Posts Tagged ‘stocks’

Can stocks hedge you from price inflation?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Continuing from our previous article, should we buy stocks as a hedge against price inflation? The answer to this question is not so straightforward.

In normal circumstances, some stocks are a good hedge against the garden-variety types of price inflation (or even beat inflation spectacularly) because their earnings power can increase faster than the general rise in prices. But in times of hyperinflation, when the real economy deteriorates, it will be increasingly difficult to find such a business.

First, let’s take a look at the past from this research report,

The 1970s were a period of accelerating inflation and poor equity returns in the US. By December 1980, the federal funds rate stood at 20%, and the ten-year Treasury peaked at 15.3% in September 1981. From December 31, 1968 to December 31, 1981, the S&P 500 returned 1.28 % per annum in nominal terms and -6% in real returns. Put another way, a dollar invested in the US stock market at the end of 1968 twelve years later was worth roughly 45 cents in real terms.

?

In the US, there is substantial empirical evidence that high inflation is associated with a high equity risk premium and declining stock prices. Bodie (1976) found from 1953-1972 that common stocks were poor hedges against inflation. Cohn and Lessard (1980) also found that stock prices in many industrial countries are negatively related to nominal interest rates and inflation.

It is important to make the distinction between properly anticipated inflation, and unanticipated inflation. If inflation is correctly anticipated and if companies can in fact pass on costs of doing business, then nominal cash flows should be unaffected by a general increase in prices. However, as inflation rises, it tends to become more uncertain and a component of price increases may not be properly anticipated by firms. Blanchard (1993) found that ?an unexpected increase in inflation in year 0 leads to a sharp decrease in stock prices in that year.?

There are a couple of ways to see why price inflation and stock prices are negatively correlated:

  1. In times of high inflation, interest rates are high. Therefore, bonds may prove better value than stocks relatively.
  2. Investors demand higher returns from stocks to compensate against higher price inflation. The lower the price paid for stocks, the higher yield returned by the stocks and thus, the higher the returns on investments.

On the other hand, we have examples in history where hyperinflation do wonders for stock prices. For example, in 2007, Zimbabwe had the world’s best performing stock market- stocks actually rose faster than price inflation:

Zimbabwe Industrial Index up till 2007

Zimbabwe Industrial Index up till 2007

Despite these two seeming contradictory real-life examples, one thing is clear: everything else being equal, unexpected rise in price inflation will lead to compressed valuation of stocks due to a rise in discount rates used to value stocks. In other words, PE ratio can decrease (in the context of rising earnings) even though stock prices can still rise in nominal terms. In the case of the US stock market in the 1970s, this led to negative returns in real terms. But in Zimbabwe’s case, stocks actually had good positive returns in real terms. But make no mistake: as we quoted Marc Faber in our previous article, such positive returns are the result of rising speculative bubbles in the stock market abetted by the printing of money.

If you believe that the (1) US are going the path of Zimbabwe-style money printing and (2) the stock market hit record high due to speculation, does it mean that you should rush to buy any stocks as a hedge?

Here, you have to be careful. The dizzy heights of stock prices in the Zimbabwean stock market have a survivorship bias. With real GDP deteriorating and sky-rocketing unemployment in that country, we are sure many Zimbabwean public companies are dropping dead like flies. That means, there will be many stocks whose prices went to zero. If you happen to hold one of them, you will suffer loss in nominal terms in a hyper-inflationary environment.

Also, stellar stock market performance that are induced by money printing are, at the end of the day, bubbles. Bubbles can easily burst.

Thus, if you are considering holding stocks as a price inflation hedge, you will have to choose the stocks very carefully. The wrong choice will lead to (1) losses in real terms at the very least or (2) a possible wipe-out in the context of a highly dysfunctional economy.

How well will stocks do in times of high inflation?

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

As we all know, governments all over the world are engaging in expensive and wasteful bailouts, stimulus and printing of money. Naturally, this resulted in many investors being worried about the long-run impact on price inflation. Already, contrarians like Marc Faber, Warren Buffett and Jimmy Rogers are making the high inflation call.

Investors are scrambling for ways to hedge against high inflation. One of the asset class being considered to do that job is stocks. Indeed, Zimbabwe is a great example of the world’s ‘best performing’ stock market in the midst of hyperinflation (see Zimbabwe: Best Performing Stock Market in 2007?). In a hyper-inflationary economy, earnings can soar in nominal terms through the sheer force of price inflation. Therefore, stock prices will definitely rise in nominal terms.

So, should you rush out to buy any stocks if you are worried about hyperinflation in the future? Before you do so, take note of these points:

  1. A hyper-inflationary economy is in deep trouble. Unemployment can be very high (e.g. the stagflation of the 1970s, 90% unemployment rate in Zimbabwe), many businesses will fail and there will be social problems. You will likely witness depleted store shelves as there will be shortages of goods. Therefore, in such economic environment, not all businesses will survive. This means that many stock prices are going to be zero. You will not want to buy into one of them.
  2. Our theory is that in hyper-inflationary times, while stock prices can go up tremendously in nominal terms, their price-earning (PE) ratios will decline. The reason is not so much due to earnings growth expectation. Instead, it will be due to higher discount rate applied by the market. Remember back in Quantitaive demonstration of the effects of price inflation on your investment, we showed you how high inflation can easily make a mockery of your investment returns if you apply a discount rate that turns out to be far below the inflation rate. Historically, the rate of inflation for hyper-inflations increases exponentially. This may translate to higher and higher inflation expectations, which result in higher and higher discount rates, which in turn imply lower and lower PE ratios.

Zimbabwe’s experience shows that in nominal terms, stocks are great investments. But in real terms, their performances are very restrained.

Marc Faber: Bernanke Policy Will “Destroy” U.S. Dollar

Monday, March 10th, 2008

Recently, Marc Faber was being interviewed in Chicago where he freely shared his thoughts. You can watch the interview at Bloomberg here. Below is the content of the interview as summarized and transcribed by us:

If the statistics were measured properly in the United States, the US would already be in a recession and would already be so in a couple of months.

See our article, How much can we trust the price indices (e.g. CPI)?.

If the US goes into recession, it will not be a total disaster for the rest of the world, except that in the rest of the world, we also have colossal bubbles [in asset prices].

Since the world is in a global boom from November 2001, then this will one day lead to a global bust.

It is very doubtful that the global financial market is de-coupled from the US because of the close linkages and connectivity. For example, if the US stock market goes down, the rest of the world’s stock market will be dragged down as well.

As Marc Faber acknowledged by psychologists’ study, a dosage of bust is more painful than the joy of an equal dosage of boom. In other words, the implication the coming bust will be more pronounced and painful than the euphoria of the preceding 75 months of boom.

In the US, they pursue essentially economic policies that targets consumption, which in my opinion is misguided. What they should pursue is economic policies that stimulates capital investments and capital formation.

We would agree with Marc Faber wholeheartedly, as we quoted Ludwig von Mises in The myth of financial asset ?investments? as savings. As the US began their aggressively loose monetary policy from September 17 2007 by cutting interest rates from 5.25% to 3%…

What is the result? I tell you what the result is! The stock market in September 17 by the S&P is down 10%, the US dollar is down 10%, gold and oil are up 40%. Well done Mr. Bernanke!

Will the stock market continue to fall? Marc Faber said that we have to ask Mr. Bernanke…

… because if he prints money- and I have to add here one point: had I been the professor who had judged his thesis for his PhD, I would not have let him pass. I would have told him actually, “Mr. Bernanke, I have one condition in which I let you pass, and this is you never join a central bank, because you are a destroyer of money as store-of-value function, of the function of money being a unit of account. The only central bank that I would allow you to go to is the one under Mr. Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And I tell you Mr Bernanke with his monetary policy, he will destroy the US dollar.

This is what we said before in Peering into the soul of Ben Bernanke.

As pointed out by the interviewer, the dollar was in decline before Mr. Bernanke took over. Does Bernanke need to ease monetary policy to ease the US economy from this “spunk?” As Bernanke studied about the Great Depression, his conclusion was that the lack of flexibility in the monetary policy that resulted in such a prolonged downturn. Marc Faber disagreed:

The Depression occurred not because the central bank was tied when the Depression occurred. But because it was far too easy in its monetary policy in the period leading to the Depression, from 1925 to 1929.

This is what we said before in What causes economic booms and busts?. As Marc Faber said, it is not only Bernanke is at fault. Greenspan is responsible too, with his loose monetary policies when he cut interest rates to 1% in September 2001 and keep it that way till 2004. That led to the “reckless lending” and “reckless credit growth,” which in turn led to the problems we have today.

Marc Faber said that if he is the central banker, he will raise interest rates much earlier to target asset and credit price bubble and would not have cut the Fed Fund Rate to 1% in 2001. This is because unlike the Fed, he would not base his monetary policy on core inflation (which excludes food and fuel) because all humans eat and uses energy. Now that the Fed had created a “gigantic” credit and asset bubble, which is deflating right now, it is very difficult to re-inflate the bubble because “we are in the process of de-leveraging” as the private sector is now tightening credit conditions, “not the Fed.”

According to Marc Faber’s latest Doom, Bloom and Gloom report, investing in the bond market (mainly Treasuries) is “financial suicide” because with such low yields, actual price inflation will result in negative real returns. Marc Faber believed that “at some stage, the corporate bond market will offer some value.” However, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury market is a “disaster waiting to happen.” As the Fed cuts the Fed Funds Rate to possibly zero, the Treasury market will “tank” at some point in time. Though he is not a US credit analyst, Marc Faber reckoned that in the junk bond area, there should be some good quality bonds from company that can survive and continues to pay interests. He continued,

The arguments for stocks is frequently that you take the earnings yield of the stock market and compare it with the bond yield and people compare it to Treasury bonds. I think you should take the earnings yield of equities and compare it with, say, a typical S&P company, and that is a yield that correspond to, say, a triple-B, and so, basically as of today, some bonds are more attractive than equity.

Over the past 4 to 5 years, US stock market has underperformed other markets, e.g. the emerging market and the commodity market. However, today, the emerging market is far more vulnerable (e.g. China and India market could easily fall by 30% to 40%). With the money printer in the Fed (Ben Bernanke), the deflation will more likely lead to the US dollar decline than an actual asset price deflation. Thus, relative to the Euro and gold, the US stock market is going down.

Some may argue that given the commodity market has risen so much since 2001, would it be too late to join in the bull market? Marc Faber disagreed with that argument. When the commodity market bottomed and rallied in the 1990s/2000s (note that not all bottomed at the same time), they were at the lowest level, inflation adjusted, in the 200-year history of capitalism. For example, gold was at around $250 when it fell from a high of around $850 in 1980 (which Marc Faber admitted is too high). But in the last gold bull market in the 1970s, gold rose 25 times from $35 to $850. The current gold bull market of several years rose only 4 times. Among the commodity markets, sugar is the cheapest commodity in real terms.

When asked, “Are we going to see a major US bank fail?”

“I hope so.”

“You hope so????”

Marc Faber saw that this is the only way to “introduce discipline” into the US financial system. By continuously bailing out banks, the Fed introduces moral hazard that “perpetuates the mistakes” that the Fed has already done. When asked, which major bank is more likely to fail, Marc Faber had no opinion because that depends on the banks’ derivative exposures, which is the next time bomb to explode. The ‘derivatives’ that he mentioned does not include the structured products (e.g. SIV, CDOs, etc). This will be the next major financial issue in the next 3 to 6 months. Marc Faber believed that we will not see the bottom of the stock market until we see stocks like Google falling 50% from their highs, hopefully more. In a bear market, one sector (e.g. home building) will fall first and then the goldilocks crowd will reassure the market that everything is fine. Then the next sector will fall, followed by next. And so, the bear market has to mature, like “good cheese and wine.”

One potential trouble-maker to watch out for in 2007

Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007

As 2006 closed with stock markets around the world in record high with an eerie calm in terms of volatility, it is very tempting to assume that 2007 will bring more of the same. From the news report, many fund managers have such optimistic view. With the supply of money and credit still expanding, it is indeed very much possible for the good times to continue in 2007. But this does not mean there are no dangers. Hence, today, we will look at a possible danger scenario: the sustained downtrend of the US dollar. As we said in Will the US dollar collapse?, it is only a matter of time before this scenario will happen. The question is, will it happen in 2007?

At this point in time, both the US bond and stock market (especially the bond market) are expecting interest rates to decline in 2007. We said before in Are you prepared for the coming storm?, the ?market seems to be spell-bound by some kind perfect wonderland myth?it ?thinks? that the economy is so weak that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates next year (which is good for stock prices) and so strong that a recession will be avoided.? If events turn out to contradict the markets? expectation, we can be sure that the results will be very unfavourable.

As we elaborated in What can we expect in a US dollar decline?, a sustained decline in the US dollar will show up as inflation in the US domestic front, which will force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. With the US economy already faltering, this will lead to a recession. When that happens, the bull run of 2006 will turn into a bear, as it happened before in May 2006 when talk of raising interest rates spooked the stock and commodity markets. Thus, we will be faced with a hard-landing scenario of declining US dollar and rising interest rates. At this point in time, it will be much harder to foresee what will happen next. As such, what follow will be merely our gloomy guesses.

It is possible for a sustained decline of the US dollar to descend into a nightmare rout in the US dollar through a circuitous route of cause and effects (though it is unclear how likely it would be). If that happens, the results will be unpredictably ugly. Though Asian and Middle-Eastern central bankers certainly have the means to set off a disorderly collapse of the US dollar (see Awash with cash?what to do with it?), it is unlikely that they will have the motivation to do so unless some unpredictably drastic developments took place in their domestic front. It is more likely that they will not sell their US dollar reserves out of their own accord?that is, if they should do so, it would likely be because the US dollar is already falling. But whatever the initial cause, if should we see foreign central bankers dumping their US dollars, it will be the sign of the beginning of great global upheaval as there will be great implications on the Middle East and oil (we will talk about that in the future). Since much of the world?s financial assets are denominated in US dollars, there will be a rush to shift from those assets into safe havens?that can only mean old trusty gold, which is humanity?s choice since ancient history.

So, for 2007, watch out for the US dollar!

Advertisement

Divergent sentiment

Friday, October 13th, 2006

Today, we looked at marketwatch.com and saw something quite amusing. One set of headlines cheered in jubilation: ?Earnings driving the Dow? and ?Michael Farr says investors ‘are thinking positive’.? Another headline wallowed in worry: ?Manufacturers see gloom ahead.?

Is the US economy slowing down and threatening to roll over into recession? Remember, it was not long ago that the fall in manufacturing index prompted the stock market sentiment to turn negative. Now, the market merely shrugged off this report. The housing boom had already collapsed and threatened to cut down US consumer spending, which made up 70% of the US economy.

On the other hand, is the US economy going to power ahead as what the stock market is feeling it would right now? Perhaps the rebound in consumer confidence and the fall in oil prices will help the economy get into a perfect ?soft-landing??

Now, let?s get back to the basics. Make no mistake: the US economy is indeed slowing. The question is, whether this slowdown will result in a ?soft-landing? or recession (or worse still, a depression). Currently, the US economy is at an inflection point. The stock market seems to believe that after this inflection point, the US economy will not get too bad, maybe even mounting ahead. The bond market, on the other hand, believes the opposite. Who is right?

We believe that neither is right. As what we heard from Marc Faber?s (a famous contrarian investor) recent presentation, you can make the Dow Jones climb as high as you want as long as you print enough money. When excess money is being printed, company earnings will definitely grow in nominal terms, which will propel stock prices even higher. But that doesn?t mean that the economy?s production has increased. In other words, real GDP growth will not necessarily grow as much as the growth in money supply. Put it simply, the Dow Jones will rise merely due to inflation.

So, the stock market is wrong, not because the stock prices rise due to economic growth. They rise due to monetary inflation (printing of money). To illustrate this point further, over the past several years, the Dow Jones might be higher in nominal terms, but in real (inflation-adjusted) term, it had fallen.

The bond market is wrong, not because interest rates will be cut due to a recession. On the contrary, this coming recession will be accompanied by excess monetary inflation, which means nominal interest rates have to rise.

But be note that – the above-mentioned scenario will take time to work out. It will not happen overnight. Therefore, time is on your side as you fortify your financial well-being from the coming storm. In the meantime, expect more volatility.

Strange rally

Monday, October 9th, 2006

Recently, the US stock market had been in a rally mood. Currently, with the North Korean nuclear tests just completed, we are not sure how the rally mood will turn out. But we smelled something very fishy about this recent rally. The economic news had not been good (and the good news wasn’t good enough), and the risk of a recession in the US economy is something that we believe is quite likely to happen. The US Federal Reserve chairman himself had warned of a substantial correction in the US housing market. Even the bond market believes that a recession is on its way.

Yet the stock market was incredibly optimistic. It?s simply beyond our belief.

We are getting out while we can.