Wikinvest Wire

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Sunday Morning Coffee

In the last couple of months I have taken to reading John Mauldin's weekly commentary via Barry Ritholtz' website. A few years ago, not knowing anything about him, I picked on some comments from Mauldin which was shortsighted on my part. But you learn and I have come to be quite fond of his letter.

He seems to do a good job of weeding through things and then rendering an opinion that is very easy to follow. Agreeing with him, or anyone for that matter, is not the point so much as learning about a particular point of view. He articulates his point very well whether you agree or not.

This week he knocks it out of the park with a couple of great one-liners and does a good job, with spreadsheet work from Mike Shedlock, of painting a pretty good picture of what the next decade in the US could look like economically and the influence certain political action could have over that period of time.

Mauldin takes Shedlock's spreadsheet of his expectation and creates a rosy outlook, a gloomy outlook and a middle of the road outlook. Based on the number of jobs needed to tread water, about 125,000 per month (1.5 million per year) there is no scenario where the unemployment rate goes back to where it was two years ago between now out to 2020 (there are numbers to back up the opinion so as mentioned above you can agree or disagree with the conclusion). The good scenario has the unemployment rate above 10% through 2013, the middle scenario has it up there through 2015 and the gloomy scenario stays at double digits through 2017 and above 8% through 2020.

Mauldin's gut leads him to conclude we will have a double dip recession starting in 2011. Part of his logic as follows;

I have serious doubts that we can have what amounts to the largest tax increase of all time in what will be a very weak (albeit growing) economy, without putting us back into recession. And Speaker Pelosi thinks it is a smart thing to add another 5.4% surtax on what will already be a rising capital gains and dividend tax.

I do not know Mauldin's politics but the things that the current leadership appears to believe in do not seem to be conducive to actually fixing things with an eye beyond the next election cycle. Not that the Republicans can take any high ground here as we'll be digging out from under the complete mismangement of almost everything under the Bush administration for a long time even if the seeds were planted during the Clinton years.

Here is a grim little nugget;

Sadly, the private sector has shed over 300,000 jobs since 1999. Think about that. We have had a decade where there have been no new jobs added by the private sector. Real incomes are roughly where they were, and the stock market is down. Talk about a lost decade.


A year or so ago I talked about the idea of a lost decade. The the economy and the stock market were starting to roll over people were asking whether we could have a lost decade like Japan. I contended that with no stock market progress we had already lost a decade even before we start thinking about jobs and stagnant (adjusted for inflation) wages.

Ten years, or more, is a long time for things to be this lousy but even after the ten years we've had it isn't all that bad. People like Peter Schiff and a few others paint a picture of society crumbling under the weight of these problems. If this were a realistic threat I think it would have started by now. Japan has been on a similar ride for 20 years and their society has not crumbled. The problems here and there are significant but ruinous on a societal level? No.

It reminds me of a story from Western Civ 101. I do not remember where this was or who it was but some sect was calling for the end of the world at 9:15 am on October 15 of whatever the year was. After 9:15 on October 15 came and went without the end of the world the sect then proclaimed the world had indeed ended but that no one realized it.

Japan has been a lousy investment destination and the US appears to have gone in that same direction but the world has not ended. If things are this bad then the solution must be to figure out where "normal" returns can be had and then invest in those places.

On a lighter note yesterday was a fantastic day for sports. Purdue-Michigan State was a squeaker, Boise State won a big one on the blue turf, Ohio State won the Big Ten in OT, Utah got smoked by the Horned Frogs while at the same time North Dakota hockey was on (I love UND hockey and they are on all the time) and then the Pacquiao win over Cotto which I did not buy. Even New Zealand jumped in, making its first World Cup since 1982. Not too shabby!

The picture is of Roscoe jumping out of the "fish pond" near our house taken by our friend Amy. What a shot.

17 comments:

RW said...

I've read Mauldin for years with considerable satisfaction: He's very conservative but sticks to facts, states his case clearly and (usually) avoids polemics with the result that some of my clearest thinking occurs when I disagree with his POV. In this case I think his conclusion that employment will remain a serious problem for a very long time is correct and a double dip recession is probable given his embedded assumptions regarding the negative role of government.

And Oregon State beat Washington State - go Beavs.

Anonymous said...

Roger, thanks for the very kind words. I appreciate them!

John

Anonymous said...

Mauldin is always a good read and usually right more than wrong. Very good at explaining things for people that need greater understanding on a topic.

Conservative yes, but also an optimist usually.

RW,

How can you stay a Keynes advocate after seeing huge government stimulus not succeed in Japan year after year after year. I know the typical response is they did not stimulate enough, but keynes approach has never been shown to work and Japans young people now have a bankrupt country. Will socialists ever learn?

Mike C said...

In this case I think his conclusion that employment will remain a serious problem for a very long time is correct and a double dip recession is probable given his embedded assumptions regarding the negative role of government.

Roger, RW, both of you seem onboard with the idea that a double-dip recession is likely in the not too distant future. I'm onboard with that as well.

Just pondering out loud, but where does that leave one in terms of equity exposure. We pretty much know that stocks will likely turn down 6-9 months in advance of the recession, and as Mauldin states the typical stock market decline during recession is 30-40%.

So aren't we living on borrowed time here, and sort of playing musical chairs with this current rally. Are we topping out here at 1100, do we have another 6 months of gains into the seasonally strong May 2010, or maybe even another 12-18 months? I don't know, and ultimately I'll probably heed the technical warning signs in terms of 200 DMA, etc. in terms of getting more defensive, but it is hard to believe that S&P 500 at 1100 represents a permanent level that won't be breached significantly to the downside at some point.

Given that, it seems that at some point raising cash for better buying opportunities down the road may be optimal. If "buy and hold" isn't going to provide "normal" returns, then doesn't one have to have significantly varying levels of market exposure to have any hope at generating "normal" returns?

Just trying to figure out how to best navigate this difficult environment.

Roger Nusbaum said...

Mike C, it leaves me ready to heed the 200 DMA if it comes into play and in the mean time kicking up the foreign exposure.

RW said...

MikeC, I added the phrase "given his embedded assumptions regarding the negative role of government" to the end because his logic doesn't hold up well w/o it. The Reaganesque stance that government can not do anything well (is the problem, not the solution) and lower taxes are always better than higher (why pay for it then?) necessarily precludes any possibility of effective governance (which is probably why Republicans governed so poorly, what difference could it make?), then no public interventionist policy can have the requisite impact and a double dip must be in the cards. My own opinion is that after 30 years of damage to our political culture it may indeed be impossible to muster the social will to respond adequately to the crisis but the jury is still out for now I think. I do believe that if there is a double dip then there's a good chance it will be an L recovery afterward and long bonds are going to look good again regardless.

okay, enough [rant mode on, feel free to ignore]

Anon 2:57

a. I have no idea what a "Keynes advocate" is: Keynes general theory provides an important model for confronting financial crisis, that's all: His original approach was almost entirely tactical, a way to short-circuit severe economic contractions while reducing their longer term social harm (you need to more closely study the history of the Great Depression to understand how close this country came to revolt). The notion that Keynes or any of those who followed him were champions of "stimulus" and government intervention under all circumstances was and is a canard.

b. You will need to supply a credible reference for the assertion that "keynes approach has never been shown to work" and Japan is “bankrupt” (I'd be interested in learning how this is possible for a reserve currency country myself). In any case, no one follows the Keynes model exclusively these days AFAIK, the closest is neo-Keynesian which includes Greg Mankiw (I heart Greg's pigovian tax club) and Paul Krugman but, as the Roubini article I previously posted discussed, Japan failed to enact important structural reforms so it remains unclear what the core of the problem is.

c. Keynes wasn't a socialist and neither am I, this is simply bullsh*t: Keynes model was not a system of government, it was an emergency response when capitalism set fire to the house; it's about saving the place, not tearing it down. Next time just try swearing if you want to be pejorative and don't want to use words the way they are formally defined. Cuss'n I can easily take, and even find amusing if it's creative (not sure how Roger feels though), but wrangling over definitional, historical, empirical and conceptual tangles becomes tedious after awhile.

[Crikey! /end rant]

Mike C said...

Speaking of "lost decade", in the U.S. we may very well be in store for one more lost decade before the ship finally turns around for the next big, secular upcycle.

Hussman has his weekly note up early this week:

http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc091116.htm

In my view, deeper loan losses are ahead, and if we deal with the next round the same way that we dealt with the last, we will ultimately succeed in debasing the U.S. dollar. There's little inflationary pressure at present, and chances are that fresh credit concerns will create enough demand for government liabilities to forestall inflationary pressures for several years more. But we cannot reimburse the losses of irresponsible lenders with trillions freshly issued government liabilities without those liabilities ultimately eroding in value. The probable real, after inflation return on stocks and bonds over the coming decade is likely to be very unsatisfactory.

That paragraph seems to dovetail perfectly Roger with your theme of increased foreign exposure, especially maybe in currencies likely to have secular tailwinds (Canada, Brazil?). The dollar debasement theme is also supportive of gold exposure as discussed last week.

Lastly, it seems to me that it will still be possible to make money in U.S. stocks if one realizes that like 1966-1982 a giant trading range market is likely to persist for many years. From 1966-1982, the correct move was to substantially sell stocks every single time the DJIA got up to 1000 and then just patiently wait for the next 30-50% decline to reestablish exposure.

My inclination is that we won't make the revisit trip back to 1500 like 2000 and 2007, and the top of this range is somewhat lower. My thought is that as we have entered this "New Normal" as described by Mauldin, Gross, El-Erian, etc. that maybe the top of this market range is 1100-1200 on the S&P with a floor between 650-850.

RW, Rog, I'd be interested if you have any strong opinions on that as a possible multi-year trading range. Again, going along with the idea of not making big bets, I have no intention of switching between 100% invested and 0% invested, but maybe time to start getting more defensive at these levels based on valuation and headwinds like the mortgage scenario Hussman lays out, or do you wait for the 200 DMA breach which may not occur until significantly lower then 1100.

FWIW, right now I'm about 45% U.S. equities, 15% broad commodities, and 10% gold. I need to work on getting up my foreign exposure, but I'd like to do country specific rather then just buy EEM.

Roger, maybe I missed it, but what are say your top 5 emerging countries thinking big-picture next decade. Thanks for any answers.

Mike C said...

(you need to more closely study the history of the Great Depression to understand how close this country came to revolt).

Yes, I'll echo this. I've done some reading on this, and based on what I've read the situation was precarious. I think ultimately Maslow's hierachy of needs takes over, and a man must eat and so must his family. Desperate men will do desperate things, and in today's society I think any moral or ethical restraints are even in shorter supply compared to the 1930s. I think the Ayn Randians don't seem to understand this:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/

The more I ponder this issue, the more I come to believe the distinction between the "productive" and "unproductive" is at least somewhat a crock of sh*t. Is the derivatives trader at Goldman "productive"? Is the unemployed willing skilled craftsman who can't find work because the housing market is down "unproductive".

Roger Nusbaum said...

as far as that trading range--i've not been that pessimistic and am still not. trading down to an 8 handle, that is a different story but 6? i don't think so.

top five emerging markets? i don't come at it that way. we own brazil, chile, china, israel (probably not emerging anymore), south africa for a few people and also ADRE and EMIF are in our ownership universe.

that list will evolve.

Anonymous said...

Mike C,

I agree with you that the market will go up and down, but how do you justify a top of 1100 - 1200? I think the top and similarly the bottom are rather difficult to define right now. It looks like a bull and acts like a bull and all I can do is stay with the trend until it changes.

RW,

Japan owes 180% of gdp on there way to 200% in the near future. If that is not bankrupting the next generation I would hate to see what you would think it takes to bankrupt Japan. Has all this stimulus helped Japans economy? I know Japan can turn on the printing presses with a few simple changes on a hard disk, but is eventually destroying the currency a solution?

I have not cursed at you nor do I ever intend to. I just think Keynes economic model for macro economics is as valid as the mathematical models about the sun and planets rotating around the earth a few hundred years ago.

The stimulus money here is yet to be spent by and large yet monetary policy by the fed has successfully stimulated the economy even if I agree we will see a double dip. I am just tired of the Keynes/socialist hog wash that government debt will ever solve anything. Japan has tried it to the EXTREME and not solved their economic problems.

I would hate to saddle the next generation in America to this same "solution" from Keynesian proponents.

Anonymous said...

Roger,

Given your typical level-headed view of the markets, and investing in general, I'm aghast to learn that you've only recently (relatively speaking) discovered John's writing.

I'd say you both share more in common, than not.

Old Trader

Roger Nusbaum said...

to paraphrase Harry Doyle (the announcer from Major League played by Bob Uecker) "i'm not the brightest, folks."

Matthew said...

Here is some attempt to give the economists under discussion a fair shake. I don't recall Peter Schiff predicting societal collapse in the US, just economic collapse. I believe he has said that he would invest in the US after the economy is well through the D-process and ready to grow again. Listening to Schiff you could get the impression that the US is the worst place to invest, I think that we may still be in the running for middle of the pack. It could be a glum pack though, we'll see.

If anyone has not seen Schiff's talk to the Western Regional Mortgage Bankers Conference in November 2006 you should find it on youtube. It is epic! He tells all these real estate guys why the game is up and exactly how they will go down.

Keynes was pretty pragmatic politically and economically. It is definitely better to read him than the neo-Keynesians who just constantly advocate for heavy handed government intervention in every part of the economy. Keynes certainly was cited by politicians who wanted to believe that they could create economic recovery by doing whatever crazy scheme their advisers thought up. This doesn't necessarily mean that those were Keynes' ideas.

If you buy into the deficit spending camp there are two ways to attempt to stimulate the economy with deficit spending. 1) Cut taxes, but keep government expenditures the same - this allows the private sector to allocate the stimulus money in the best way possible. 2) Let government loose to increase spending on pet projects while racking up debt.

#1 was tried in the 1980s and most observers who are not too politically polarized would probably agree it worked to shorten the recession. #2 was tried in the 1930s, many economists think that the counterproductive mis-allocation of resources deepened and prolonged the depression. Unfortunately we are following course #2 today.

There was all kinds of crazy experimentation in the 1930s. To pick an example: National Industrial Recovery Act forced industries into government organized cartels to dictate pricing and production. This program managed to crush industrial production by 25% in 6 months after taking affect. It was eventually ruled unconstitutional. Yet again today a "car Czar" and other crack-brained ideas are being floated.

Minsky wasn't mentioned by name in this discussion, but his ideas were: that capitalist markets inevitably have recessions. I think when people cite Minsky though they forget that there is no such thing as a pure capitalist economy. What does exist is free markets with some degree of government intervention. Modeling the incentive distortions created by that government intervention as a non-rational economic actor, can actually tell you a lot about if an economy is subject to the boom-bust cycle and how sever it will be. Minsky doesn't tell us why different markets at different times have behaved very differently.

When people say "the free market needs government intervention" or something related keep in mind that economists that have come up with theories supporting this idea were looking at data from non-pure free markets and assuming that they were pure free markets. Micro-economics is probably better at un-tangling this data than macro-economic unified theories.

As far as pointing fingers at democrats and republicans. Keep in mind that Clinton was easily more fiscally conservative than Hoover - FDR actually was elected on a platform of cutting taxes and reducing government programs. I guess the absolute power went to his head though! The modern revisionist history says that Hoover was a Republican raving free-marketeer and FDR (the democrat) saved the country with his wacky government interventions. This is convenient but objectively wrong.

RW said...

Good grief: Talk about objectively wrong.

This is how a neo-Keynesian actually thinks: http://tinyurl.com/ylozbkd (just the slide show, not the talk). And here's another neo-Keynesian by way of demonstrating the range of their thinking (and the unrecogizability of your caricature): http://tinyurl.com/yjgk7yc

And this is where you begin studying the Great Depression: A good general history such as http://tinyurl.com/ygasa29 followed by an economic history using primary sources such as http://tinyurl.com/yh46nst possibly followed in turn by the primary document http://tinyurl.com/yh46nst that led to public support for stronger regulations. GD/New Deal debunkers are a poor place to start because they have a message to send and the ambiguity of the world clouds that message so they are obliged to, umm ...'clarify' historical visibility.

Enough of this.

Mike C said...

@ Matthew

Interesting comments there for me to think about, and it looks like RW has provided a pretty extensive reading list as well in rebuttal. Sometimes I wonder if anyone really knows what happened in the U.S. in the 30s and Japan from the 90s to present and whether government policy made things better or just prolonged the bad times.

@ Anonymous

I agree with you that the market will go up and down, but how do you justify a top of 1100 - 1200? I think the top and similarly the bottom are rather difficult to define right now.

Difficult. No doubt. There is nothing easy about this economic/market environment. So how do I arrive at 1100-1200? From a few different angles none of which guarantee I am right, but the higher the market goes during this "cyclical bull" the more one takes on downside risk for less upside potential. Does anyone at all really believe we will see the S&P at 1500-2000 in the next 5-10 years on a permanent basis?

So here are my reasons, some of which overlap:

1. Typical rally after secular bear market crash is around +70%

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/08/aftermath-of-secular-bear-markets/

That magnitude of rally is basically what you saw after the 1937 bear and 1973-1974 bear for the 1938 rally and the 75-76 rally.

2. 1100-1200 is the line of demarcation that separates the pre-Lehman and post-Lehman worlds. That is the gap on the chart that is in the process of being filled, and separates a leveraged world from a deleveraging world. In my view, to paraphrase an old presidential slogan, “Its all about credit, stupid”. I think most market participants are still not recognizing the magnitude of this D-process and the effect it will have on corporate profits for many years:

http://www.contraryinvestor.com/mo.htm

3. Valuation. Shiller's P/E now stands at 20 which puts it at the bottom of the 1st quintile. If we get up to 1200, we will basically be at previous market peaks including the wacky, nutty peaks of 1929 and 2000

http://www.dshort.com/charts/SP-and-PE10-large.gif

Now we all know there is nothing magical about a particular valuation level that the market just stops at. 2000 and 2007 are proof of that. That said, I’m thinking people have finally learned their lesson, and after having bought an expensive market in 98-00 and getting killed and buying an expensive market in 06-07 and getting killed, I’m thinking that anyone even remotely cognizant and appreciative of valuation issues is going to be reluctant to commit major money to the market at 1200+ given that it is difficult to see where long-term sustainable EPS growth is going to come from the next 5 years in a deleveraging environment.

But to your point, yes, for now the trend is up whether this is a “cyclical bull” or “countertrend rally” and maybe we have enough steam to keep on trucking into that seasonally strong May 2010

http://www.raymondjames.com/inv_strat.htm

But we both know the trend is your friend until it isn’t and it will take a certain amount of persistent deterioration significantly below whatever the ultimate top turns out to be to trigger a trend reversal signal such as below 200 DMA or 50 DMA below 200 DMA. The question is at what point does one say to hell with the trend, and simply decide that valuation dictates reducing equity exposure?

Mike C said...

Correction, I meant EXCLUDING the 1929 and 2000 peaks which had Shiller P/E's off in their own worlds

Matthew said...

@ Mike C. said "Sometimes I wonder if anyone really knows what happened in the U.S. in the 30s and Japan from the 90s"

Please let me encourage you to not give up in the search to determine if government spending was effective or destructive. Just because there is debate about an issue doesn't mean that the issue is un-important or that either answer could be true - only one or the other is true. This is very important today since current government spending has far eclipsed what was spent on the New Deal in inflation adjusted dollars.

If New Deal spending helped the economy of the 1930s then we should be golden. On the other hand if the New Deal deepened the depression and impeded recovery then we and our children are in big trouble and digging deeper by the day

@ RW : I enjoy your investing commentary and I am fellow beaver fan by the way. I get the impression that you didn't read my post in entirety since I was defending Keynes. I have nothing against neo-Keynesians (indeed that is why I exist as my grandfather was a professor of economics).

Not all muslims are terrorists but nearly all terrorists are muslim. Similarly not all neo-Keynesians are Statists, but nearly every Statist (in this country at least) cites Keynes. And he's not here to defend himself.

I am not sure why sending me a link to a blog post from 2006 arguing for a regressive gasoline tax is supposed to impress me with the post-Keynsian view of economic stimulus.

What is scary to me is that those in political power seem to get all giggly and excited when thinking about the New Deal. They see this as a road map for government policy. FDR was an effective political animal, but a complete amateur at economics. Consider:

"It's a lucky number, because it's three times seven." -- Roosevelt when asked why he was considering raising the price of gold by $0.21

"I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” -- Roosevelt when asked if it was a mistake to levy the Social Security payroll taxes in the depths of a depression.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work ... After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!" -- Henry Morgenthau who was FDRs Treasury Secretary

Proud Member Of