Archive for the 'Investing' Category

The Kitchen Sink Stock Market

Kurt Brouwer July 16th, 2008

On Wall Street there is a phrase called the ‘kitchen sink’ earnings report. It works like this. A given publicly-traded company is struggling, they know a really bad quarterly earnings report is inevitable, and so they toss in everything negative they can find — up to, and including, the proverbial kitchen sink. That way, they get all the bad news out at once. Over the past few months, as investors, we have been living through a kitchen sink period in the financial markets as almost everything imaginable has been thrown at us:

  • Stocks have tumbled - both here and abroad.
  • The dollar has fallen to new lows versus the Euro.
  • Oil prices have doubled in the past year.
  • Inflation has moved higher.
  • Falling U.S. home prices have caused a widening array of problems.
  • Subprime loans have collapsed.
  • Banks, mortgage companies and hedge funds have suffered huge losses due to subprime lending excesses.
  • Lending activity at banks has shrunk.
  • Tax exempt municipal bonds had their worst performance in many years due to liquidity problems at banks, insurers, and hedge funds.
  • The economy has slowed or even contracted.
  • Job losses are mounting.

As you can imagine, all of these factors have contributed to widespread unease and a feeling of doubt about the future.  A recent article from the Washington Post [emphasis added] points out how bleak the current mood is, but also tries to put our present economic environment in a historic context:

Why We’re Gloomier Than The Economy (Washington Post, June 18, 2008, Neil Irwin)

Ask Americans how the economy is doing, and their answer is stark: It is not just bad, it is run-for-the-hills terrible. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level in almost 30 years. Only 12 percent of Americans think the economy is in good shape. On the Internet, comparisons to the Great Depression are widespread.

But the reality is different. According to most broad measures of how the economy is doing, it’s not all that grim.

Soft? You betcha. In recession? Quite possibly. And a crisis in the financial markets has rattled nerves for months now. But so far, the economy is holding up better than it did during the last two recessions in 1990 and 2001. Employers haven’t shed as many jobs, the unemployment rate is still relatively low, and gross domestic product has kept rising. Things are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Great Depression, or even during the severe recession of 1982-83. The last time consumers were this miserable, in May 1980, the jobless rate was 7.5 percent and inflation was 14.4 percent. Now those numbers are 5.5 percent and 4.2 percent respectively…”

Objectively, conditions are not bad compared to 1980, so why is the mood so dark?  We believe that there are two factors at work today.  The first factor is that the economy and the financial markets are definitely struggling.  Coupled with that is the sharp decline in home prices - something we have not seen since 1991.  In addition, we are reminded daily of higher prices for food and fuel when we stop for gas or go to the grocery store.  All of these factors hurt our confidence.

We also believe that Americans are in doubt about major institutions in our country.  We know that President Bush’s approval rating is around 23%, which means that only 23% believe he is doing a good job.  However, Congress’s ratings are far worse and only 12% of Americans believe Congress is doing a good job.  In short, we are facing a crisis of confidence in our government as well as our economy.  Over the past 30 years, consumer sentiment slumps the most when we lose confidence in both the economy and in our government. And, that may be why consumer confidence is almost as low now as it was in 1980.

Index of Consumer Sentiment Nears 30-Year Low 

 stlouis-fed-umcsent_max_630_378.png

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank

This chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank shows the Index of Consumer Sentiment going back in time to January 1978.  It is hard to believe, but consumers are now gloomier than they have been in the past 30 years, with one exception - 1980.  That year we faced very difficult economic conditions during a contentious presidential campaign (Carter vs. Reagan).

We certainly have problems these days, but having lived through the early 1980s, I have a difficult time equating the difficulties we have now with the horrendous economic environment we had in 1980-82:

Double Digits in 1980-82: Inflation, Unemployment & Mortgage Rates

In the late 1970s and early 1980s we had sky-high inflation, unemployment and mortgages rates. At that time, the Federal Reserve’s Chairman, Paul Volcker, had to raise interest rates to unheard-of levels. These rate hikes led to a prolonged economic contraction that was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This description from Wikipedia gives a sense of how severe the reaction was [emphasis added]:

“…However, the change in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression, and Volcker’s Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street and blockading the Eccles Building…”

The image of farmers blockading Washington D.C. with tractors is hard to imagine now, but those were tough times.  The reason Volcker raised interest rates so aggressively was that inflation went wild in the late 1970s. For example, inflation hit 11.3% in 1979, 13.5% in 1980 and 10.3% in 1981 before Volcker’s harsh medicine began to kick in and inflation moderated to 6.2% in 1982.

As inflation ratcheted higher, so did home mortgages rates. Thirty-year fixed rate mortgages went up to nearly 13% in November 1979 and did not fall under 12% again until November 1985. The peak rate for mortgages was 18.45% in October 1981. 18.45%!

But, even though high interest rates began knocking down inflation, soaring rates also led to sharply higher unemployment. The unemployment rate peaked at 10.8% in December 1982. However, it had been soaring for years and it remained at 8% or higher until January of 1984. Given all this, it is not surprising that investors and consumers were very negative in that time period 1980-82.

A Decade of Above-Average Returns Followed a Decade of Below-Average Returns

As you can see from the chart below, when consumer sentiment hit bottom in 1980, we had just been through a terrible decade for stocks.  In fact, the decade of the 1970s had negative real (adjusted for inflation) returns for stocks.  However, the decade of the 1980s was excellent for stocks.

bj-smaller-sp-70-80-90-00.JPG

Source: Brouwer & Janachowski, LLC

As you saw in the first chart above, in 1990, consumers again turned very negative due to a difficult real estate market, the onset of the first Gulf War in August 1990 and a slowing economy and impending recession in 1991.  Yet, again, the plunge in consumer confidence in 1990 came just before an excellent decade for the stock market.

Now, we are going through another difficult time for stocks, very similar to what happened in the 1970s.  In fact, stock market returns since 2000 have also been negative, adjusted for inflation.

As we saw in the chart above, returns from the stock market are cyclical.  Good times follow bad times.  Now, I cannot tell you that this plunge in consumer sentiment unquestionably presages a turning point for investments.   However, I can state with confidence that such extreme negativity in consumer sentiment is rare.  In fact, the index has only been lower once in 30 years.  I believe the current level of pessimism is overdone and that, ultimately, the country’s bleak mood will change.

As the Washington Post article referenced above concluded:

“…But now, coming off two decades of prosperity and low inflation, Americans have come to treat low unemployment and inflation as givens. We have gotten so used to things being good, in other words, that even when conditions become somewhat bad, it feels terrible.”

When you hear politicians and pundits opine that this is the worst crisis since the Depression, just mentally compare current conditions to those of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, we had double digit inflation, unemployment and home mortgage rates. Today, inflation is around 4%, unemployment is 5.5% and 30-year fixed mortgages are about 6.25%. In other words, we are not remotely close to anything like double digits on any one of these factors, much less all three.

Summing It All Up

I believe that as the bad news gets absorbed and financial conditions moderate, the most likely outcome is that consumer sentiment - and the financial markets - will turn more positive. Several developments are now helping create the underpinnings for revitalized economic and market conditions.

  • The dollar is trying to strengthen.  The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury are now taking steps to shore up the dollar and this should have important positive effects throughout the economy and the financial markets.  We are beginning to see signs of strength in the exchange rate of the dollar versus the Euro and other foreign currencies.  A stronger dollar should lead to a retreat in oil prices and should also reduce inflationary pressures in food, gas and other necessities (See Gross Likes Dollar vs. Euro For First Time).
  • The credit markets are beginning to stabilize.  Increasing lending activity will also pave the way toward renewed economic growth.
  • The real estate market has experienced a significant correction and is now going through a bottoming process.
  • Underlying values in the stock markets have improved dramatically as many companies continue to perform well and increase shareholder value even while their stock prices have fallen.

At this point, I do not know if “everything, but the kitchen sink” has been thrown at us.  Nonetheless, I believe the U.S. economy and our financial markets are fundamentally strong and resilient and that they will survive this downturn and begin growing again.

In the early 1980s, the stock market took time to regain positive momentum in the face of the many negatives, but patient investors were rewarded with a strong and prolonged turnaround in the markets.  I believe the same is true now.  Patient investors will again be rewarded as conditions improve.  And, when it does come, the turnaround in the stock market could be dramatic - on the upside.

Declining the Dollar

Kurt Brouwer July 15th, 2008

One great thing about the financial markets is that they force us to evaluate trends objectively. The declining dollar is a case in point. It is clear that the dollar is falling against major currencies. That is undeniable. And, from a financial perspective, the declining dollar is neither good nor bad, because all trends have winners and losers.

When the dollar falls against the euro or the British pound or the Japanese yen, investors in those currencies or stocks or bonds denominated in those currencies will gain. And, U.S. companies that export goods will find their products are more competively-priced against rival products sold in the hot currencies. On the other hand, if you’re buying something that is imported or going on a vacation in London, well…that outrageously-priced cup of coffee just got more expensive.

Why is the dollar falling? There are many theories, but the most obvious one is short-term interest rates. Short-term rates are going up overseas and they’re not going up here, so very large institutional investors such as big banks, securities firms, central banks and so on are moving cash to other currencies. This is normal and not particularly significant. However, if the dollar kept falling, there is a point at which the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve would have to take some steps to bolster the dollar. We are not at that point yet, in my opinion, but we should be.  I think the Treasury and the Fed should begin working with other central banks in order to stabilize the dollar, which has fallen steadily versus the Euro.  This chart shows how many dollars it takes to buy one Euro.  The Euro fell for several years versus the dollar and begin moving up in late 2001:

stlouisfed-exuseu_max_630_378.png

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank

David Gaffen at the Wall Street Journal’s MarketBeat Blog (daily reading for me by the way) gives a bit of background on why the mood seems so dour right now [emphasis in the original]:

Pity the Dollar (WSJ/MarketBeat Blog, July 15, 2008, David Gaffen)

…The U.S. currency hit a new record low against the euro Tuesday, three-month lows against the British pound and is nearly at parity with the Australian dollar, of all things, as global investors question the value of U.S. assets and the quality of the entire U.S. balance sheet, so to speak.

Markets are fearing another major crisis, and they’re doubting that the Fed or U.S. Treasury will do anything near-term to alleviate the situation,” says Kathy Lien, chief strategist at DailyFX.com. “They’re skeptical about the efforts of the government.”

Of late, the euro traded at $1.5969, down from a record of $1.6038 reached earlier in the day. Global markets dropped sharply in the wake of the middling showing by U.S. markets Monday after a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rescue was announced.

…The dollar has continued to come under pressure as investors believe U.S. assets do not offer enough return for the risks being taken. Bond yields are low when compared with other major global economies, and the Fed is in a bind – it cannot raise rates while the economic malaise continues, but it fears worsening inflation if it lowers rates.

“The deteriorating market and economic conditions in the U.S. continue to be the chief causes of the broad decline in the U.S. currency,” writes Ashraf Laidi, chief currency strategist at CMC Markets. “As long as these continue, the dollar will deteriorate regardless of any jawboning by policy makers, which would be perceived as bluffing rather than communicating real policy intentions.”

…In part, the dollar’s decline mirrors the fall in U.S. equities, which are reacting to Mr. Bernanke’s testimony. “What’s basically happening at the moment is that the dollar is following equity markets, and they’re going down, and the reason it’s all happening is the credit crunch which is based in the States,” says Chris Furness, head of currency strategy at 4Cast Ltd.

Yesterday, we reported that PIMCO and Bill Gross had turned positive on the dollar vs. the Euro (see Gross Likes Dollar vs. Euro For First Time).  Obviously, the brain trust at PIMCO is responding to broad economic and financial trends so this should not be taken as a sign that the dollar will turn around right away.  However, it is positive in that the folks at PIMCO believe that the Euro is overvalued.

In order for the turnaround to begin though, I believe the Fed and other central bankers are going to have to give the currency markets a strong signal that they are supporting the dollar.  See also How Far Has the Dollar Fallen? And Why? — What’s Next?.

Bank Failures Today vs. S&L Crisis — Chart of the Day

Kurt Brouwer July 14th, 2008

calculated-risk-fdicfailures.jpg

Source: Calculated Risk

The news on Indymac and other troubled banks is a concern, but a bit of historical perspective is important. During the savings and loan crisis, we saw hundreds of bank failures every year.

The Other Real Estate Disaster

Kurt Brouwer July 11th, 2008

This is a very long article from Forbes on state pension funds and the leveraged real estate investments they have made. For years, those looked very good, but now problems have arisen [emphasis added]. The tone of the piece leans toward impending doom, which is no doubt overdone because state pension plans have placed modest percentages of their assets in these leveraged real estate funds. However, the downturn in real estate is real and it appears as if pension plans are going to take a few lumps along with the rest of us.

The Other Real Estate Disaster (Forbes, July 21, 2008, Stephane Fitch)

Your state’s employee pension fund is probably (a) doing badly with recent real estate pools and (b) working very hard with the private equity operators of these pools to keep you in the dark.

Scott Lawlor and the managers at Pennsylvania Public Schools’ $63 billion pension fund had a beautiful relationship. From an office on New York’s Park Avenue Lawlor and his firm, Broadway Partners, ran real estate “opportunity funds,” fat with capital from the teachers’ pension and other institutions. He had invested the funds in a $10 billion pool of glamorous office properties like Boston’s John Hancock Tower. Lawlor delivered profits–or so the Pennsylvania fund managers reported–of up to 40% a year. The state fund managers kept capital flowing, both to his funds and to his pocket, in the form of fees.

Everything was private. No Wall Street analysts, no regulators, no outsiders and no interference. No ordinary Pennsylvania pensioner got to see Lawlor’s quarterly financial reports. The managers in their pension plan’s Harrisburg headquarters had all signed nondisclosure agreements with Lawlor.

The picture turned grim by March. Lawlor was struggling to keep his buildings, purchased with as much as 90% debt, from falling into the hands of lenders. He owed $1.2 billion of short-term “mezzanine” debt to New York investment bank Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH) and other lenders. (The debt has since been extended.) The funds’ previous gains? Mostly, if not entirely, gone. It will be months before Pennsylvania’s 500,000-plus public school employees and retirees know how much of their $196 million in principal in Lawlor’s funds is left.

The retirement plan “has seen some decline in value this past quarter,” says Charles Spiller, head of private equity and real estate investments at the Pennsylvania teachers’ fund. But he refuses to comment on Broadway. Last September he valued positions in 58 private real estate investment funds at a total $3.6 billion. What’s this pot of money worth now? That’s a secret for a few more months, and Spiller isn’t releasing any of the communications he’s had from the fund operators about their recent results.

Enticing investors with the lure of returns exceeding 20%, opportunity funds are the slickest deal in real estate. They account for one-sixth of $2 trillion in total net assets in private equity, says the London firm Private Equity Intelligence, which tracks the industry. A year ago the most closely studied funds in the U.S. were holding $213 billion in commercial real estate equity, leveraged 70% on average. Traders of swaps contracts on the leading commercial property index were recently betting on a correction of up to 15% in values–which would result in $100 billion in writedowns.

This is the other meltdown–the one you haven’t heard much about. It’s not part of the real estate and credit contagion that started with the subprime calamity, then spread to all corners of the debt market. This misadventure has its own origins in hubris, battered further by dumb mistakes and bad timing. The catastrophe may not stack up quite as high as the $350 billion in writedowns that investment funds and banks have registered in the bond markets, but for small investors all across America whose retirement pools poured 1% to 5% of their assets into opp funds, heavy losses–only beginning to surface–could be a sizable blow. If the setbacks for pension funds are severe enough, it could force state governments to raise taxes to cover shortfalls and induce companies to cut back on dividend payments to shareholders in order to set aside additional money for their private workforce pensions.

Many opportunity funds are black boxes. What these investments are worth is often anybody’s guess until they’re liquidated, typically seven to ten years after they finish raising capital. They’re virtually unregulated–a recent statement by the Financial Accounting Standards Board leaves it to the funds to address fair value–and private equity groups don’t have to file regularly to the Securities & Exchange Commission. When they do give out internal rates of return, they’re usually expressed as a rough percentage of money originally invested. Rarely are they adjusted for leverage.

The failure to account for leverage is what makes these private equity pools so popular. In a rising market, which real estate enjoyed until a year ago, leverage turns average performers into seeming geniuses. In an up market a mediocre real estate manager enjoys million-dollar paydays, according to the customary formula that gives operators of private equity pools up to 20% of gains.

Say the manager buys a building for $100 million, putting down $30 million of your money and borrowing the rest. Over the next three years it appreciates to $150 million. Interest on the mortgage adds up to 20%, or $14 million. Before fees, you have made $36 million, a 120% return. That comes to 30% a year. But the unleveraged return was only 14.5%. Which return number, 30% or 14.5%, is the one most likely to be talked about?

In a down market, of course, leverage turns average performance into a disaster. But the operators of the pools are not expected to share 20% of the losses. No, the losses belong 100% to the providers of the equity capital. That would be you, if you’re a taxpayer…

See California Public Employees Take Big Hit On Real Estate for more on real estate investments in state retirement plans.

Bank of America Dumping Countrywide Name

Kurt Brouwer July 11th, 2008

It’s not surprising that Bank of America’s CEO is defending the acquisition of Countrywide Financial — after all, he made the decision to move forward. This LA Times piece [emphasis added] indicates that the deal cost substantially less than expected because it was a stock deal and BofA’s stocks has fallen considerably since early this year. One big negative is that the name Countrywide has become so tarnished that BofA will eventually drop it:

Countrywide Takeover Will Pay Off BofA’s CEO Says (Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2008, E. Scott Reckard)

Bank of America Chief Executive Ken Lewis defended his takeover of Countrywide Financial Corp., saying Wednesday that the Calabasas lender “kind of went into a shell and didn’t say much about what they were doing right” when the mortgage business hit the skids last year.

But Bank of America still plans to dump the Countrywide name early next year in favor of the Bank of America brand, Lewis confirmed.

Often cast as having epitomized the lax lending standards that buried millions of Americans in unaffordable loans, Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, was on the ropes when Bank of America agreed to buy it six months ago.

But in an interview with Los Angeles Times reporters and editors, Lewis said Countrywide had been painted with too broad a brush, and he promised to do a better job of defending it than its co-founder and chief executive, Angelo R. Mozilo, had done.

“There’s always another side to any story, and we’re going to tell it,” Lewis said, praising Countrywide’s efforts to avert foreclosures, which he credited for helping almost 100,000 borrowers remain in their homes this year.

“We don’t think in every instance that Countrywide was the bad guy,” Lewis said.

On a weeklong California trip that included a Town Hall Los Angeles luncheon address Wednesday, Lewis acknowledged that loan losses at Countrywide were at the high end of estimates that Bank of America projected in January.

But he said Bank of America paid so little for the lender that once the books on the deal were closed, the Countrywide operation would immediately show a profit — with the potential for huge growth in income when the mortgage industry recovers.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America bought Countrywide for stock that was worth $4 billion when the deal was announced in January but only $2.5 billion by the time the deal closed July 1...

See our earlier post on this, Bank of America Snaps Up Countrywide.

Next »