|
Today we drop back to take a look at the economy and its long term effect
on our portfolio returns. I am in Orlando this week, speaking at the Newport
Advisor Conference sponsored by the Newport Group. The attendees are primarily
investment advisors focused on larger retirement accounts and pensions. This
week's letter is the gist of my speech I gave yesterday, as the entire speech
would be way too long for a weekly letter. I want to thank the Newport Group
for letting me do this, and thanks for the very kind way they have hosted me.
Note: this week's letter will print a little longer as there are a lot of graphs.
And next week I will address the housing market, as was my intention this week.
The Muddle Through Economy:
The Future of the Market and Your Investments
It is increasingly widely agreed that we are now in a recession as I predicted
this time last year. The good news is that much of the underlying economy is
not in that bad a shape, but it has had two serious body blows administered
by the twin collapsing bubbles of the housing market and the credit crisis.
My position is that the recession will be rather long and relatively shallow,
and the inevitable recovery will be longer and more drawn out than is typical,
resulting in what I call The Muddle Through Economy for a period of several
years. I define a Muddle Through Economy as one which grows below normal trend
GDP growth of 3% for a period of time, typically in the 2% range.
So, one of the key questions is: "When does the recovery start and how long
will it take to get back to 3% GDP?"
I think the answer is that it will not be before the latter half of the year
and will take at least two years to get back to trend growth. The reason for
such a drawn out recovery is simple. The twin causes (housing and the credit
crisis) will take at least two years and possibly longer to normalize, and
that process is going to negatively effect several other sectors of the economy.
But then I am an optimist. Duke University released a survey yesterday of
Chief Financial Officers of major corporations. This is a gloomy bunch. 54%
think we are already in a recession. My friend Duke Professor Campbell Harvey
said: "In contrast, 90 percent of the CFOs do not believe the economy will
turn the corner in 2008. Indeed, many of them believe it will be late 2009
before a recovery takes hold."
Let's look at a chart courtesy of John Burns Real Estate Consulting. This
shows that part of the bubble in housing was in the number of transactions
that occurred during the bubble years. In 2005 alone, there were 48% more housing
transactions that occurred than should have been expected based on historical
average sales per household. In large part this was caused by "investors," many
of dubious financial strength, buying homes and condos on readily available
credit with no real lending standards and no way to pay the loans if they were
not able to sell them at a higher price.
As a result, there are now 3.5 million excess homes that need to be filled
by qualified homeowners. Over time, due to growth in the population, the demand
will eventually catch up, but that will be a process of several years. Housing
prices will have to fall by another 15-20% or so to get to a place where homes
become affordable to the marginal buyer. And that assumes rates can stay low.

Annual new and existing home sales are currently running at about 5.5 million.
John Burns expect that will fall to about 4 million before we see the bottom
of the market. Notice, in the above chart, the drop in sales after the increase
in housing sales above the trend projection in the 70's. We have a long way
to go to correct the recent bubble, and Burns's research suggests that we will
get there sooner rather than later.
But this means that home values will drop another 15% or more. Homeowners
are going to see $5-6 trillion in home equity vanish in the next year. Remember
that point as we will address it in a minute.
Honey, I Vaporized My Customers
By now, everyone knows that the subprime crisis started with non-existent
lending standards which resulted in the large numbers of foreclosures we are
seeing today. Those foreclosures will be rising throughout the year. We are
not near anything like the top of the rising number of foreclosures. Ben Bernanke
said last July that losses from the subprime would be in the $100 billion dollar
range. True confession. I think I wrote six months earlier that it would be
$200 billion. I point that out to make the point that I am an optimist by nature.
The latest "bidding war" number for the amount of total losses is about $500
billion from Goldman Sachs, and a neat $1 trillion from uber-bear Nouriel Roubini.
Add in hundreds of billions from losses which are piling up in other credit
markets and you can easily get to $1 trillion in losses which are going to
have to be eaten by all sorts of financial institutions, without being all
that pessimistic.
Banks are being forced to reduce their loan and margin books in order to get
the necessary capital required by regulatory authorities. Plus, credit is now
more expensive as risk premiums rise from absurdly low levels in what more
than one authority called a "new era of finance." Turns out it was just normal
old era greed.
It is not just the mortgage market. It is commercial mortgages, safe municipal
bonds, credit card debt, student loans and a host of credit that is under fire
and cannot find a buyer at what should be a realistic price.
We should not be surprised at the lack of liquidity in the credit markets.
We have essentially vaporized 60% of the buyers of debt in the last six months.
The various alphabet of SIVs, CLOs, CDO, ABS, CMBS, and their kin that were
the real shadow banking system are either gone or on life support. It took
decades to build these structures and it is not realistic to think we can replace
them in six months. This is going to take some time.
And time is what the Fed has bought this week by offering to take AAA mortgage
paper and swap it for T-bills. They will start with $200 billion on offer.
Remember you read it here first that that number will be increased and increased
again. From the markets initial euphoric response, you would think the problems
have been solved and banks will once again start lending. Sadly, this is probably
not true.
This is similar to the action by the bank regulators in 1980, when nearly
every major bank had losses that were greater than their capital on Latin American
loans which had defaulted. The Fed, with a wink and a nod, allowed the banks
to carry these worthless loans on their books at full face value. It took six
years before they started to actually write them down. But without that measure,
every major bank in the US would have gone bankrupt. And technically, they
were for several years. But the Fed action simply bought the banks time to
re-liquefy. It was the right thing to do.
This week's action by the Fed is essentially the same thing. It buys time.
This 28 day auction will be around for a long time. If the banks had to write
down the potential losses on their AAA Fannie Mae paper and other similar assets,
it could have brought the banking system to its knees. Eventually, we will
get a market clearing price for all this paper, but the key word here is eventually.
We are going to see foreclosures and losses for another 18 months. It is going
to take a long time to know exactly what the losses will be.
I think the losses on many of the various forms of debt have been marked down
way too far by the various derivative markets. (I would hasten to add this
does not include the subprime markets, as many of those assets are going to
zero.) I doubt the loss in a lot of the debt paper will be nearly as much as
the current credit default swaps prices indicate. For instance, some municipal
bond debt is priced for 10-15% losses, when losses of less than 0.5% are normal.
When there is a buyers strike, prices fall, and sometime to quite low levels.
In the fullness of time, the price of these bonds will rise back to "normal" levels.
There is a reason Bill Gross is buying municipal bonds by the train car load.
Many are simply at the best prices we will see in my lifetime.
But if that debt is now on a bank's capital books, they have to write it down
to the latest mark-to-market. The Fed's move simply allows the banks to move
what will eventually (or maybe the better word is should eventually) be marked
back to reasonable values. It avoids a crisis today.
The next crisis? I read a very chilling piece from Michael Lewitt this morning.
He speculates on what if the rumors were true that Bear Stearns is basically
bankrupt. Bear is in the too big to fail category. They are at the heart of
the chain of Credit Default Swaps which run like fault lines throughout the
world's financial system. If Bear were allowed to collapse, it would simply
cascade throughout the world so fast it would truly make the current level
of the credit crisis seem small potatoes.
So, why can I be so sanguine? Because the regulators (the Fed and the SEC)
would step in and whatever large bank was failing would be merged or bought
very fast. Liquidity and assets would be provided. The Fed and the rest of
the world's central banks get that we are in a crisis. They will do what is
necessary. Those of us sitting in the cheap seats in the back of the plane
may not like it, as it will look like a bailout of the big guys who caused
the problem, but you have to maintain the integrity of the system. A hedge
fund here or there can go, but not one of the world's premier banks.
I wrote the above paragraphs on Thursday, and sure enough, the NY Fed and
JP Morgan stepped in to bail out Bear. This will not be the only time or bank.
The regulators may have been asleep, but the depth of this crisis has awakened
them.
But this is a boost for my contention that we will be in a Muddle Through
Economy for a long time. This latest Fed actions simply draw out the time over
which the market will correct. But that is a good thing, as a too swift, dead
drop correction could spawn a very deep recession, destroying vast amounts
of capital, which would take much longer to come out of.
Now, let's look at the implications of this crisis on our long term returns
and retirement portfolios.
Consumer Spending is Going, Going...South
I have used this graph before, but it bears keeping this in mind. Mortgage
Equity Withdrawals (MEWs) accounted from 1.5%-3% of overall GDP from 2001 through
2006, as the US consumer used borrowed on the equity in their homes to spend.

And it's not just MEWs weighing on the consumer. Higher energy costs are just
as effective as a tax in lowering consumer spending. If oil stays where it
is today, gasoline will be $4 a gallon this summer. Unemployment is slowly
rising, which of course is not good for consumer spending. Inflation is hurting,
especially in light of the very low growth in real consumer income. Combine
that with less availability of cheap and easy borrowing and the consumer is
clearly going to have to re-trench.
So, what does that mean? Two things. I think it will mean lower corporate
profits for a variety of US corporations, and as we will see, in a normal recessionary
pattern pull the stock market lower. And that is going to lead to less than
expected long term returns on retirement portfolios, which will have its own
consequences.
Let's review some basics. I made the contention in Bull's Eye Investing that
we should look at bull and bear market cycles in terms of valuations rather
than price. Stock markets go from high valuations to low valuations and back
to high valuations over very long term cycles, averaging around 17 years. That
would mean we are roughly halfway through this secular bear market which began
in 2000. I also pointed out a few weeks ago that the bottom in terms of price
in the last secular bear market (1966-1982) was made in 1974, but it was 8
years later than the bottom in valuations as expressed by Price to Earnings
Ratio was reached. These periods of low valuation are the springboard for the
next bull market rise, so there is a bull market coming. We just have to be
patient.
It is entirely possible that we see the bottom of the market in terms of price
this year as the market falls due to the pressures of the recession we are
in, yet valuations continue to fall even as prices rise. In fact, that is typical
of the secular bear cycles. This happens as earnings rise faster than stock
prices.
And why is that important? Because the returns on your stock portfolio are
closely and highly correlated with the P/E ratios at the time of your investments.
Besides the following chart, you can go to www.2000wave.com and
look at the stock market charts on the right side to see what kind of returns
you would have had over any given period during the last 100 years. Notice
on those charts that if you start with high P/E ratios, your returns could
be negative for 20 years! Not quite the 10% compounding that many planners
promise.

So, where are today's P/E ratios? Let's go to the data provided by Standard
and Poor's for the S&P 500. In January of 2007, S&P estimated that
earnings for 2007 would be $89. Earnings for 2007 were actually $71.56, down
about 20%. Last year about this time S&P estimated that earnings for 2008
would be $92. Today they estimate 71.20 for 2008. Lately every time new estimates
come out they are down. But that is typical in a recession. Analysts are generally
behind the curve.
But as the table below shows, we are now at P/E ratios that are back up over
20, and going to 22 by the middle of the summer. That would suggest that total
returns are going to be under pressure for the next few years at a minimum
and maybe for a decade. That does not bode well for retirees who are expecting
the stock market to compound at 8-10% annually in order for them to be able
to retire in the style to which the want to be accustomed. Real (inflation
adjusted) returns of between 0 and 4% are more likely based on historical returns
from today's valuations.

The Boomers Break the Deal
I have good news and bad news. First, the good news. Basically, my generation
- the Baby Boomers- is going to break the deal my Dad's generation made with
my kids. They agreed to die on time. The Boomer Generation and subsequent generations
are going to live longer - potentially much longer - than the current actuarial
tables suggest because of major breakthroughs in medicine and health care.
It is quite conceivable that we will see another average ten years of average
life for the Baby Boomer Generation. I personally fully intend to enjoy those
years.
But the bad news is that many have not saved enough for an extended life span,
let alone 30 years of retirement. My friend Ed Easterling at Crestmont Research
did some very interesting analysis a few months ago. You have saved and invested,
and now you want to retire. You decide to take out 5% of your total portfolio
to live each year and increase the amount for inflation, so that you can maintain
your lifestyle (a number which a surprising number of investment advisors would
say is ok). Let's say you are an aggressive older couple and decide to stay
in the stock market because that is where you are told that you can get the
best returns over time. And you know that at least one of you have the probability
of living 30 years. On average you are going to get 7-8% or more on your stock
portfolio, right?
Ed calculates what you would get for 78 different 30-year periods since 1900.
Let's say you start with a million dollars. On average, this has been a good
bet. You could maintain your lifestyle and end up with $3.6 million. You've
been pretty conservative, right?
Wrong. Because the returns you get over the next 30 years are highly dependent
on the P/E ratios at the beginning of those 30 years. Let's break up those
30-year periods into four quartiles of beginning valuation. If you start in
a period when P/E ratios are in the highest quartile, you find that over 50%
of the time you end up penniless, on average within 22 years. Here's that data
from Ed:

As we saw above, valuations are well into that top 25% quartile. Notice that
even when starting with the lowest-quartile valuations that 5% of the time
you ran out of money within 23 years. Want to take a lifestyle bet that you
have a 1 in 20 chance of losing? It will not be fun to have to go to work as
a Wal-Mart greeter at 80.
Of course, there are other implications. A generation living longer means
that the seemingly pessimistic forecasts of doom and gloom for Social Security
and Medicare are not pessimistic enough. Defined benefit pension plans will
be in real trouble at the end of the next decade.
So, what should you do? In secular bear cycles like we are in now, you should
look for absolute return style investments, like income portfolios, hedge funds
and other alternative style investments, be more nimble in your stock picking
rather than using index funds and expect overall lower returns. We need to
be patient and wait for the lower valuations which have always eventually made
themselves evident.
Mexico, London, and Switzerland
The Newport Group brought in Chris Gardner to speak after me. It was one of
the most inspirational stories I have ever heard. Chris was the man who wrote
the Pursuit of Happyness which was the basis for the movie of the same name
with Will Smith playing the role of Chris. As he related his life, it was even
tougher than the movie. It makes me realize how important being a father is,
and how much we owe to our parents who stayed with us, and how incredibly important
it I to be there for our kids. Get the book and see the movie, and if you ever
get a chance to her him speak, do so.
I get more than a few letters from readers who think my Muddle Through Scenario
is a little too optimistic. If you want to read the bearish case, you can sign
up for my friend Bill Bonner's the Daily Reckoning. It is a free service and
very well written. Bill and his associates are from the Austrian economic camp,
and go through a lot of data in an entertaining manner. You can subscribe for
free at: http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Sub/MWAVEsignup.html
As noted above, I am in Orlando and getting ready to go to the Arnold Palmer
Invitational Golf tournament in a few minutes. The speech went well, and now
it is R&R time. It looks like I will be going to Playa del Carmen in Mexico
(south of Cancun) in a few weeks over a weekend to speak to a group of NFL
football players. Now that should be interesting. Then I will
be in London for two days April 15-16 and then on to Switzerland for the rest
of the week. Drop me a note if you want to meet.
Lunch and golf are calling, so I am going to his the send button early. Have
a great week, and remember to have some fun on the way as we Muddle Through.
Your life is getting better every week analyst,
|