What Is The Problem? - Weekly Blog # 702

 

Mike Lipper’s Monday Morning Musings

What Is The Problem?

Editors: Frank Harrison 1997-2018, Hylton Phillips-Page 2018 –

Where are we?

As we enter the third quarter, often a good performing quarter, US stock market volume is underwhelming. Apparently, declining confidence in global political leadership has led to a fall in investor confidence. In the latest week, each of the six best performing funds had a different investment objective. In fund performance order they are: Managed Futures, Flexible, Tech, Financial Services, Natural Resources, and Precious Metals. This suggests no common theme or the likelihood of similar stock positions. Thus, success is likely the result of critical skill in stock selection, not sector or market selection. A similar focus is seen in fixed income, where corporates are outperforming governments.

The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) weekly sample survey of members is showing no enthusiasm for either a bullish or bearish future for markets. This survey is often a reliable contrary indicator for the next six month’s performance. Of all the indicators reviewed, the only one that’s relatively strong is the Barron’s Confidence Index, which favors stocks over bonds.

In general, I believe actions speak louder than words, particularly from members of the investment/financial community. This week I am seeing an increasing number of respected firms uprooting their employees and moving to Texas or Florida, not just for lower state taxes but for a better lifestyle. In addition, within the fixed income world there has been a considerable shift of investment people from one well known large employer to another. I am also noticing various product lines being transferred from one insurance company to another in the insurance sector. There are undoubtedly specific reasons for each of these shifts, but underlying each shift there appears to be a view that the future will be better for employees and their clients at their new firm. 

Should we be looking at longer periods and seeking different clues? There are brief lessons from Rome, Netherlands (vs Spain), England, and the USA. If we apply these and other lessons, we can handle our competition with China long-term.

Rome

For hundreds of years Rome was the dominant power in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. It was the technological leader of the world based on its mastery of building roads for military chariots and commerce. Rome was also the builder of aqueducts bringing water to Mediterranean cities. 

Rome was brought down by its own invention of “Bread and Circuses”. The political powers in Rome provided bread and free entertainment to its supporters in their arenas (circuses). In effect these were bribes. These “gifts” to the population of Rome, the tributes from conquered lands, allowed many Romans to not work. The history of great empires like Rome is that they fell due to internal pressures and the unwillingness to properly defend themselves. Thus, the great Roman Empire was defeated by bribes that weakened their will to survive.

Netherlands

The country fought a series of wars to free itself from the threat of occupation by the much larger and richer Spain. It was essentially a war between Spain, with its import of Latin American gold wealth, and the aggressive Dutch merchants who worked together. (One of the classic paintings of this era shows a group of merchants serving as night watchmen to alert their community to the danger of fire in their midst.) These merchants were inventive, creating the first stock exchange. They were also early in developing funding vehicles such as trading companies servicing their established colonies in South America, Asia, and Africa. Robeco also successfully built the first self-managed and owned mutual fund, way before the late Jack Bogle’s Vanguard. 

When I was a junior security analyst at Burnham, there was great respect paid to the firm’s Dutch clients who were believed to be very savvy judging risk. (I remember commenting on one occasion that the Dutch were selling shares in a Dutch international company to the Americans. It seemed to me that the locals were right, and they proved to be.) 

From a small geographic base and only a merchant fleet, they established a number of large international companies and colonies, without the benefit of a strong military. This proves that under the right circumstances merchant power and expertise is equal to or better than a strong military base. Even today, Dutch financial companies “punch” way above their geographic weight.

England

England, or more precisely the United Kingdom, is another former global empire from a small country with limited natural resources. Like the Dutch, they were early in building a savings industry, which is now a world financial power. The country has also produced more legal principles than any other in the world. While The Magna Carta was only between the King and Nobles, it proved to be the foundation of the concept of limited government. 

The English did something few countries have done, passing the crown three times to leaders born outside the country, and it worked well. The political establishment has also yielded to a popular view other than the sitting government. (While we celebrate the US victory at Yorktown as the end of the American Revolutionary War, a peace treaty was signed in London before the battle even began. Without electronic communication, America had to wait for a ship to arrive with the news.) The change in London was led by prime minister William Pitt, the Younger, who deemed the war too expensive relative to the value of US trade. The long war was difficult to win, so the finest military and navy conceded. Only great leadership of a country has the strength to recognize changes have taken place that require a change in policy.

USA and Prohibition

Almost as soon as elections were held in the cities of this country, it was common for some political groups to offer alcoholic drinks to would be voters. A small-scale throwback to the “bread and circuses” of Rome, but still a type of bribe. When the temperance movement gathered steam I suspect it received some support from those who felt gifted alcohol on election day may have changed some votes, particularly in big cities with lots of new voters. 

Much like with William Pitt, the Younger, popular opinion turned against prohibition when policies needed to be changed in the 1930s. It probably cemented the “wet” politician relationship with bootleggers, speakeasy proprietors, their suppliers and customers. Even after Prohibition, the only places in New York state to get a drink on election and primary days were locations independent of New York law, the Indian reservations and the dining room at the United Nations. This demonstrates the US can change policies when the perceived facts change.

China

I believe the current leadership in China is largely consistent with its history, demographics, and its financial structure. Approximately 90% of the people living in China today are descendants of the Han Chinese, the remaining 10% comprised of approximately 55 other national groups. While many of these groups have lived peacefully in China for hundreds if not thousands of years, they are viewed as potentially disruptive by the central government. Based on these concerns I believe the government does not want to add new nationalities into China. Because the Nationalist government fled China, they view Taiwan as largely Han Chinese. If I am close to correct, I do not believe Xi wants to occupy other countries. However, it is afraid of being trapped by unfriendly neighbors. That is why they want them to be friendly and not be controlled by other world powers.

Xi has other problems, including incipient competition funded by some successful businesspeople. He is very conscious he’s in a race against time, with the population aging and not replenishing itself.  The Chinese are prodigious savers who’ve had little to spend their money on and a heritage of living rurally with weather/crop cycles. Within family groups and some small communities there is a combination lottery lending mechanism, allowing the winners to jump to a higher economic level. In aggregate Chinese savings are enormous, funding both business and various levels of government.

The best way for the US to become more competitive with China is in some respects to copy them. Currently, our political leaders measure our success by the amount we are spending on goods and services. Although this provides current value, some consumption has no value long-term, causing this country to fall further behind as a saving society. The US government should switch its emphasis to saving for the future, where we are very much underfunding retirement. Additional savings would push up savings income and attract Chinese investors anxious to diversify their investments.  They are all conscious of the risks in their own over leveraged society. 

If we are able to do this, we would accomplish what my wife describes as a double win, benefiting both the Chinese and the Western investor. Such an occurrence would generate a lot of confidence.

Why Now?

While many people talk longer-term, most of their psychic and financial income is relatively short-term, impacted by their own expected tax rates. The future is almost never crystal clear and for many it has become either less clear, less attractive, or both.

Near-term elections over the next three years may provide some answers, or they may not. It will depend on leadership characteristics changing from the standard politician’s focus on the next election and those of statesmen or women focusing on future generations.  

   

What do you think?    

 

Did you miss my blog last week? Click here to read.

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-confidence-game-weekly-blog-701.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2021/09/two-confessions-weekly-blog-700.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2021/09/observations-prior-to-excitement-weekly.html

Did someone forward you this blog? 

To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please subscribe by emailing me directly at AML@Lipperadvising.com

Copyright © 2008 - 2020

A. Michael Lipper, CFA

All rights reserved.

Contact author for limited redistribution permission.