Investing

Lots of people have been asking recently why the stock market appears unconnected with the economy.

There are several factors that contribute to that impression.

First, stock market indexes are imperfect measures of the whole stock market. Well-known indexes such as the S&P500 are higher than pre-pandemic, but the average stock is down something like 10% over the same time period. The difference is due to some well-known stocks such as Apple and Amazon, which have unusually large weights in the S&P500.

See this Colby Davis post for some relevant charts, and for some good arguments against buying large growth stocks today.

Stock markets react to the foreseeable future, whereas the daily news, and most politicians, prefer to focus attention on the recent past. People who focus on the recent past see a US that’s barely able to decide whether to fight COVID-19, whereas the market sees vaccines and/or good treatments enabling business to return to normal within a year.

Stock markets don’t try to reflect the costs associated with death, chronic fatigue, domestic violence, etc. Too many people want the market to be either a perfect indicator of how well we’re doing, or to dismiss it as worthless. Sorry, but imperfect indicators are all we have.

Plenty of influential people have been exaggerating the harm caused by the pandemic, in order to manipulate the average person into taking the pandemic seriously. As far as I can tell, this backfired, and contributed to the anti-mask backlash. It also contributed to stocks being underpriced in the spring, so parts of the stock market rebound have simply been reactions to the growing evidence that most large companies are recovering.

The vaccine news has been persistently good, except for the opposition from big pharma and their friends at the FDA to making vaccines available as soon as possible.

Another modest factor is that many companies dramatically reduced their capital expenditure plans starting around March and April. That will reduce production capacities for the next year or two, thus making shortages of goods a bit more common than usual. This should prop up profit margins. But I haven’t noticed much connection between the most relevant industries and rising stock prices.

Why is there such a large divergence between the S&P500 and the average stock?

Investors have developed a somewhat unusual degree of preference for well-known companies whose long-term growth prospects seem safe.

I guessed last year that this would be a rerun of the Nifty Fifty. I still see important similarities in investor attitudes, but I see enough divergences in patterns of stock prices that I’m guessing we’ll get something in between the broad, gradual peak of the Nifty Fifty and a standard bubble (i.e. with a well-defined peak followed by a clear reversal within months).

Remember that high volatility is somewhat correlated with being in a bubble. We’ve recently seen Zoom Video Communications rise 40% in one day, and Salesforce rise 26%, in response to good earnings reports. That’s a $50 billion one-day gain for Salesforce. It reminds me of the volatility in PetroChina in 2007 (PetroChina has declined 87% since then). There was also that $173 billion rise in Apple after it’s latest earnings report, but that was a mere 10.5% rise.

Some of the divergence is due to small retailers losing business to Amazon, and to small restaurant chains losing business to fast food chains.

The bubble is a bit broader than just tech stocks – Home Depot and Chipotle are well above their pre-pandemic levels, by much larger amounts than can be explained by any near-term changes in their profits.

Incumbent politicians have been trying to buy votes by shoveling money to influential companies and people. There’s been some speculation that that’s biased toward large companies. It seems likely that large companies are better able to take advantage of those deals, because they’re more likely to employ someone with expertise at dealing with the government than is, say, a barbershop.

But I don’t see how that explains more than 1% of the stock market divergence. Stocks like Apple and Tesla have risen much more than can be explained by any change in this year’s profits. Any sane explanation of those soaring stocks has to involve increased optimism about profits that they’ll be making 5 to 10 years from now.

Large companies have better access to banks. Large companies typically have someone who is an expert at dealing with banks, and they have the accounting competence to make it easy for banks to figure out how much they can safely lend to the company. In contrast, a family-owned business will be slower to figure out how to borrow money, and therefore is more likely to go out of business due to unusual problems such as a pandemic. That might explain a fair amount of the divergence between the S&P500 and what you hear by word of mouth, but it explains little of the divergence between the S&P500 and the publicly traded companies that are too small for the S&P500.

I’ve only done a little selling recently, and I’ve been mostly avoiding large companies for many years. I’m guessing that Thursday’s tech stock crash wasn’t the end of the bubble. Bubbles tend to continue expanding until the average investor gets tired of hearing pundits say that we’re in a bubble. That suggests the peak is at least a month away, and I could imagine it being more than a year away.

Stock markets have a long history of being abnormally risky in September and October. Out of 10 months in which the S&P500 ended at least 15% lower than when it started, 3 were in October. Out of 31 months in which it ended at least 10% lower, 12 were in September or October.

I used to guess that this was due to the onset of seasonal affective disorder. That explanation was a bit unsatisfying, because SAD seems likely to be predictable enough that the effects could be mostly smoothed out by smart investors.

After looking at the 1957 pandemic and its possible effect on the stock market, I wondered whether infectious diseases was a better explanation.

I did a crude analysis of the correlations between flu deaths and stock market changes. I didn’t manage to get as good a dataset as I’d hoped for, and ended up settling for the monthly US data for selected seasons (12 in the period 1941-1976) in table 1 of Trends in Recorded Influenza Mortality: United States, 1900–2004.

I looked at correlations between monthly increases in flu deaths per 100,000 people and the monthly change in the S&P500. I was able to find a large effect, but it disappeared when I left out the 1943-1944 season (which was by far the worst season in that time period, yet wasn’t labeled as a pandemic).

Either there’s no effect in that time period, I don’t have detailed enough data, or the effects precede deaths by enough that the death data aren’t helpful.

I was mostly thinking that diseases might have affected the market via effects on investors moods or liquidity preferences, so I wasn’t assuming there would be much discussion of the topic. The paper The Unprecedented Stock Market Reaction to COVID-19 investigated whether newspapers mentioned the topic, and concluded:

In the period before 24 February 2020 – spanning 120 years and more than 1,100 jumps – contemporary journalistic accounts attributed not a single daily stock market jump to infectious disease outbreaks or policy responses to such outbreaks. Perhaps surprisingly, even the Spanish Flu fails to register in next-day journalistic explanations for large daily stock market moves.

So, after a fair amount of research, I still don’t have good evidence about what’s causing the September / October volatility.

P.S. For some strange reason, January is an unusually safe month, with no declines of more than 9% in the S&P 500.

P.P.S. VIX futures are saying that the S&P500’s volatility around late October will be 3.6 points higher the average of August and December volatilities. That compares to an average of 0.86 points higher (and a maximum of 2.1) over the prior 11 years in which VIX futures have been available (all of these numbers come from prices near July 20 of the relevant year).

So the markets expect something unusual this October. Something more surprising than they expected during the prior two presidential election years. Does anyone know whether this risk is due to weather-related pandemic risk or due to political risk?

New infections have been declining at an almost adequate pace (10% per week?) in most parts of the US, and probably the rest of the developed world.

The overall reported new cases look more discouraging, for two reasons.

One reason is the increase in testing. I estimate that two months ago, a bit less than 10% of new infections were being confirmed by tests, and I estimate that now it’s above 20%, maybe getting close to 25%. That means that if the new infection rate were unchanged, we’d be seeing a roughly 10% per week increase in reported cases.

Nearly all parts of the country have done a good deal better than that.

I estimate the change in new infections since the early April peak by multiplying the early April confirmed daily cases by 10 or 12, and the June ones by 4 or 5, and I get a current rate that’s about 1/4 to 1/3 of the peak.

The bad news is that there are some heavily populated areas for which the trend doesn’t look very good over the past few weeks. When the rate of new infections remains constant in some areas, but declines at exponential rates in others, the exponential declines stop affecting the total numbers before too long. E.g. much of California has suppressed the pandemic, but a few cities, such as Los Angeles and Oakland, are enough to keep the state’s total count of new infections steady.

Continue Reading

Long-term investors should stay away from most bonds for the foreseeable future.

Last summer, Colby Davis explained why portfolio managers might want to buy bonds that yield 2%. At the time, I was suspicious, but it felt premature to argue against it.

Since then, yields on 30-year government bonds have dropped to 1.44%. That means bond prices went up. His advice worked well as a hedge against pandemics.

Inflation expectations have dropped along with those yields.

30-year TIPS have an expected yield of -0.045%.

That implies expected CPI inflation of less than 1.5% over the next 30 years, and that, adjusted for inflation as measured by the CPI, investors who buy 30-year government bonds now should expect to lose wealth if they hold to maturity.

So why are investors buying bonds at these prices?

Continue Reading

In this post, I make some conjectures about U.S. economic growth over the next year or two.

Many people expect a depression, due to the current high unemployment numbers. But depressions aren’t caused by unemployment – that’s a symptom, with little predictive power.

The main cause of poor economic growth has been an inability to alter wages so that the supply of and demand for labor are in balance. That typically means deflation, or a large, unexpected decline in the inflation rate, combined with sticky wages.

So I’ll mostly focus on guessing whether we’ll have inflation or deflation.

Continue Reading

The stock market crash of the past two weeks looks like an over-reaction to COVID-19.

Is COVID-19 really the reason for the crash? I can’t find any other news that would explain the timing and which stocks were hit hardest.

Here’s a sample of some of the harder hit stocks, all travel-related (Friday’s close compared to the highest close in February):

  • -37% Hertz (HTZ)
  • -36% Avis (CAR)
  • -29% World Fuel Services Corp (INT)
  • -24% Carnival (cruise line) (CCL)
  • -22% Delta Air Lines (DAL)
  • (compare to the S&P 500: -12.4%)

It is, of course, possible that the market was in a mild bubble in early February, and the virus merely triggered a return to sanity. There were enough high-priced stocks that I’ll guess that’s explains a little of what happened. Hertz and Avis are maybe high-risk stocks due to the risks associated with the upcoming transition to robocars. But the others that I listed did not at all fit my stereotype of overpriced stocks.

And the stocks that I had been thinking were overpriced, in industries that don’t look to be especially hurt by the virus, declined roughly in line with the market.

Outside of travel-related stocks, it mostly looks like a general shift in preferences to more cash, and away from stock. I.e. a general increase in risk aversion.

The gold market is confused as to which direction a pandemic should move it. I agree. I’m confused as to how gold should react.

What scenario could explain the decline? Maybe a two month shutdown of 90+% of U.S. air travel? A multi-year reduction in travel of 10%? It would take something like that for the market reaction to make much sense. Yet I’d bet at roughly 10:1 odds against any one of those scenarios happening.

Metaculus is currently predicting 195k COVID-19 deaths this year.

Metaculus forecast trends ought to look a good deal like random walks, yet the charts I see there look more like exponential growth.

Metaculus is likely to be a more objective source of information than the news media storyteller industry or social media. But it’s likely more susceptible to selection effects and hype than are markets that have lots of money at stake. (Metaculus has token prizes, structured in a way that may encourage more extreme bets than a regular market would).

None of this implies much about where other reactions to the virus are sensible. There’s a much different asymmetry between getting sick versus being paranoid than there is between losing money due to a pandemic versus losing money due to selling on a false alarm.

I’ve got about a month’s supply of food, but that’s my normal preparation for a variety of disasters. I have no special insights about whether the current risks justify staying home.

P.S. Chinese stocks are supporting the view that the situation in China has improved over the past month.

There are a number of investment ideas that pop up about once per generation, work well for years, and then investors get reminded of why they’re not so good, and they get ignored for long enough that the average investor doesn’t remember that the idea has been tried.

The idea I’m remembering this month is known by the phrase Nifty Fifty, meaning that there were about 50 stocks that were considered safe investments, whose reliable growth enabled investors to ignore standard valuation measures such as price/earnings ratios, dividend yields, and price to book value.

The spirit behind the Nifty Fifty was characterized by this line from a cryonaut in Woody Allen’s Sleeper (1973): “I bought Polaroid at seven, it’s probably up millions by now!”.

There was nothing particularly wrong with the belief that those were good companies. The main mistakes were to believe that their earnings would grow forever, and/or that growing earnings would imply growing stock prices, no matter how high the current stock price is.

I’ve seen a number of stocks recently that seem to fit this pattern, with Amazon and Salesforce mostly clearly fitting the stereotype. I also ran into one person a few months ago who believed that Amazon was a good investment because it’s a reliable source of 15+% growth. I also visited Salesforce Park last month, and the wealth that it radiated weakly suggests the kind of overconfidence that’s associated with an overpriced stock market.

I took a stab at quantifying my intuitions, and came up with a list of 50 companies (shown below) based on data from SI Pro as of 2019-09-20, filtered by these criteria:

  • pe_ey1 > 30 (price more that 30 times next year’s forecast earnings)
  • mktcap > 5000 (market capitalization more than $5 billion)
  • prp_2yh > 75 (price more than 75% of its 2 year high)
  • rsales_g5f > 50 (5 year sales growth above the median stock in the database)
  • sales_y1 < 0.33333*mktcap (market capitalization more than 3 times last year’s sales)
  • yield < 3 (dividend yield less than 3%)
  • pbvps > 5 (price more than 5 times book value)
  • epsdc_y2 > 0 (it earned money the year before last)

I did a half-assed search over the past 20 years, and it looks like there were more companies meeting these criteria in the dot com bubble (my data for that period isn’t fully comparable), but during 2005-2015 there were generally less than a dozen companies meeting these criteria.

The companies on this list aren’t as widely known as I’d expected, which weakens the stereotype a bit, but otherwise they fit the Nifty Fifty pattern of the market seeming confident that their earnings will grow something like 20% per year for the next decade.

There were some other companies that arguably belonged on the list, but which the filter excluded mainly due to their forward price/earnings ratio being less than 30: BABA (Alibaba Group Holding Ltd), FB (Facebook), and GOOGL (Alphabet). Maybe I should have used a threshold less than 30, or maybe I should take their price/earnings ratio as evidence that the market is evaluating them sensibly.

This looks like a stock market bubble, but a significantly less dramatic one than the dot com bubble. The market is doing a decent job of distinguishing good companies from bad ones (much more so than in the dot com era), and is merely getting a bit overconfident about how long the good ones will be able to maintain their relative quality.

How much longer will these stocks rise? I’m guessing until the next major bear market. No, I’m sorry, I don’t have any prediction for when that bear market will occur or what will trigger it. It will likely be triggered by something that’s not specific to the new nifty fifty.

I’m currently short EQIX. I expect to short more of these stocks someday, but probably not this year.

ticker company pe_ey1 mktcap sales_y1 yield pbvps
AMT American Tower Corp 52 100520 7440.1 1.7 18.21
AMZN Amazon.com, Inc. 54 901016 232887 0 16.67
ANSS ANSYS, Inc. 31.8 18422.3 1293.6 0 6.46
AZPN Aspen Technology, Inc. 30.5 8820.8 598.3 0 22.2
BFAM Bright Horizons Family Solutio 37.2 9181.8 1903.2 0 10.21
CMG Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. 48 23067.9 4865 0 15.04
CRM salesforce.com, inc. 50.1 134707 13282 0 7.02
CSGP CoStar Group Inc 49.3 21878.4 1191.8 0 6.74
DASTY Dassault Systemes SE (ADR) 32.9 37683.3 3839 1 7.05
DXCM DexCom, Inc. 110.3 14132.9 1031.6 0 20.44
EQIX Equinix Inc 70.2 48264.7 5071.7 1.7 5.46
ETSY Etsy Inc 61.7 7115.6 603.7 0 16.42
EW Edwards Lifesciences Corp 36.7 44736.3 3722.8 0 13.06
FICO Fair Isaac Corporation 36.5 9275.5 1032.5 0 33.71
FIVE Five Below Inc 33.6 7152.1 1559.6 0 10.86
FTNT Fortinet Inc 31.6 13409.2 1801.2 0 11.93
GDDY Godaddy Inc 67.2 11976.7 2660.1 0 12.41
GWRE Guidewire Software Inc 70.3 8835.9 652.8 0 5.84
HEI Heico Corp 49.3 15277.3 1777.7 0.1 10.58
HUBS HubSpot Inc 94.6 6877.4 513 0 10.93
IAC IAC/InterActiveCorp 38.3 19642.5 4262.9 0 6.51
IDXX IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. 49.3 23570.6 2213.2 0 138.03
ILMN Illumina, Inc. 44.3 44864.4 3333 0 10.5
INTU Intuit Inc. 31.6 70225.1 6784 0.8 18.67
INXN InterXion Holding NV 106.8 5995.1 620.2 0 7.95
ISRG Intuitive Surgical, Inc. 38.8 61020.9 3724.2 0 8.44
LULU Lululemon Athletica inc. 33.7 25222.7 3288.3 0 16.36
MA Mastercard Inc 30.1 276768 14950 0.5 55.23
MASI Masimo Corporation 41.8 8078.9 858.3 0 7.8
MDSO Medidata Solutions Inc 43.4 5734.1 635.7 0 8.35
MELI Mercadolibre Inc 285.4 27306.2 1439.7 0 12.59
MKTX MarketAxess Holdings Inc. 56.7 12941.1 435.6 0.6 18.93
MPWR Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 31.5 6761.2 582.4 1 9.44
MTCH Match Group Inc 38.4 22264.7 1729.9 0 105.51
OLED Universal Display Corporation 45.5 8622.8 247.4 0.2 11.36
PAYC Paycom Software Inc 51.3 12812.8 566.3 0 28.6
PCTY Paylocity Holding Corp 47.6 5150.5 467.6 0 17.01
PEGA Pegasystems Inc. 167.2 5686.4 891.6 0.2 10.14
PEN Penumbra Inc 134 5142.8 444.9 0 11.3
RMD ResMed Inc. 30.6 19181.5 2606.6 1.2 9.33
RNG RingCentral Inc 139.4 11062.4 673.6 0 30.93
ROL Rollins, Inc. 43.6 11383.4 1821.6 1.2 15.04
RP RealPage Inc 31.3 6084.5 869.5 0 5.3
TAL TAL Education Group (ADR) 39.4 21326.2 2563 0 8.45
TECH BIO-TECHNE Corp 34.6 7483.8 714 0.6 6.52
TREX Trex Company Inc 30.2 5074.2 684.3 0 13.05
TYL Tyler Technologies, Inc. 43.5 10004.5 935.3 0 6.98
VEEV Veeva Systems Inc 62 21366.2 862.2 0 15.27
VRSK Verisk Analytics, Inc. 32.3 25948.4 2395.1 0.6 11.73
ZAYO Zayo Group Holdings Inc 42.5 7997.8 2578 0 5.95

Book review: Principles: Life and Work, by Ray Dalio.

Most popular books get that way by having an engaging style. Yet this book’s style is mundane, almost forgetable.

Some books become bestsellers by being controversial. Others become bestsellers by manipulating reader’s emotions, e.g. by being fun to read, or by getting the reader to overestimate how profound the book is. Principles definitely doesn’t fit those patterns.

Some books become bestsellers because the author became famous for reasons other than his writings (e.g. Stephen Hawking, Donald Trump, and Bill Gates). Principles fits this pattern somewhat well: if an obscure person had published it, nothing about it would have triggered a pattern of readers enthusiastically urging their friends to read it. I suspect the average book in this category is rather pathetic, but I also expect there’s a very large variance in the quality of books in this category.

Principles contains an unusual amount of wisdom. But it’s unclear whether that’s enough to make it a good book, because it’s unclear whether it will convince readers to follow the advice. Much of the advice sounds like ideas that most of us agree with already. The wisdom comes more in selecting the most underutilized ideas, without being particularly novel. The main benefit is likely to be that people who were already on the verge of adopting the book’s advice will get one more nudge from an authority, providing the social reassurance they need.

Advice

Some of why I trust the book’s advice is that it overlaps a good deal with other sources from which I’ve gotten value, e.g. CFAR.

Key ideas include:

  • be honest with yourself
  • be open-minded
  • focus on identifying and fixing your most important weaknesses

Continue Reading

Book review: Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty.

Capital in the Twenty-First Century is decent at history, mediocre at economics, unimpressive at forecasting, and gives policy advice that is thoughtfully adapted to his somewhat controversial goals. His goals involve a rather different set of priorities than I endorse, but the book mostly doesn’t try to persuade us to adopt his goals, so I won’t say much here about why I have different priorities.

That qualifies as a good deal less dumbed-down-for-popularity than I expected from a bestseller.

Even when he makes mistakes, he is often sufficiently thoughtful and clear to be somewhat entertaining.

Piketty provides a comprehensive view of changes in financial inequality since the start of the industrial revolution.

Piketty’s main story is that we’ve experienced moderately steady increases in inequality, as long as conditions remained somewhat normal. There was a big break in that trend associated with WW1, WW2, and to lesser extents the Great Depression and baby boom. Those equalizing forces (mainly decreases in wealth) seem unlikely to repeat. We’re back on a trend of increasing inequality, with no end in sight.

Continue Reading

Scott Sumner asks whether those of us[1] who talked about a housing bubble are predicting another one now.

Sumner asks “Is it possible that the housing boom was not a bubble?”.

It’s certainly possible to define the word bubble so that it wasn’t. But I take the standard meaning of bubble in this context to mean something like a prediction that prices will be lower a few years after the time of the prediction.

Of course, most such claims aren’t worth the electrons they’re written on, for any market that’s moderately efficient. And we shouldn’t expect the news media to select for competent predictions.

Sumner’s use of the word “bubble” isn’t of much use to me as an investor. If prices look like a bubble for a decade after their peak, that’s a good reason to have sold at the peak, regardless of what happens a decade later.

If I understand Sumner’s definition correctly, he’d say that the 1929 stock market peak looked for 25 years like it might have been a bubble, then in the mid 1950s he would decide that it had been shown not to be a bubble. That seems a bit strange.

Even if I intended to hold an investment for decades, I’d care a fair amount about the option value of selling sooner.

2.

The U.S. is not currently experiencing a housing bubble. I can imagine a small housing bubble developing in a year or two, but I’m reasonably confident that housing prices will be higher 18 months from now than they are today.

Several signs from 2005/2006 that I haven’t seen recently:

I mostly used to attribute the great recession to the foolish leverage of the banking system and homebuyers, who underestimated the risks of a significant decline in housing prices.

I’ve somewhat changed my mind after reading Sumner’s writings, and I now think the Fed had the power to prevent most of the decline in gdp, unless it was constrained by some unannounced limit on the size of its balance sheet. But I still think it’s worth asking why we needed unusual Fed actions. The fluctuations in leverage caused unusual changes in demand for money, and the Fed would have needed to cause unusual changes in the money supply to handle that well. So I think the housing bubble provides a good explanation for the timing of the recession, although that explanation is incomplete without some reference to the limits to either the Fed’s power or the Fed’s competence.

[1] – he’s mainly talking about pundits who blamed the great recession on the housing bubble. I don’t think I ever claimed there was a direct connection between them, but I did imply an indirect connection via banking system problems.