Market Musings Blog

The Election and the Stock Market

Several clients have inquired lately about how we think the election will affect the stock market. The answer is a sort of non-answer: based on historical data, the stock market has done well under both parties, and it has done poorly under both parties. So the election itself will have a negligible impact on the stock market. Indeed, stocks look forward. Today’s prices are reflecting conditions a few months hence. The market is already “past” the election and looking into 2013.

Interestingly, though, there is some evidence that the stock market may affect the election. According to InvestTech Research, if the stock market rises in September and October prior to an election, the incumbent wins 90% of the time. (See one article on this phenomenon here.) Intuitively, a rising market is indicative of satisfied investors who feel pretty good about the way things are going, and don’t want to change the status quo. Of course, 90% is not 100%. This year could fall into that 10% bucket; we’ll just have to wait and see.

U.S. Inflation – Yes or No?

Although the din about rising inflation has diminished since about 2010, we still hear concern from clients now and then, particularly when discussing bond portfolios. Investors worry that committing to longer bonds at current “low” interest rates is a bad idea, just in case we end up with rampant inflation. (We won’t discuss here what actually happens to bond portfolios when inflation rises quickly, but it’s not as bad as you think). Many investors think they see inflation today in higher food prices, or higher gas prices. But what they’re seeing is not, as economists describe it, inflation. It’s not anything like the inflation of the 1970s in the US, and its not anything like the inflation now infecting, say, Argentina.

Inflation is defined as widespread price increases, affecting virtually all goods and services in an economy. That’s what we mean when we say an economy is experiencing “inflation”. Singular, isolated price increases for bread, or gas, or health care are just that: isolated events. In our economy, while bread and gas rise in price, auto insurance, homes, and computer prices fall. In Argentina, prices for every item are rising nearly daily. Go to a restaurant, and you’ll see the menu prices in chalk on a board so they can be changed the next day, or even midday. Buy a dress and you might find the current price sticker hides older, lower price stickers.

We’ve said for years now that we don’t expect inflation for the foreseeable future. In fact, we think monetary and fiscal policy has been geared toward preventing deflation over the past five years, and we think we’re in for doses of much the same in coming years, no matter who is in office. Two factors influence our thinking: one is the giant deleveraging that the US economy is undertaking. People who are struggling to pay down debt don’t buy boats, houses, and trinkets. They save. And so they are.

The second factor is the large retiring-age population in the US. I can’t count how many times a client has said to me, “Gee I just don’t spend what I used to spend,” or “I don’t feel like I need anything,” or “I never buy clothes any more,” or “I think I’ll sell my home in Podunk, it’s too big for me now.”

Between less consumption as everyone pays down debt, and less consumption from the huge Baby Boom generation, we don’t think there’s much urge to spend all that cash the Fed and the administration have pumped into the economy.

Aside from the supporting factors for our opinion, there’s the evidence: where, after four years of profligate money creation, is inflation? Surely it shouldn’t take so long to show up, if it’s going to.

The U.S. probably has another 7-10 years of low inflation in store, maybe more. Japan, which also endured a real estate bust and has an aging population, is well into its second decade of an epic struggle with deflation, and while there are differences between the two economies that might account for degree, the basic theme is the same: forces are afoot to encourage less debt, more savings, and lower prices.

China, Growth, and the Shanghai Composite

We’ve said it before, but we will say it again: Economic growth does not necessarily translate to a good stock market. China’s economy has grown strongly over the last few years and although the rate of growth has slowed recently, it has far outperformed the US.

Yet, the Shanghai Composite, China’s headline stock market index, is down 32% from a high it hit in November 2010. That’s the worst drop among the 21 developing country markets followed by Bloomberg. This period of time also marks the young index’s longest bear market. For comparison, the US Standard & Poor’s 500 is up almost 18% in the same time frame, and if dividends are counted, it’s far more than that.

Valuation has a bigger impact on stock returns than economic growth. Chinese stocks have been expensive. US stocks were cheap, and are still cheap.

Want to guess at what the Financial Times index of 100 largest European stocks has done over the same time frame? Ok, it’s not as positive as the US, but it is positive: a price return of +2.4%, and dividends would boost that. The Euro-mess hasn’t resulted in a bear market – yet. Just goes to show – the tortoise wins more often than we think.

Time to Think Inside the Box

We spend a lot of time thinking about things that other people don’t. The most common question we ask at strategy meetings is “What do other investors hate right now?” That’s our playground – whatever everyone else doesn’t like. Greek stocks, maybe. Europe. Auto parts companies. Condos in Beaverton. Whatever.

But sometimes it pays to think about the mainstream, or at least look at it through our own weird lens. One fact that stands out is that if I am counting correctly, we’ve had a number of so-so weather years, vis-a-vis growing crops. Not just here, but worldwide. We had a good corn year in 2011, but a bad wheat year. This year corn looks like a bust in the US. In 2010, Russia’s drought decimated its harvests. Looking worldwide, crop production has not kept up with population increases in the past few years, driving down grain reserves, and periodically causing price spikes.

Likewise, we’ve had at least four years of very low housing construction in the US, and at least two natural disasters that roiled the timber-lumber-construction chain: a tsunami in Japan and earthquakes in Chile. All these harms seem to be reversing; in particular, housing is picking up in the US. Nobody’s looking, but lumber and other timber product prices have been strong for several months now.

While crop prices are in the news, the media isn’t connecting the dots – linking up the year-after-year shortfalls in various crops in various places that are adding up to declining grain reserves; and I don’t think anyone except the odd timber geek is noticing the increasing number of log trucks on the roads and rising prices at Home Depot. Investing in agriculture in particular has been “hot” for a while, although many of the stocks have suffered a hangover with the soft economy. These probably deserve another look. And many timber companies haven’t participated in the market rebound since 2008 at all.

Right in front of us – two worthwhile investment ideas “inside the box.”

Cloud on the Horizon in Muni Land

Although default rates on municipal bonds have remained extremely low, the outcome of default and its effects on bondholders is evolving in the few cases that do exist. There are two facets to repayment of municipal debt: willingness to pay, and ability to pay. Analysts have believed that municipalities will always demonstrate willingness to pay in order to maintain access to the market at all; i.e., if a municipality ever wants to borrow again, it must pay its bondholders no matter what. Ordinarily, the fact that debt payments are usually a very small portion of a municipality’s budget makes payments a priority even if a municipality enters a fiscal crisis.

In Stockton, CA, which just filed Chapter 9 bankruptcy, this assumption will be challenged. Stockton is proposing a haircut to payments to bondholders in order to put its budget on the right path, espousing a philosophy that all stakeholders should “share the pain”. Through Ch 9, the municipality hopes to force its general obligation debt holders to take less in payments. Most of its GO debt is insured or backed by letters of credit, so most bondholders should not experience a hitch in payments. However, the precedent of seeking court approval for a reorganization plan that contains bond defaults – i.e., that does not place bondholders at the top of the creditor list – is ominous.

We think Stockton is being advised that market access will not be as much of an issue as previously assumed in the event of default. Evidence to the contrary is sketchy, which may support this theory. Corporations usually regain access post-bankrupcty; other troubled municipalities have regained market access fairly quickly, albeit sometimes with state help or with other factors at play. Greece has defaulted more than half the time on its government debt (including recently) but investors still loaned it substantial sums at mere basis points above what Germany paid, until about three years ago. The fact is, markets forget.

Time will tell how this case will turn out. But a decision embracing bond defaults will be particularly bad for California muni holders, and not wonderful news for the muni market generally.