« Vegan's just another word for "nothing left to eat" | Main | Libertarians and liberals . . . brothers under the skin? »

Hell is other investors

22 Jan 2008 10:59 am

Well, the Dow is of by hundreds of points, the Fed is announcing surprise inter-meeting rate cuts, Bank of America reported a 95% fall in its profits, and the outfits in the new spring catalogs have the shape and coloring of badly-decorated Easter eggs. All in all, not a good morning.

What to make of it all? I decline to comment on the fashion trends, because a lady doesn't use those words in print. As for the rest of it, I pass on the sound advice of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Don't Panic. Though you may feel, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, a bit like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis, keep your hands off the 401(k). Don't call your broker. Put the children's toys back in their room--no need to sell them on EBay quite yet. And you can cancel that order for 1,000 Red Delicious apples and a little wheeled cart.

This is very bad news for people at the large investment banking houses, who didn't get much in the way of bonuses last year, and can probably expect the same disappointment again come next December 31st. Nor would I want to be an upper-level executive at Bank of America right about now. Anyone who invested money in the stock markets looking for a quick 5% return to make rent this month is in trouble. But everyone else should take a deep breath, have a cup of soothing herbal tea, and repeat to themselves "I am invested in stocks for the long term".

Stocks are at best a middling-good indicator of what is happening in the economy. In my humble opinion, for a welter of reasons that aren't entirely clear, they've been overvalued since the late 1990s. Though they've adjusted somewhat since George Bush took office, the adjustment hasn't gone far enough, which meant that a market correction was likely at the first sign of trouble in the economy.

We do have some trouble. But it isn't yet terrible trouble. The banks saw their profits fall, but despite the mortgage awfulness, they're still making a profit. Unemployment rates are still rather low, and the Fed is clearly signaling an aggressive stance on falling output. Absent a liquidity crisis, which we are very unlikely to have, there's no particular reason to fear more than a mild recession. Obviously, a mild recession is not anyone's idea of fun--I myself was unemployed during the last one, and during that period I came perilously close to the edge of despair's bottomless maw. Nonetheless, seven years later, I am still here.

Comments (32)

Megan,

Look at what's up today, despite the sky falling overseas yesterday: in addition to BofA (at least for now), retailers as diverse as HD, AEO, and TGT are up. Interesting. Not the sorts of stocks you'd buy if you were worried about a recession.

The Fed slashes rates 75 bps – and another 75 bps are implied for next weeks meeting. There is a none-too-faint whiff of panic about today's actions.

What does this mean for investors. Quite a number of things – none of which are particularly good over the long term:

1) Why Cut today? What was the motivation for today’s cut? Would waiting 7 days have done anything. other than allowing some of the excesses to get wrung out of the system?

2) Equity Market Disfunction? Is it that the equity markets are not working properly? Likely not. Are rates too high? I doubt that's the reason for any of our economic woes. Then what is it – are lowered equity prices a problem?

Globally, equity markets have been in the process of “Repricing Risk” – why is the Fed disrupting that? Further, there is now a recognition that S&P500 earnings were priced way too high – especially in the event of a European and Asian slow down. That lowered “E” in the P/E adjustment is also under way.

3) TANSTAAFL: The free lunch crowd (a/k/a Long & Wrong) has been chanting for Fed cuts. However, these are not with0out consequences, as Inflation remains a pernicious threat.

Here’s a question: What goes to $5 a gallon first – Milk or Gasoline? How about $6?

4) How Independent is the Fed? The Fed is supposed to be an independent entity, whose mission is a) price stability (inflation) and b) maximizing employment (growth).

However, today’s action reveals an apparent third obligatory goal – protecting investors and market prices. I had no idea that back-stopping speculators and hedge funds was part of their mandate...

5) Capitulation? The Market gapped 400 points, and is now climbing higher (off 300 as I type this). My second biggest concern is that the Fed merely delayed the inevitable. This market saving cut prevented a thorough, 5% wash out. In other words, all the Fed did was prevent a healthy capitulation.

6) Pushing on a String? My biggest fear is that we close down 500 points anyway. That would be the worst of all worlds: A compromised, political Fed, working on behalf of speculators, to the detriment of ordinary taxpayers, is proven to be a paper tiger. That scenario would but the “F” in Fugly.

7) Decoupling US Equities from Global Slowdown? Other markets were down much more than the US. But that makes sense, seeing as they have been a whole lot more than the US over the past 5 years . . .

This was a shot of penicillin to a cancer patient.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/

Fed is clearly signaling an aggressive stance on falling output

Didn't the Fed partially cause this problem (i.e. today's market collapse) by overreacting?Aren't they supposed to (at least) consider inflation when making these decisions? I don't get it anymore.

Fred,

those stox have already been clipped 30-50%, even, sorry PETA, dead cats bounce..

are you kidding, that bonuses were small this last december? please say you were joking.... it was billions!!!! and for what???

I have to agree that this abrupt cut by the Fed indicates a lack of the independence that gave the Fed its credibility.

But it isn't that the Fed showed a previously hidden requirement to protect investors and market prices. Rather, the Fed showed that they could and would be influenced massively by politicians in a state of panic. Whether those politicians are in the Bush Administration, or among the Democrats controlling Congress (or both) isn't clear yet. But from what I can see, there's no other reason for a big cut a mere week early.

gregory,

she wasn't joking, 2 more like her, and you could start a re-make of one of the original sitcoms...

Big Picture,

The Fed made the right move, since deflationary risks to growth appear more immediate and worrisome than inflationary risks. Oil prices have come down in the last couple of weeks, on recession fears; the drop in housing prices is deflationary; the 10-year Treasury Bond is yielding 3.5%, etc. Now is the time for monetary and fiscal stimulus.

Lowering rates isn't what caused the last bubble -- keeping them long for too long did. I don't see this Fed doing that. They'll probably cut another 50-75bps and then start to raise rates in 6-12 months as growth re-accelerates. That will head off long-term inflation risks.

Remember Rudyard Kipling's philosophy of stock investing:

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs you will make out nicely eventually

Should have been "keeping them low for too long did" above.

Stocks are pretty cheap just now. Compare the earnings yield on stocks (6.4%) to the yield on 10 year treasuries (3.5%).

Those who are selling today will regret it. The best thing is to remain calm, as MM advises. All will be well.

Kipling would probably say that there aren't many men on Wall Street--just a lot of chickens.

I'm with rwe. I agree with McArdle that stocks were overpriced in the summer of 2000 (thanks, Bill and Bob!), but not lately.

Or perhaps, rather than a lot of chickens, a lot of lemmings.

Stocks are on sale! Just pick the ones that won't go bankrupt.

I want to go up to those "marginal buyers" of 10year US treasuries and say, What the hell is wrong with you??? Why do you tolerate such low yields???

Person "What the hell is wrong with you??? Why do you tolerate such low yields???"


If you're in the market for gov't debt what else are you going to buy JGB's, OATs, Bunds? Our finances may be a mess, but everyone elses demographic and long term financial outlook is far worse than ours.

Money needs to be saved - the only decent place to safely store it long term is in US Treasuries.

"I want to go up to those "marginal buyers" of 10year US treasuries and say, What the hell is wrong with you??? Why do you tolerate such low yields???"

If you're buying them with Euro's and you expect the dollar to eventually improve they may be a pretty good investment.

Speaking of the low dollar, isn't anyone worried about inflation?

Yes, Mike, I am terrified of inflation. There was an economist recently (don't recall his name) who used to work with Greenspan and said he could never understand Greenspan's fear of deflation. He said of six or seven deflationary cycles in US history, there was never a corresponding economic downtown, but of the seven major inflationary cycles, there were always terrible and immediate recessions or depressions.

And I am also scared of the market instability. A nearly 600 point swing today following a panic-ridden rate cut? That is insane. To be kind. And I am very afraid of a herd of scared and blind people, especially scared, blind people in power like bankers and the government.

Oops, misheard the radio; I thought they said 100 points up at closing. Still crazy, but less insane than I feared.

"He said of six or seven deflationary cycles in US history, there was never a corresponding economic downtown..."-elladeon

Perhaps you've forgotten the Great Depression?

This is very bad news for people at the large investment banking houses, who didn't get much in the way of bonuses last year

I'd love to see a source for your information on this. Here is what I found,

Wall Street's five biggest firms together paid a record $39 billion in bonuses, even though three of them suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion.

Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Bear Stearns together paid $65.6 billion in compensation and benefits last year to their 186,000 employees. Year-end bonuses usually account for 60 percent of the total, meaning bonuses exceeded the $36 billion distributed in 2006 when the industry reported all-time high profits.

The bonuses are larger than the gross domestic products of Sri Lanka, Lebanon or Bulgaria.

Will the investment bankers bank better in Robin's Egg Blue? One hopes...

My advice is to panic.

Don't do anything about it though. Just get very nervous, annoy people, pace, swear... that sort of thing.

With the usual banks and institutions puckered big time by their bad gambling habit, for once when the little guys see an opportunity to get a bargain in the market they won't be overrun by in-house and special deals that kept them out on previous occasions of market adjustments. When you see average Americans start pulling savings out and buying you'll know that the worst is over, cause the big boys just can't allow the little boys to get in on the game.

The Ace wrote: The bonuses are larger than the gross domestic products of Sri Lanka, Lebanon or Bulgaria.

Sorry to suck the wind out of your sales, but you should have left that one out. It's merely a ridiculous non sequitur that tells us nothing about the bonuses, except that maybe a $14 trillion economy can afford issue sectorial payouts which are larger than the non-PPP adjusted economies of coutries with between 1/15 and 1/75 the population, and outputting only 1/4 to 1/9 the PPP-adjusted GDP per capita.

These rate cuts bother me. The money that the Fed lends at these super-low rates is taxpayers money, and, since the rate is lower than the inflation, it means that we the taxpayers subsidize the fat cats who get this money from the Fed. And then we wonder why stocks are over-valued.

Ivan,

you're in good company, see: "Soros predicts worst recession for 50 years

Amid collapsing stock prices worldwide, the billionaire investor George Soros has told an Austrian daily, the Standard, that the United States is threatened with recession and the world is facing the worst financial crisis in half a century. "The situation is much more serious than any other financial crisis since the end of World War II," Soros was quoted as saying.

He said over the past few years politics had been guided by some basic misunderstandings stemming from something that he called "market fundamentalism" - the belief that financial markets tended to act as a balance. "This is the wrong idea," he said. "We really do have a serious financial crisis now."

The rate cuts are Inflationary. Contra to MM's assurance the BAC is Profitable, they and their assorted 'Money Center' bank cohort are Insolvent. One might think they learned a new term of art with 'CDO', structured finance is one thing, OTC derivatives are quite another..the Quants had their algorithms broken, sometimes 100-yr floods are found in the same decade, ask Taleb..

So George Soros thinks blood will run in the streets. Well, there's a guy with no axe to grind in an election year.

MEH,

Thanks for replying to my comment, but I don't see what it has to do with George Soros. In my book, George Soros is a lying egomaniac, who sponsors the lowest and most treacherous politicians in the US, and because of whom in Easter Europe many good people went to prison.

I don't think the end of the world is coming. Nor do I think that the brand of socialism advertised by Soros and the Dems is the answer. Nor do I think the Fed has anythink to do with "market fundamentalism" - instead, I see the Fed as part of our "nanny state". What I think is: every presidential candidate left in the race is a socialist, and I feel almost like I'm back in the USSR.

"The banks saw their profits fall, but despite the mortgage awfulness, they're still making a profit."

If the banks I'm watching are truly "making a profit" -- as opposed to writing down *just enough* of their dead-man-walking bad-debt portfolios each quarter to remain technically profitable in the financials -- I'll eat my hat.*

WaMu, BofA, and Wachovia each have (cue Carl Sagan) billions and billions of option-ARM loans on their books, at least 80% of which have absolutely zero chance of being repaid. Even spotting those suckers a 50% recovery upon foreclosure (which is becoming an increasingly questionable assumption), they're going to be absolutely nuked. "Profitable" my okole.

Ivan,

I hold no brief for Soros, his Politics are one thing, his, previous, track-record as an investment manager is another..

If you don't care for Soros, fine, try Stephen Roach from Morgan Stanley-Asia, or, upthread, Barry Ritholz..

My point, contra to the post's: "repeat to themselves "I am invested in stocks for the long term"", is that Equities, as an asset-class, going forward, are, on a real rate of return basis, going to face some serious sledding..

I would have thought that the "Buy & Die" reflex would have been washed out in the 2000-2003 experience, but, lo...

This: "I see the Fed as part of our "nanny state"", is, no doubt, lucid. The FedRes has been a great perturber of market forces since its inception.

That you feel like you're 'back in the USSR', should be of little surprise given:
Plank 5 of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto reads:

"Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital, and an exclusive monopoly." ‹ communist Manifesto by Karl Marx


Is the World ending tomorrow? hardly..Should people begin, if the haven't already, expanding the breadth of their Information inputs? Of course.

Sorry to suck the wind out of your sales, but you should have left that one out.

I didn't write it, the writer for the Washington Post did.