Archive for November, 2008

Epic Stock Market Declines — Updated Chart of the Day

Kurt Brouwer November 19th, 2008

This is the sixth serious stock market decline I’ve been through, but for many this is quite a new phenomenon.  So, I thought this chart would be useful as it illustrates how this decline compares to big ones over the past few decades.  What makes this downturn different and more difficult is that it combines the very steep and quick decline of the 1987 crash with the depth of the 1973-74 or 2000-2002 declines.

One other difference is that stock valuations were extremely high in 2000 and so a serious decline made some sense as a normal market function.  However, stock market valuations were not at stratospheric levels a year ago.  Therefore, this decline was driven by other factors, such as the drop in real estate prices, the deleveraging of almost all financial institutions and the failures of many (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, Bear Stearns, WAMU, Wachovia and so on).  Those failures led to widespread fear and outright panic at times.  As that panic spread throughout the world, individuals and companies began cutting back their spending and investment and that has pushed the economy into a contraction or recession.  And, worries about declining corporate earnings due to the recession have helped drive stocks even lower.

As the chart indicates, this stock market decline has almost been as deep as the two other big ones, but this decline has been compressed into a much shorter time than those declines.  We posted this chart from the wonderful Calculated Risk blog a while back.  This has been updated through November 19, 2008:

cr-stockcrashesnov192008-smaller.JPG

Source: Calculated Risk

The bad news is that stocks have plummeted. The good news is that values and valuations have improved.  One obvious metric is dividend yields.  The dividend yield on the S&P 500 is now over 3.5%, which is slightly above the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield of 3.35%.  Having dividend yields above the yield on 10-year Treasuries is a very rare event.  In fact, it has not happened in my memory.  This is just one example of how valuations are improving as this decline continues.  Here’s hoping they don’t improve much more though.

Consumer Prices Plunge

Kurt Brouwer November 19th, 2008

We’ve been writing for a while now that inflation pressures were on the wane and that deflation was on the rise.  Today’s announcement by the Department of Labor makes it clear that consumer prices are tumbling and that inflation is — at least for now — not a big deal.  This piece from the Associated Press makes the point [emphasis added]:

Consumer prices plunged by the largest amount in the past 61 years in October as gasoline pump prices dropped by a record amount.

The Labor Department said Wednesday that consumer prices fell by 1 percent last month, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back to February 1947. The drop was twice as large as the 0.5 percent decline analysts expected.

…The big drop in inflation reflected not only a huge fall in gasoline and other energy costs, but widespread declines in other areas. Core consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, fell by 0.1 percent last month, the first drop in core prices in more than a quarter-century.

There were price declines for clothing, new and used cars, and airline fares. Analysts predicted further declines in the months ahead as retailers struggle to attract consumers who are being battered by rising unemployment and the weak economy.

…The big retreat in consumer prices represented a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago when a relentless surge in energy prices raised concerns that inflation could get out of control…

Falling prices for consumer goods mean that people have a little more money in their pockets than they would have had if prices stayed high.  For example, I have seen several estimates of the annual savings we obtain from each decrease in gas prices of one penny.  As I understand it, each one penny reduction in gas prices saves Americans well over $1 billion per year.

As the average price is down by about $2 from the high point of $4.12 or more, I estimate that the annual savings will be somewhere between $200 and $300 billion.

A billion here…a billion there…after a while it adds up.

For more on this, see Inflation versus Deflation and  Does the Government Understate Inflation?.

Inflation versus Deflation

Kurt Brouwer November 18th, 2008

In those halcyon days before Hank Paulson, TARP, subprime and credit default swap became household words, there was widespread concern about inflation.  Though it seems like a distant memory, it was only five or six months ago that inflation was soaring along with oil, food and other commodities.  Oil hit $146 per barrel and gasoline was north of $4 a gallon.

This is an interesting chart in that it illustrates the inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of since 1980.

cd-realgas.jpg

Source: Carpe Diem

Earlier this year, the news was full of stories about the inevitable trend towards higher and higher gas prices. Yet now, gasoline prices are falling and from this chart we can see that we are paying the same cost for gas that we were paying 28 years, once inflation has been factored in.  Actually, our gas bills are probably lower because cars generally have better mileage today than they did back then.

With falling prices for energy and other commodities, inflation is no longer as visible a concern as it was earlier this year.  In fact, the pricing of TIPs (Treasury Inflation Protection) bonds reflects a most benign view of future inflation — slim to none.  What a difference a few months makes (see Inflation Falls In August). But, with shares in the stock market plummeting, real estate prices falling, bond prices down along with commodities, another specter has arisen — deflation.

Inflation means that we are experiencing a general increase in the price of goods we buy.  Deflation is the opposite, that is, a general decline in the prices of the goods we buy. Inflation is very common in most developed countries, but deflation is rare.  The last time we had protracted deflation was in the Great Depression of the 1930s.

We have often seen asset deflation in a particular market such as stocks from 2000- 2002.  But, we very seldom see deflation across the range of most assets — stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities and so on.  However, that is exactly we have in front of us now.  And, that’s why, this financial panic and economic downturn is frequently linked to the Great Depression because we have seen wholesale asset deflation over the past year or so just as we did back then.

Recently, we have also begun to see declines in the cost of living.  That is, in August and September, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) actually went down slightly. As a sign of things to come, we are also seeing falling wholesale prices due to declining demand.  With falling wholesale prices, we can infer that we will see declining inflation in the months to come.  This piece from AP gives some details [emphasis added]:

October Wholesale Prices Plunge Record 2.8 Percent (Real Clear Markets / Associated Press, November 18, 2008, Martin Crutsinger)

…The Labor Department reported Tuesday that wholesale prices dropped by 2.8 percent in October, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back more than 60 years. The previous record holder was a 1.6 percent fall in October 2001, the month after the terrorist attacks.

The overall decline in the department’s Producer Price Index was bigger than the 1.8 percent drop analysts had expected. However, core inflation, which excludes energy and food, was not as well-behaved, rising by a bigger-than-expected 0.4 percent.

The 0.4 percent rise in core inflation did not alter the view that plunging energy prices and a sharply slowing economy were combining to slash inflation pressures.

Analysts said much of the jump in core prices reflected the lingering impact of the huge rise in energy costs earlier in the year and should retreat in coming months as those costs continue to fall.

Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, predicted that core wholesale prices would retreat significantly in coming months.

The 2.8 percent overall decrease marked the third straight month that wholesale prices have fallen.

What we are witnessing is the stark beauty of markets behaving in ways that make economic sense.  If demand is falling, those who make and sell goods reduce prices.  At some point, those lower prices become tempting and businesses and consumers begin buying again. In other words, deflation is not all bad. Computer prices have been falling for many years and consumers have really benefited.  We have seen sharp declines in the cost of telephone calls and cell phones and many other electronic goods.  Now, the slumping economy has weakened demand enough that, at least, most goods and services are under some pricing pressure.  As a result, overall inflation has fallen slightly.

Keeping prices stable is a primary function of the Federal Reserve. Generally, that means holding the rate of inflation in the Fed’s preferred range of 1-2% per year.  That moderate rate of inflation seems to be what the Fed believes will work best given the Fed’s other mission, which is to also seek full employment. Earlier this year, the rate of inflation cranked up quite a bit higher than the Fed would have liked and that presented a series of problems.

As awareness of higher inflation increased, the Fed was suddenly faced with a different and starkly different set of problems caused by falling asset prices.  Home prices have been declining since late 2006 or early 2007, but the decline accelerated.  Falling real estate prices exacerbated problems mortgage securities and the impact of cratering prices for mortgages filtered through the financial markets and stocks and bonds began losing value.  Finally, over the summer, energy prices ran out of steam and began falling.

The AP piece continues:

The PPI report showed that energy prices dropped by 12.8 percent in October, the biggest one-month fall since a 14 percent decline in July 1986.

All types of energy showed big declines with gasoline falling by a record 24.9 percent, surpassing the old mark of a 22.1 percent drop in March 1986.

Home heating oil prices were down 9.6 percent, natural gas intended for home uses fell by 5.9 percent, and liquefied petroleum gas dropped by 27.6 percent, the biggest decline in more than three decades.

Light, sweet crude for December delivery rose slightly Tuesday morning after falling $2.09 to settle at $54.95 a barrel Monday, the lowest since January 2007. Prices have fallen more than 60 percent since reaching a record above $147 a barrel in mid-July.

Food costs edged down 0.2 percent last month, as declines in the price of milk and meats offset a big jump in vegetable prices.

Update: As noted above, the trend for consumer prices is lower and lower.  This piece from the Associated Press makes the point [emphasis added]:

Consumer prices plunged by the largest amount in the past 61 years in October as gasoline pump prices dropped by a record amount.

The Labor Department said Wednesday that consumer prices fell by 1 percent last month, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back to February 1947. The drop was twice as large as the 0.5 percent decline analysts expected.

…The big drop in inflation reflected not only a huge fall in gasoline and other energy costs, but widespread declines in other areas. Core consumer prices, which exclude food and energy, fell by 0.1 percent last month, the first drop in core prices in more than a quarter-century.

There were price declines for clothing, new and used cars, and airline fares. Analysts predicted further declines in the months ahead as retailers struggle to attract consumers who are being battered by rising unemployment and the weak economy.

…The big retreat in consumer prices represented a remarkable turnaround from just a few months ago when a relentless surge in energy prices raised concerns that inflation could get out of control…

Falling prices for consumer goods mean that people have a little more money in their pockets than they would have had if prices stayed high.  For example, I have seen several estimates of the annual savings we obtain from each decrease in gas prices of one penny.  As I understand it, each one penny reduction in gas prices saves Americans well over $1 billion per year.

As the average price is down by about $2 from the high point of $4.12 or more, I estimate that the annual savings will be somewhere between $200 and $300 billion.

Falling consumer prices are a good thing, but there are concerns about generalized falling prices, i.e. deflation.  A generalized state of deflation is viewed with fear and loathing by most economists because it can be very disruptive.  As a result, the Fed is working hard to inject cash and capital into the system to help stem the losses at financial institutions. The net result of all these attempts is to inject vast amounts of liquidity into the financial system, which generally means — you guessed it — higher inflation down the road.

For now, consumer prices are falling, but the seeds of inflation are being planted in an effort to avert deflation.

Bob Farrell’s 10 Rules for Investing

Kurt Brouwer November 13th, 2008

I spent three years or so at Merrill Lynch in the early 1980s.  Back then, Bob Farrell was the chief market strategist.  Bob was a pioneer in the area of technical stock market analysis. I remember listening to his technical analysis on the markets on early morning ‘squawk box’ calls.  For most of my time at Merrill, the calls were pretty gloomy because we were going through a horrendous bear market for stocks, bonds and real estate.  In fact, it was a time with a number of parallels to this bear market, which has also seen a sharp downturn for stocks, bonds and real estate.

Here are Farrell’s rules on investing that were developed by him over decades of following stocks.  This list came from a MarketWatch piece [emphasis added below].  I have added my comments after those rules I highlighted in bold because I consider them most significant:

10 Rules to Remember About Investing in the Stock Market (MarketWatch, June 11,2008, Jonathan Burton)

…Beginning in the late 1950s, Bob Farrell pioneered technical analysis, which rates a stock not only on a company’s financial strength or business line but also on the strong patterns and line charts reflected in the shares’ trading history. Farrell also broke new ground using investor sentiment figures to better understand how markets and individual stocks might move.

Over several decades at brokerage giant Merrill Lynch & Co., Farrell had a front-row seat to the go-go markets of the late 1960s, mid-1980s and late 1990s, the brutal bear market of 1973-74, and October 1987′s crash. Out of those and other experiences came Farrell’s 10 “Market Rules to Remember.”

1. Markets tend to return to the mean over time

I think there is a good reason Bob Farrell put this one as number one.  When he used the term mean, I believe he meant the arithmetical mean or average return over a long period of time.  The long-term average annual return for stocks over the past 80 or so years is about 8-10%, depending on what time period you pick.  The average is at a low ebb now because we are in a bear market.  Had you checked in early 2000, for example, the average would have been around 11%.

No matter what the average is, the market does not arrive at it in a smooth series of annual returns.  Instead, we see periods of significant underperformance followed by periods of overperformance.  For example, stocks have a negative return for this decade, which is well under the long-term average.  Therefore, at some point, we will have a period of significant outperformance such that stocks return to the long-term average return.

2. Excesses in one direction will lead to an opposite excess in the other direction

3. There are no new eras — excesses are never permanent

4. Exponential rapidly rising or falling markets usually go further than you think, but they do not correct by going sideways

When a market such as the stock market or even real estate plummets, it may go further down than common sense valuations would indicate.  That is, stock prices or real estate values, can fall further than makes sense from a valuation perspective. See Market Mood Swings — Revisiting Ben Graham

5. The public buys the most at the top and the least at the bottom

This is self-evident or there would not be tops or bottoms.  By public though, we have to include all investors including institutions.  It is much easier, emotionally, to buy at the top because everyone else seems to be doing it.  It’s much harder to buy at the bottom because almost no one else is doing so.  See Warren Buffett: I May Soon Be 100% Invested In U.S. Stocks

6. Fear and greed are stronger than long-term resolve

Fear and greed are emotional, not rational.  In the post above about Warren Buffett, he suggests being greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.  But, in this sense he is using terms in a different way.  He means, being a buyer when others are fearful and a seller when others are greedy.  Long-term resolve is less emotional and more a matter of intellect and will.  For most investors, emotional pulls will overcome intellect and will.

7. Markets are strongest when they are broad and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue-chip names

8. Bear markets have three stages — sharp down, reflexive rebound and a drawn-out fundamental downtrend

I’m not entirely in agreement on this, but I would agree that down markets have phases and those phases can be marked by severe downturns or slow, steady downturns with occasional rallies.  In this bear market, we have had it all, steep slides plus steady deterioration over time with the occasional up day.

9. When all the experts and forecasts agree — something else is going to happen

10. Bull markets are more fun than bear markets

Though most would agree with this last point, I think some experienced investors would disagree.  An investor who has a long-term perspective and cash on hand (such as Warren Buffett) often feels like a kid on Halloween at the tail end of a bear market because it’s a target rich environment.  However, these same experienced and disciplined investors may feel a bit out of it during bull markets because all stocks are going up.

Hat tip: Carpe Diem

Should We Let GM Fail?

Kurt Brouwer November 12th, 2008

Politically speaking, a bailout of General Motors may be inevitable.  But, bailing out GM would be a mistake in my opinion.  It is almost certain that a bailout won’t work unless GM makes radical changes, including obtaining competent leaders, improving its product line and changing its bloated cost structure (see General Motors May Be Worthless). And, the likelihood of those improvements being made in a timely fashion is, roughly, about zero.

Here is an excellent piece on this topic by John Tamny, editor of Real Clear Markets.  RCM is one of the sites I visit daily because it is a great source for articles and blog posts on financial and economic issues [emphasis added below].

Time to Pull the Plug on GM (Real Clear Markets, November 11, 2008, John Tamny)

…The latest losses at General Motors reveal yet again that it is the living embodiment of managerial ineptitude, and to insure that it no longer fails its customers while harming the well-being of Americans more broadly, it’s essential to let the firm die.

Many will of course blanch at the presumed loss of jobs that would result from GM’s death, but judging by the high level of unemployment in Michigan, it would be more realistic to say that GM’s continued existence under weak management has served as a capital repellant such that capital and jobs will continue to flee the state if GM is saved with the money of others. Worse, business history, from ships to farming to mining, shows that sectors reliant on government help are invariably weakened as opposed to strengthened.

The above is the case because businesses rarely fail due to a lack of money. Instead, poorly run businesses find it hard to raise money in the capital markets. Government money allows the architects of bad decisions to continue making mistakes that cause a company to be capital deficient to begin with.

This distinction is important considering the efforts of GM’s present management to secure more funds on top of the low interest loans that Congress recently approved. Were GM well managed it would have no need to run to the federal government, but because its management has proven time and again that it lacks ability, capital is correctly searching for better opportunities.

…So in a sense there’s a moral aspect to letting GM implode. Indeed, with companies not in the auto sector presently shedding workers due to a lack of funds, how could Obama or the outgoing administration take even more precious capital from the private sector in order to keep alive a firm notorious for its prodigious misuse of the money offered it?

The better answer for a capital-starved economy would be for the federal government to once again get out of the way, and in doing so, let funds flow to the very best ideas to insure as quick a recovery as possible. Importantly, if investment proves non-existent for GM absent government largess, it’s a certainty that foreign carmakers will step in amid the firm’s bankruptcy in such a way that job losses will be much less of a problem than is often assumed.

…In the end, the state of Michigan and the U.S. automobile sector are struggling not due to back luck, but precisely because they cling to a company that investors no longer value. And with GM shares near all-time lows, those with capital are stating loudly that so long as GM remains as is, the funds necessary for job creation will continue to flee.

So rather than waste precious capital in the naïve hope of propping up that which investors don’t value, it’s essential to let GM fail. Only then will a necessary change of ownership occur; the latter change the only solution when it comes to properly utilizing assets whose misuse is presently destroying a formerly great company, not to mention the economic health of the state in which it is headquartered.

Assuming GM does fail, we could certainly do something to mitigate the pain suffered by its employees and its retirees, but dealing with that issue can wait until we find out whether or not GM joins the bailout bonanza (see Bailout Bonanza for Bad Businesses — Will it ever end?).

« Prev - Next »