calms, as we’re starting to witness in the earnings numbers, but the problems are still lurking below the surface.  Iran and Israel is perhaps the most pressing of those problems – what happens there will impact all of us.

In a practical sense, some trends are likely to continue.  We expect:

  • Stable, cash-flow oriented companies to be the better performers in the equity markets
  • Fixed income to continue to be the better of the two investments, but with short maturities
  • The yield curve could suffer some dramatic shifts, impacting investment grade bond pricing in hard swings
  • Commodities to continue to be constrained from water scarcity and population growth
  • Currency movements and dollar devaluation being the largest risks to investment portfolios in 2012

This is just a brief overview of where we stand today – we will be publishing more detailed analysis of these trends and issues in the coming months.  In the interim, have a great winter.

Regards,

 

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

 

1 One of my favorite quotes of the year came from a Greek cabinet member, “Europe needs Greece more than Greece needs Europe” in reference to their obligations to pay back European debt holders.  This attitude still prevails today in many European countries that have ballooned their debts while gutting their economies.

Market Update: October 2011

/in /by

Market Update – October 2011

Since my last market update, we have witnessed another collapse not unlike the fall of 2008.  In many ways this time is different.  The markets have lost only 17% from their highs, no banks have failed and many asset classes are still holding onto their fundamental value.  But in a troubling manner, this time is quite similar to 2008 when one looks at volatility and fear.  Once again at Vodia we are asked the questions about economic Armageddon and depression.  New records are set based on daily market movements, and assets bubbles are formed and deflated on a weekly basis.

This market review will look at the major trends over the past two months, both economic and psychological.  What I will leave to a different writing are the reasons that we are here – a culmination of factors and behaviors that have come together after decades of erosion to our economic core and serial financial bubbles.  Look for our Research Note in mid-October that directly addresses the origins of our economic troubles.

Fear for Fear Itself

At the core of our investment philosophy is the understanding and management of risk.  In its simplest form, we as human beings abhor uncertainty.  Whether it be the ancients calling on the gods for a rationale behind randomness or the television weather forecasters pinpointing the next storm (with about as much success as the ancients), we simply want to know what happens next.  In the converse, the presence of certainty creates a level of value in itself.  For instance, those companies that pay an increasing dividend, come thick or thin, are valued far higher than those companies who have a variable dividend policy.  And a known income stream from a bond is more attractive than a higher income stream that might include losses.

This dynamic has stretched to a level that we have never seen before.  In its most direct form, the bond market with its “knowns” has fared far better than the stock market this year.  In fact, despite the downgrade on US Treasuries, they are the best performing asset class for the quarter.  But not just on a relative basis.  Last month, the return on a 10-year Treasury traded as low as 1.7% per annum.  On an absolute basis, the 10-year has never traded at that level – ever.  The investment here is a stark one – agree to give the government your money for the next ten years and receive 1.7% (taxable) per year, irrespective of inflation or the value of the dollar.  Given that inflation averages 3% per year, you are accepting a known loss for this certainty.  That is fear in its simplest version.

There are a number of factors that have driven rates to those levels, many of which relate to the economy and the current political situation in Washington.  But one of those factors is indisputable – the wild gyrations of the stock market.  The chart below shows the movement of the S&P 500 for the year to date.  While all was cozy during the first half of the year, with the market moving in a range of +1 to +10%, August was a collapse.  On the heels of Standard & Poor’s debt downgrade of the US (I won’t waste any more of your time or ink on that debacle), the market lost 11% in the span of just two days.  It was a movement straight down and one that we highlighted in our August Market Update, when we also indicated that these lows on the S&P 500 would be seen again.

Over the past three years we have seen the S&P 500 go from highs to extreme lows and back again.  From where we stand now, the market could easily break in either direction – back to the lows or back to the highs – dependent as much on economic fundamentals as investor psychology.  Volatility will have a heavy influence on the next set of moves.

When isolated from the broader movements, the past three months witnessed a steep decline followed by seven weeks of volatility with the market in a holding pattern relative to the overall trend.

Since those few days in August, it has been a form of volatility that I’ve never seen in the markets, either current or historically.  While the daily movements regularly range up to 4%, and movements of 10% almost every week, the market has not gained or lost any value.  We are “range-bound” – stuck between 1100 and 1218 on the S&P 500, while showing no signs of leaving that range.  Yes, we have hit those early August lows again, and again and again (as of this writing, we are hitting them for the 5th time in two months).  But never any lower.  It is volatility for the sake of volatility.

This has a devastating effect on the markets, not unlike the collapse of a bank.  Individual investors are simply driven from the market, leaving just the gamblers and day traders.  Mutual funds and institutional investors are forced into defensive positions to attempt to protect their funds and fear becomes the trade.  The only ones who benefit, ironically, are the banks who run their own trading desks that profit on fear and volatility.

The impact can be seen across a range of assets and investments.  I already touched upon the Treasury market, but all bonds have gone through gyrations and twists that defy a simple explanation.  Some examples from the past three weeks alone:  Gold was down -16% in September after being up +18% in August.  Silver was down -38% in September after a +60% run-up during the year.  And junk bonds are down -6% in just a few days being stable throughout the quarter.

The volatility of the equity markets has generated its own trading dynamics, driving up volatility in many of the safer assets and driving down prices.  In this respect, we are witnessing a very similar set of dynamics to 2008.  Yet the causes are different, and the effects will also render different results.

Economic Stresses

The impetus to these market conditions is surprisingly a set of conditions that are not a surprise.  As at least one economist put it on NPR last week, we are coming to realize the full extent of the economic malaise and recession that began in 2006.  While the National Bureau of Economic Research pinpointed the recession to the end of 2007, it seems that the economy was in a retracted state for quite some time, and has likely never left that state.  And while the economic stimulus from 2009 helped to avert further declines, it was not enough to reverse the contractions on a permanent basis.

This dynamic is evident in the employment figures that we have been tracking since the recession began.  As a reminder, we look at total US employment as a measure of economic health, not the unemployment figure as widely reported.  While they should intuitively be the corollary of each other, the latter statistic is deeply flawed.  Only by looking at true employment do we get a sense of where we have been as an economy and where we might be headed.  Looking at the percentage of Americans who are employed today, it has experienced a massive decline from the employment highs of the past 20 years, putting us at sustained levels not experienced since the 1970s.

While the American economy and demographic has evolved since the 1940s, our employment situation has deteriorated to the same levels as forty years ago.

When combined with the very real demographic and cultural shifts in America, our current employment level introduces a new standard of living for Americans.  With healthcare and educational costs rising 10-fold since the 1970s, combined with elevated debt levels, our standard of living increasingly depends on dual-income households which have gone from the norm to a luxury in this recession.  The shift is not a subtle one, nor a happy one.  From recent college grads who bemoan living at home while they take on internships, to 50-somethings who are forced into retirement after corporate downsizing, the changes are inescapable.

Beyond the employment picture, we have the continued overhang from the real estate bubble.  With so many mortgages underwater, millions in foreclosure, and banks unwilling to lend to anyone but the perfect borrower, the primary asset class and savings vehicle for Americans is stuck.  Given the magnitude of the problem, it will be several years until we begin to see certainty in real estate price appreciation.  Although some regions are still faring well, there are entire swaths of homes across the South and West that will need to find buyers or be demolished.  A sad waste of resources and economic capital.

Rest of the World

And while we struggle here at home to find our economic footing, alongside a political dysfunction that could be a tale of self-interest for the ages, Europe and Asia are struggling in different but equally damaging ways.  Again not new, Greece’s woes are still at the center of a potential European collapse.  In this situation, it is not the prospect of a Greek default that is the problem.  It is the follow-on failures of the holders of Greek debt that worries the financial world.  In a manner not that different from Lehman’s collapse of 2008, Greece could trigger a broader meltdown.

The prospects for stemming this collapse are tangled yet again into political inaction.  The solution could be a simple one that begins with shared sacrifice.  But it appears that few of the participants are willing to accept responsibility for these decisions while the citizens of these countries cry out in despair at the thought of losing their socialized state.  Change and uncertainty is difficult for everyone – whether it be in the form of market volatility or smaller pensions.  Yet this is the prospect that we must all face.

So while Europe deals with their decades of indecision and bloated budgets, Asia is facing a far different yet equally daunting challenge.  China in particular is starting to show the cracks of an overambitious expansion plan that ignores the impact beyond its borders.  Starting with a decade of currency manipulation, China finds itself the lender to the world holding onto collateral that might be worth far less than previously assumed.  By being the low-cost provider while effectively banning imports for the past twenty years, China has amassed trillions in foreign currency and foreign debt while the rest of the world struggles to manage their debt obligations.

China pursued this policy in the modernization of one billion people while maintaining tight control of society.  The policy extended to research and development, where China unabashedly steals from the world what they view as important to their economy.  The disregard for intellectual property (IP), namely the theft of all IP that enters the country, may have shown its first fatal flaws this summer.  While there is no definite evidence of such, The Wall Street Journal reported that China’s fatal high-speed train crash might be a by-product of a foreign firm’s unwillingness to share proprietary details on the collision avoidance systems that China employs.  Knowing that anything sent to China will be reverse-engineered, the Japanese provider of these systems put the controls into a “blackbox” solution that protects their design.  Unfortunately, it also prevents diagnostics on these devices, leaving testing to real-life events.  On the heels of short-cuts from rapid development, the entire rail system is now exposed to failures that are absent in high-speed rail systems around the world.

Painful Decade or Bad Century

As we will address in our Research Note, we are facing the pain for decades of failed government policies, a short-sighted consumer society and a financial services sector run amuck.  And in the same way that it took decades to get here, it will be at least a decade to get out of this hole.  The asset bubbles of the 1990s and 2000s only served to mask the problem, and deepen the hole.  Now is time to inch out of that hole.  As Thomas Friedman recently said, we can have a painful decade ahead or a bad century.

In the short term, we need for some calm in the markets to restore values to their intrinsic level.  What happens on a monetary and fiscal level will help with the short-term loss of values, and maybe even aid in the recovery.  But it will require a shift in the way that we function as an economy and society for these troubles to be permanently eradicated.

Fortunately, some signs of those changes are starting to happen.  The outsourcing of jobs to China and other countries is no longer a panacea.  Ford announced recently that they will bring some of those jobs back, at competitive wages based on negotiations with the labor unions.  Americans now have a completely different view of debt, and are far less willing to surrender their financial future to the whims of a monolithic bank.  And households will learn to live on a single income and adjust their spending decisions accordingly.

In the meantime, despite society’s kicking and screaming (whether it be riots in Europe or delusional political rhetoric in the US), we are going to suffer through the shift in consumption, savings, and investment that lead to a sustainable economy.  There are times when volatility will reign, such as now, and there will be times when it looks like this was all a bad dream.  Let us hope in the process we don’t continue to damage what we do have left.

All the best for fall.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA
Managing Principal