Posts

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: 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

Market Snapshot – Volatility is Back

/in /by

Market Snapshot – August 5, 2011

Volatility is Back

Not unlike the summer of 2010 (or the summer of 2009, or 2008, or 2007), we have seen the markets go back onto the roller coaster.  While the reasons are disconcerting, and the prognosis is still uncertain, we are well positioned to ride through the volatility.  In a brief snapshot of events this week:

 

  • The broader U.S. market lost all of the gains for the year and slipped into negative territory.  When this “slip” occurred on Thursday, it helped to fuel an extensive sell-off late in the day, resulting in nearly a 5% drop by closing.
  • Bond prices have mostly held steady.  Investment grade bonds are up, while high-yield markets have shown a little slippage.  Nothing to cause a disruption in either direction, except for the temporary spike in Treasury prices and the commensurate drop in rates to extreme lows.
  • Gold screams ahead – a traditional safe haven.
  • Individual stock prices have shown more volatility than the index.  Basic names such as Dow are getting hammered, while Apple has retained its short-term gains based on their recent earnings release.
  • The S&P is trading at 12-times projected earnings, well below the historical mean of 16x.

 

The roots of these events, however, are not so obvious:

 

  • The debt-ceiling debate, while resolved for the time being, did serious damage to the national psyche.
  • The debt reduction measures, incorporated into the debt-ceiling legislation, will reduce our overall productions by 1-2% per year based on estimates.
  • GDP growth in the first half of the year was anemic (<1%).
  • All combined there is a real possibility that we could enter a recession again.

 

Through all this, we have not heard from the Federal Reserve Bank.  While Congress is unable to discuss any stimulus given the political climate, the Fed is free to act independently.  Most likely, if there is a serious threat of a double-dip recession they will again act to inflate asset prices through a variation of QE2.

Our portfolios have fared well in this environment.  We took several steps over the past three weeks to hedge against this situation: raising cash, lowering equities and selling potentially volatile bonds.  All of these steps are important to buffer against losses and now we are well positioned to increase positions at some very attractive prices.  The challenge, of course, is to find the bargains that will retain long-term value.

Our work continues.  But in the interim, I want to emphasize that we have stayed ahead of this correction while keeping options open to us.

 

Please write or call with questions.

 

Regards,

 

David

 

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Pricipal

Vodia Capital

Market Update – October 2010

/1 Comment/in /by

An Anxious Summer

It has been three years this fall since the financial crisis began, and by my estimation, it will be another seven years until we have fully recovered.  Yes, I see it as a decade-long event, beginning with the subprime crisis (July 2007) and reaching its height in the failure of Lehman Brother (September 2008).  Under that assumption, we’ve had a pretty good year.  The stock market is up 4% for the year (nearly half of which is dividends), the corporate bond market is up 12%, and commodities are up 4%.  These may not look like great returns, especially if you’re still trying to restore your retirement account from the collapse of 2008, but given the alternative it is pretty impressive.

This view is best understood when you look at the stock market against the VIX, commonly referred to as the “fear gauge.”  The VIX is a composite index that tracks the implied volatility on S&P futures.  Put into plain English, it is a measure of expected future losses.  The higher the VIX goes, the more expensive it is to insure against such losses.  The chart below shows that while the S&P has flat-lined for most of 2010, VIX looks like it went through a cardiac arrest.

SPX and VIX

Specifically, it was the “flash crash” on May 9 that created the anxiety and that stress lasted through the entire summer.  It was only when we arrived in the last week of August that the anxiety level returned to a more normal buzz and the US stock market began a 10% rise to recover the year’s losses.  The question remains – what caused such a stir in early May and why did it create such fear of equities.  While there is now a plausible explanation of the flash crash recently published by the SEC, in fact it could still happen again.  What we did experience through the summer was a rather tame pull-back.  Had things truly gotten worse in the economy and around the globe, we would have likely seen a persistent 20% drop or more.

Fortunately, the net result is a gain.  For the year to date the S&P 500 is up 4% with dividends, and the VIX is sitting at 23 – elevated but not unusually so.  For comparison, prior to the crash, VIX commonly sat in the low teens with 30 being a crescendo prior to a market decline.

My “decade-long recovery” prediction, while frankly a guesstimate, reflects the challenges that we face in all areas of the economy.  During this time, expect for economic growth to be slow and market returns to be in the single digits.  Under those conditions, a total return of 8% for the year is a very respectable figure.  With a 4% gain through the first three quarters, we’re on track to stay within those bounds.

Two of the factors that will determine a full recovery are employment and housing.  In fact, they are intricately tied together with bank lending at the root of the problem.  While large investment-grade public corporations have easy access to the credit markets (Microsoft raised 3-year paper at less than 1%), smaller businesses and private firms with less-than-perfect finances are having a nasty time of borrowing.  The mortgage market is even worse.  Mortgage assessments are driven by comparables, and with so many foreclosures out there the comps look awful in even the best neighborhoods.  To make matters worse, banks are simply not extending mortgages to folks without three years of steady income.

So with so many folks looking for work and valuations at such lows, it is simply impossible for most people to obtain a mortgage to buy or refinance.  With so much potential equity tied up in our homes, a large source of net worth has been frozen.  Complicating matters, it makes it nearly impossible to move cities to find work or change jobs.

Implied in all of this is the plight of small business, a common growth driver in the American economy.  No loans means little capital to expand and grow.  No growth, no new jobs.  The cycle continues.  While I am bullish on the American entrepreneur and our ability to adapt as a country, it will be years for the foundation to be repaired.

Repositioning of the Portfolios

To respond to these conditions, we are looking to reposition the portfolios accordingly:

Equities:  We increased some of our equity exposure in August when the market was experiencing a temporary low, although we continue to maintain an underexposure due to the current economic prospects.  The areas that we are increasing are related to cash or global growth.  Notably, companies with growing dividends are going to continue to be a focus along with industrials and medical technology firms.  Irrespective of the US’s prospects, these industries will continue to remain strong.

Alternatives:  To augment the equity exposure, we have increased our alternative asset class.  Ranging from commodities to REITs, these are assets that have low-to-zero correlation with equities yet maintain similar growth prospects.  The table below demonstrates these correlations against the S&P 500.  Although commodities have a similar growth prospect, a third of the time they move independently of the market.  Gold is far less correlated to stocks, and bonds are effectively not correlated at all.  Emerging markets, on the other hand, is almost always correlated with US stocks.  Incorporating lower-correlated assets allows us to maintain similar growth prospects in the portfolio with less extreme fluctuations in value.

 

SPX Correlations

Two-year daily correlations from October 2008 to October 2010. Because of the significant exposure to oil in the DB Commodity Index, it has a higher correlation over this period than prior to 2008.

 

Fixed Income: With the persistent fear in the markets combined with excessive monetary easing, bond prices have reached highs rarely seen.  Any issue that is less than 10 years is pricing at yields of 2-3%.  If you factor in any inflation into the economy during this period, your bond real-return is likely to be zero or negative.  As a result, we are selling any traditional corporate bond holdings that are less than a 10-year maturity.  This does not include any of the structured notes we currently hold or floating rate bonds, since most of these have mechanisms to generate solid returns in both recovery and stagnation scenarios.

We will closely monitor events this fall, with the election being the next hurdle in market stability.  As usual, uncertainly creates anxiety and just the resolution of the political shift in itself will help to stabilize equity returns.  Please don’t hesitate to contact us with questions or comments, and all the best for the fall.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA

Managing Principal

Financial Crisis – Three Years and Counting

/1 Comment/in /by
Wall Street Sign. Author: Ramy Majouji

Image via Wikipedia

It has been three years since this financial crisis began.  Yet if you follow the news, all the discussion has been around the two-year anniversary of the Lehman collapse and how the world has done since then.  If we are to truly understand the nature of this economic malaise, we have to remember its roots – in the subprime crisis of 2007.  That was the year in which the credit markets froze.  From a financial viewpoint the credit markets rule the economy – not the stock market, as you might come to believe if you watch too much network television. Without banks lending to banks, to companies or to people you are not going to be able to grow an economy, much less buy that house you were interested in.

The damage that was caused by the sub-prime crisis and credit market freeze cannot be underestimated.  It dragged the US economy into the worst recession on record.  It pushed millions out of work, permanently.  It pushed two investment banks to the verge of failure – Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch.  It pushed another into bankruptcy – Lehman Brothers.  That bankruptcy seized the global asset markets – all of them.

So then is it a surprise that three years into this crisis, and a trillion dollars of government stimulus money, that we’re still suffering the effects?  Absolutely not.  And if it is another two years until we have true stability in the global asset markets, it would not surprise me.

David B. Matias