Main

February 20, 2009

Is There Still Room For Optimism?

Glass Half Full
Flickr by Mr. Keef

Last week I did a video saying that I thought we were still in a new bull market. This was a follow up to a video I did in January listing some of the indicators I follow as reasons I thought we were in the early stages of a bull market. I pointed out that even with all the bad news about the economy, and jobs, and bailouts, the S&P 500 remained above 800. I saw this as a positive sign.

Since last week, the economic news has gotten worse. There have been renewed talks about nationalization of our banking system. [Psst. We’ve basically already nationalized the banks.] In response, the Dow reached a new 6-year low, penetrating the bottom it reached this past November. The S&P 500 broke through the 800 price barrier and threatens to challenge the low of 752 it reached last year. As of this moment (9:55 a.m.) the S&P 500 is trading at 769.

So was I wrong about this being a new bull market? Technically, no if the market holds where it is. Unless the S&P 500 falls below 752 (the November 20, 2008 price), this will still (technically) be considered a bull market. Recall I pointed out in the in first video that only once has the market declined 20% or more, rebounded 20% then, broke through the previous low. Could that happen now? Well we’re very close. It’s definitely possible.

Does any of this matter? Not really. The overall point I was trying to make in the videos and the past few posts on the topic is that stocks are cheap. They remain cheap. As I pointed out in the last video, we don’t know what the market or the economy will do in the next or any six month period. But it is highly probably the stock market will generate very good returns over the next five to ten years. And an investment in stocks now makes a lot of sense at these valuations. I’m still optimistic.

Next week I will be doing another video highlighting why I’m still optimistic about the market using some specific company examples. Stay tuned.

 Subscribe: Email | Reader | RSS | | Email this Email | Print This Print

February 14, 2009

Are We Still In A New Bull Market?

View video on The Third Pig or YouTube

Last month I posted and videoed about whether or not we were in a bull market based on five market indicators. I said that one way to tell if we’re in the beginning of a bull market is to try to ascertain whether or not we had seen a bottom. I concluded that we had seen a bottom in the market (November 20th, 752 level in the S&P 500) and that we’re in a new bull market trend. Today I’d like to look at another three:

1. Worst GDP decline in 25 years

On January 30, 2009, the BEA reported that GDP shrank 3.8% in the 4th quarter of 2008 (chart below). This was the worst showing in 25 years. The last time the economy shrank this severely was the 1st quarter of 1982. What did the market do the day these figures came out? It declined 2.2%, falling from 845.1 to 825.9. Not much of a move considering the news.

2. Job losses skyrocketing and unemployment trending toward double digits

February 5, 2009, the Labor Department reported 598,000 were lost bringing the total since the beginning of 2008 to 3.6 million. The unemployment rate went up to 7.6% making it the highest it’s been in decades. What did the market do that day? It went up 2.7% from 845.9 to 868.8.

3. Market price to GDP ratio

Back in 2001, in a Fortune magazine article Warren Buffett presented a chart comparing the total market value of U.S. based business as a percentage of GNP. An update of that chart is presented below. In the article Buffett said, “If the percentage relationship falls to the 70% to 80% area, buying stocks is likely to work very well for you." Currently this ratio sits below 75%.

I compared the market value of U.S. equities using the Wilshire 5000 index which comprises all stocks traded on the major exchanges in the U.S. I then compared it to GDP, a decent proxy for GNP. At the November 20th low, the percentage relationship between the two figures was 64% (Wilshire 5000 = 7.4 trillion and GDP = 11.7 trillion) and by the end of December remained below 80%.

Even if the market breaks through the 800 level, which who knows, it might, I am still on the side of this being a new bull market.

Disclosure: I and the clients of Brick Financial Management, LLC are own shares of iShares S&P 500 Index ETF but positions can change at anytime.

 Subscribe: Email | Reader | RSS | | Email this Email | Print This Print

January 28, 2009

Are We In A New Bull Market?

Two weeks ago I posted a video on YouTube declaring that I thought we were in the midst of a new bull market. I went on to say, in order to tell if we have entered a new bull market it is best to try and determine if we have seen a market bottom. November 20, 2008 was the day the S&P 500 reached 752. As of January 6, 2009 when the S&P 500 reached 934.7, it represented a 24% advance from the November 20th low. Technically, once an advance of 20% or more is underway that is a new bull market. But in an effort to be thorough, I went through five criteria I look at to determine if we were in fact in a new bull market.

Truthfully, I stole the criteria from Benjamin Graham’s The Intelligent Investor. In the book, Chapter 8, “The Investor and Market Fluctuations”, Graham explains how to recognize market tops. He gives five criteria. I simply turned those criteria on their head and replaced one with another I think is more relevant (at least to me). The criteria were:

1. A significantly low price in the market index.

From Oct. 9, 2007 through Nov. 20, 2008, the S&P 500 declined 52%, making it the third-worst bear market since the 1929-32 crash which saw a decline of 54%. The only other decline more significant than the ones just mentioned was 89% during the Great Depression. Additionally, the calendar year decline of 39% was only surpassed two other times in (1931 and 1937) in over 180 years. In other words the severity of the decline indicates that we are at a significantly low price.

2. A significantly low P/E on the market

At the 752 level, the S&P 500 was trading at a P/E ratio on trailing operating earnings per share of 11.5x. This is equal to the lowest operating P/E ratio in the 20 years that S&P has been tracking operating results and significantly lower than the average operating P/E ratio of 19.3x since 1988.

Another P/E measure is the Graham P/E (named for Benjamin Graham) which uses an inflation adjusted 10-year average for earnings. For the nine previous bear market bottoms the Graham P/E averaged 14.4x. At the 752 level in the S&P 500 the Graham P/E clocked in at 12.3x. This was lower than even markedly low P/Es.

3. High Stock market dividend yields versus relative to long-term bond yields

Dividends paid by Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies in the 12 months prior to December of 2008 amounted to 3.5% of the benchmark’s closing value yesterday. In early December, the 10-year yield fell as low as 3.4%. Intuitively, stocks should yield more than bonds as they represent the more volatile investment. However since 1958, 10-year notes have yielded on average 3.7% more than stock dividends. The present condition, dividend yields higher than bond yields, serves as an indicator stocks are priced the lowest they have been relative to bonds in 50 years.

4. Low Level of margin accounts

Margin is commonly used in a speculative manner. When the market is rising, buying stocks with borrowed money can and does juice returns. But in a declining market, they can be a death certificate. Margin accounts declined 47% from July of 2007 to November of 2008.

5. High volatility in the market

The best measure of volatility we have today is the CBOE VIX. The VIX, is also called the fear index. When it is high it indicates there is a plethora of panic selling in the market driving prices down. Market prices and the level of the VIX move in opposite directions. Historically, a VIX above 20-25 meant there was a lot of selling. Since the high of October 2007 to date, the VIX has averaged almost 32 and even reached an intraday high approaching 90. Warren Buffett himself even indicated he had never sell panic like this in all his years of investing. Panic selling usually means market bottoms.

Although we have seen the market pull back from the 934 price it reached on January 6th, it has not dipped below 800 since then. If history is any indicator, we are in the first few days of a new bull market.

 

Disclosure: I and the clients of Brick Financial Management, LLC are own shares of iShares S&P 500 Index ETF but positions can change at anytime.

 Subscribe: Email | Reader | RSS | | Email this Email | Print This Print

April 21, 2006

The "Zealots" Have It Wrong

The following commmentary is an excerpt from Brick Financial Management's February 2006 client letter:
"...The Zealot answer to the problem would be to create a portfolio set with some fixed percentage in stocks, some in bonds and some in cash without regard for valuation. This would be executed through some investment combination in index and actively managed mutual funds. The practice commonly referred to as asset allocation (or the Investment Policy decision), thought by the Zealots to be the most important decision an investor can make. The Zealot believes that the asset allocation decision, and not security selection, is the most important determinant of long term performance.

The Zealots and asset allocation As proof they reference one (that’s right, one) study. We’ll call the study BHB. The Zealots tell us that BHB says that of the determinants of performance - asset class selection, security selection and market timing – asset selection determines 93.6% of long term portfolio performance. [We find it odd that BHB did not consider management fees, transaction costs and taxes among the determinants.] They also went on to say that security selection determined less than 5% of portfolio performance. The Zealots love BHB as it seems to support EMH which states that security selection is pointless.

Variation in returns is not total returns But we (the Heretics), being skeptical by nature and being unable to ignore the success we’ve had with security selection, didn’t buy the interpretation of the BHB study. So we actually read the thing. What did we discover? At no point does the BHB study measure total long-term returns. What it measures is the total variation in quarterly (short-term) returns. In other words, BHB measured how much a portfolio went up and down over short periods and not how much money it made in the long term. BHB determined the successful portfolio as one that didn’t fluctuate a lot. Whether or not the portfolio actually made any money was not a determinant of investing success. Hmm…interesting.

Variation in returns means little We must keep in mind that the variation of quarterly returns alone tells us practically nothing about the prospects of investors achieving their financial objectives. Funding financial objectives comes from portfolio contributions and the compounding of returns over time. In other words, returns should not be ignored, even in the short-term. [Further, even if short term volatility is of utmost concern, we must realize that extreme diversification does not necessarily eliminate it. A more effective technique would be to choose investments that havesimilar returns but do not move in tandem. In other words, they should have a high negative correlation.]

Traditional asset allocation fails When using the material in the BHB study, and interpreting the results correctly, we find that the asset allocation decision determines only 15 percent of returns over a 10-year period. This little tidbit damages the credibility of the asset allocation process as practiced today, which is to say that long term investors should automatically be invested mostly in stocks and short term investors should automatically be invested in bonds and cash. This portfolio management by autopilot is nonsense. In our Client Education Brochure, we point out thatover 10-year periods, stocks perform better than bonds and cash over 80% of the time. But turned on its head, we see that bonds and cash perform better than stocks 20% of the time. If your time horizon is only 10-years long, wouldn’t you want to know which assets would perform best over the coming period? What you wouldn’t want to do is make an assumption that history will repeat itself. We think it important that we account for those times when stocks underperform.

Using, better yet, misusing the BHB study the Zealots set portfolios with rigidity (i.e., 20% large cap stocks, 10% foreign stocks, 15% small cap stocks, 10% short term bonds, etc). They wind up owning stocks from every corner of the market. Should any one piece of the portfolio advance or decline too significantly away from the original asset allocation, Zealots either buy or sell accordingly. This would seem to make sense if it were not for differing time horizons, valuation and costs.

As we just mentioned, there are occasions when both bonds and cash perform better than stocks, usually during extended bear markets. Thus the problem arises when arbitrarily selling (or buying) a portion of a portfolio that has advanced (or declined) significantly. The problem is exaggerated when valuations of the securities and the time horizon suggest just the opposite action should be taken. Extreme diversification, as traditional asset allocation requires, would always have the client in some asset that was underperforming. At best theportfolio would do about average with the market. As Heretics we can’t shake the belief that we should try and can do better than the market.

Value allocation succeeds Brick Financial believes that most investors should have some exposure to stocks, bought at low valuations, at all times. But when we create portfolios we will let the valuations of groups of stocks, bonds and cash, determine the asset allocation. This process is sometimes called “Tactical Asset Allocation”(TAA). A more fitting title would be “Value Allocation” (VA) which accounts for valuation of securities, investment time horizon, costs and fees..."

Read the entire commentary by clicking this link>>

 Subscribe: Email | Reader | RSS | | Email this Email | Print This Print

Subscribe with: 

Subscribe in a readerSubscribe By Email:
-- subscribe to get updated headlines and full length posts delivered right to your email address.



or subscribe by:

Reader | RSS

About Brick Financial Management, LLC

Blogged by Brick Financial

51 JFK Pkwy, 1st Fl. West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
973-486-9860
Email Us

Brick Financial Management, LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor specializing in providing investment management services to individuals, families, organizations and institutions. We implement highly focused stock, bond, and balanced portfolios using an investment approach commonly referred to as value investing. Disclosure

Share

ShareThis -- ShareThis lets you instantly access all of your profiles, blogs, friends, and contacts for easy sharing and updating on sites like Digg, Delicious, Reddit, Facebook and MySpace. For more about ShareThis, click here.

Digg! Digg -- submit this item to be shared and voted on by the digg community. For more about digg, click here.

Delicious Del.icio.us -- mark an item as a favorite to access later or share with the del.icio.us community. For more about del.icio.us, click here.

Facebook Facebook -- share an item with users of Facebook, a collection of school, company and regional social networks. For more about Facebook, click here.

Ben's Latest Tweet

    Follow Ben on Twitter

    Archives