Posts

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.