Introduction
Investors and the
public in general tend to believe in big headlines and invest in the direction
of the headlines. Often this is a mistake. On the front page of The Wall Street Journal last week there
was a five column banner headline trumpeting “Broad Gains Power Historic Rally.”
A sub headline stated that for the first time since 1993 that
six closely watched indexes rose in the first half of the year. (The indexes
were two from Dow Jones - DJIA and Commodities; two from MSCI - World Stocks and Emerging Markets Stocks; as well as indexes for Gold and Bonds.)
The financially sound
investor would quickly point out that the flow into tradable elements was
caused by people getting out of cash money. Institutions and individuals were
recognizing that excessive borrowing to meet or prolong deficits and the
central banks manipulating interest rates has caused a twenty year recognition
that in today’s world cash is trash.
Those of us who have any
knowledge of how people (particularly investors and voters) react will
recognize that when there is a large imbalance of opinion that the majority
will win for a relatively short while to be followed by major disappointments.
Such may well be the case this time.
How do I know? Years
ago I learned from a very sound investor who happened to be one of my
accounting professors that I should read financial statements from the back
forward. I should spend as much time reading the footnotes and auditor’s
certificate as I would in reading the CEO’s comments even though the CEO’s
comments were designed to be more easily understood. I suggest that all who
wish to be informed and to have the ability to change one’s views to read the
small articles at the end of the pages in most newspapers. If you do you might
come up with what I am seeing.
Bits
of information important to me
1. In the last week the average interest rate
paid on bank deposit accounts (MMDA) went from 0.37% to 0.43%. In most weeks
there is no change or only minor moves of .01%. This 16% move could be for some
technical reason or could be that banks, mostly retail banks, are starting to
make loans and need more deposits.
2. The five month increase in CCC (low credit
quality) loans is up 17.2%. At the same
time there was a decrease in high quality loans being sold.
3. Moody’s * is concerned that the
combination of below trend profit growth and above trend borrowing will lead to
an increase in defaults.
4. Two very respected investors from quite
different vantage points, Stephen Roach and Wilbur Ross, are worried about too
much easy money. Steve is one of the leading experts on investing in China and
Wilbur Ross has had a very successful career investing in distressed securities
both in the US and elsewhere.
5. Bank for International Settlements (BIS)
which is the international bank that provides credit to banks globally is
warning about “euphoric markets.”
Applying
concerns to portfolios
As a professional investment
advisor I need to be concerned each day as to how the accounts that I am
responsible for are positioned. In almost all cases these accounts must be in
the market to meet their long-term needs. Today, with interest rates in the
range of perceived long-term inflation, (if not lower, as shown by the WSJ banner headline), the bulk of the
accounts are balanced accounts with a preponderance in equities.
Regular readers of
these posts have learned that I am worried about a major, once in a generation,
drop in equity prices. Up to now I have been focusing on stock prices to
generate sell signals. Increasingly I believe I should focus much more
attention on fixed-income markets. The triggers to the last major declines were
caused by the failure of Lehman Brothers ability to finance itself and the
widespread fears of residential mortgage defaults. These were fixed-income
problems that severely impacted stock prices.
I want to learn
from other investors and investment managers. This is why I prefer in most
instances to invest through funds managed by bright people. This week someone sent
to me a copy of Schroders* latest investment letter. In the letter Schroders
divides its outlook for the future of its accounts into scenarios. The most
probable is an extrapolation of present trends. However, the letter mentions
seven other scenarios which could be important. I have listed them in order of
their probability according to Schroders:
- Capacity Limits
- G7 boom
- China Hard Landing (Steve Roach believes the increasing codependence on China could hurt the US if we don’t come to a better relationship.)
- Secular Stagnation
- Eurozone Deflation
- Trade War
- Russian Rumble
*Owned
by me personally and/or by the private financial services fund I manage
While each of these
could be the problem that sets off the market decline, to me the key is the
proportion that Schroders gives to the most probable outcome, the essential “muddle
through” scenario which is at 65%.
Why
I am limiting equity exposure
Coincidentally because
of my concerns after five good market years and below average economic years, I
think it would be wise to limit equity exposure in a conservative balanced
account to 65%. While I expect we could have one more major, almost skyrocket
selected stock price move, I would be moving lower in terms of equities, if I
could find some reasonably safe fixed-income alternatives producing above
inflation rates of return.
The equity exposure
mentioned is for those accounts that will have funding responsibilities in the
next five years. Longer-term accounts could selectively be higher, except I am
beginning to worry about long-term endowment type accounts. In the past I felt
that this account should be invested all in equities as the best way to get the
benefits of disruptive technology and favorable demographics. I am beginning to
worry that pricing competition could be too fierce.
In terms of demographics, I believe that the US will accept more legal and if not illegal immigration. My concern is as to the quality of our young labor force today. I find it disturbing that in the US Army’s reported view, only 29% of the population could be accepted. (I don’t know what the experience is for the US Marines, but we only wanted “the few”). Without the right people our long-term returns will not match our needs.
In terms of demographics, I believe that the US will accept more legal and if not illegal immigration. My concern is as to the quality of our young labor force today. I find it disturbing that in the US Army’s reported view, only 29% of the population could be accepted. (I don’t know what the experience is for the US Marines, but we only wanted “the few”). Without the right people our long-term returns will not match our needs.
Please share with me
your views.
__________________
Did someone forward
you this Blog? To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday, please
subscribe using the email or RSS feed buttons in the left column of MikeLipper.Blogspot.com
Copyright © 2008 - 2014
A. Michael Lipper, C.F.A.,
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.
All Rights Reserved.
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.