Occasionally the stock market plateaus for six to nine months. The competing market sentiments – positive and negative – that cause a price plateau usually turn in one direction or another. Rarely does this leveling period last for twelve months or more. When those indecisive conditions don’t resolve for a year, what happens next?
Let’s begin by looking at shorter duration plateaus which occur more frequently. The market gets a bit too exuberant or conflicting economic signals make it more difficult to predict the future. Some investors read the data and reach for risk; others read the same tea leaves and opt for safety.
In 1999, near the peak of the dot-com fever, prices plateaued for seven months before going onto new highs in 2000 . Again, the market paused for much of the year. It was the end of the huge bull market of the 1990s.
In the beginning of 2004, investor indecision caused a leveling of price action after market sentiment had turned positive in 2003. The dot-com bust, the 2001 recession, the 9-11 tragedy, and the Enron and accounting scandals had combined to cut stock values in half by the spring of 2003. Investor optimism following the tax cut package of 2003 suffered when employment gains in late 2003 turned erratic. Investors were wary. Would this be a double-dip recession like the early 1980s?
A relaxation of financial
regulations helped spur more residential investment and the market continued
upward. The erratic gains in employment were attributed to seasonal volatility
in the construction industry. Many factors contributed to the complex
international financial environment that spurred a boom in housing. In 2007,
investors began to question market evaluations and prices plateaued for six
Two recent price stalls lasting more than twelve months seem to buck the trend of shorter-term plateaus. That there have been two in less than five years is concerning. In mid-2014, oil prices began a steep decline. Lower commodity input prices helped the profits of the broad market but by early 2015, investors grew worried that this decline was a reaction to a broad economic downturn. For 18 months, prices leveled. As voters went to the polls in early November 2016, prices were the same as in February 2015. Some voters chose an inexperienced Donald Trump as an alternative to Clinton 3.0 or Obama 3.0.
Shortly after the passage of tax reform in December 2017, investor optimism hit a peak and it has barely surpassed that high since then. The optimism of this year’s gains has only balanced the pessimism and losses of last year’s final quarter. What will happen after this? I don’t know. Investors need to think like fighters who stay balanced on their feet because they don’t know where the next punch is coming from.
In the early 1980s, scientists at NASA raised the alarm that much of the protective ozone layer over Antarctica was missing. Newspapers and TV carried images of the “ozone hole” (Note #1). In 1987, countries around the world enacted the Montreal Protocol and banned the use of aerosols and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). There were some arguments and a few AM radio talk show hosts called the ozone hole a scientific hoax. However, most of the world reached consensus. There will always be crackpots who ride backwards on their horse and claim that everyone is lying about what lies ahead.
Compare those days of yesteryear with today. We have a wide array of media and information outlets. People who can’t make change are self-proclaimed experts on climate change. The Decider-in-Chief can’t reach consensus with himself for more than a day. A slight breeze changes his opinion. Intentionally or not, he has become the Anarchist-in-Chief.
The younger generation is quite upset because they will have to live with the consequences of climate change. The fat cats who make their money proclaiming climate change is a hoax will be dead. Next week there’s a climate summit at U.N. headquarters in NYC. A lot of young people demonstrated in cities around the world this past Friday to let the world know that they are concerned. That’s consensus.
What happened to us in the past thirty years? It’s tougher for us to reach consensus about guns, immigration, climate change, women’s rights, and health care to name a few. Let’s turn to a group of people whose job it is to craft a consensus. In a recent Town Hall Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out that the nine justices reach unanimous consensus on 40% of the 70 cases that they decide each year. Only the most contentious cases make it to the Supreme Court. 40% unanimity means they agree on many principles. 25-33% of their cases result in a 5-4 decision. Those are the ones that get all the attention. The nine justices who currently sit on the Court were appointed by five different Presidents over the past 25 years. Despite the changing composition of the Court over the past seventy years, those percentages of unanimous decisions and split decisions have remained the same.
Let’s turn to another issue concerning consensus – money. Specifically, digital money like Bitcoin. Some very smart people believe in the future of Bitcoin and the distributed ledger concept that underlies digital money. In this podcast, a fellow with the moniker of Plan B discusses some of the econometrics and mathematics behind Bitcoin (Note #3). However, I think that pricing Bitcoin like a commodity is a mistake.
I take my cue from Adam Smith, the father of economics, who lived during a time and in a country with commodity-based money like gold and silver. Unlike today, paper money was redeemable in precious metal. However, Smith did not regard gold or silver as money. To Smith, the distinguishing feature of money is that it could be used for nothing else but trade between people. Money’s value depends exclusively on consensus, either by voluntary agreement or by the force of government. Using this reasoning, Bitcoin and other digital currencies are money. They have no other use. We can’t make jewelry with Bitcoin, or fill teeth, or plate dishes as we can with gold and silver. The additional uses for gold and silver give it an anchoring value. Bitcoin has an anchoring value of zero.
When people lose confidence in money, they lose consensus over its value. Previous episodes of a loss of confidence in a country’s money include Zimbabwe in the last decade, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the sight of people pushing wheelbarrows of money in Germany during the late 1920s.
gold, Bitcoin must be mined, a process that takes a lot of electricity and supercomputers
but does not give it any value. Ownership in a stock gives the owner a claim on
the assets of a company and some legal recourse. Ownership of a digital
currency bestows no such rights.
In an age when we cannot reach consensus on ideas like protecting our children at school or the rights a woman has to her own body, we seek consensus with others on more material things like Bitcoin. We seek out information outlets which can provide us with facts shaped to our perspective. When facts don’t fit our model of the way things should be, we bend the facts the way water bends light.
Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, died recently. He was an advocate of investing in
the consensus of value about stocks and bonds. Now we call it index investing.
That’s all an index is – a consensus of millions of buyers and sellers about
the value of a financial instrument. There are several million owners of
Bitcoin – a small consensus. There are several thousand million owners of SP500
stocks. That is a very large consensus, and like a large ship, turns slowly in
its course. A small ship, on the other hand, can zip and zig and zag. That’s
all well if you need to zig and zag. Many casual investors don’t like too much
of that, though. They prefer a steadier ship.
I do hope we can move toward a consensus about the bigger issues, but I honestly don’t know how we get there. In 2008, former President Obama called out “Si, se puede!” but quickly lost his super-consensus in Congress. “No, you can’t!” called out the new majority of House Republicans in 2010. We’ve gotten more divisive since then. Journalist Bill Bishop’s 2008 book “The Big Sort” explained what we were doing to ourselves (Note #4). Maybe he has an answer.
In the next year we are going to spend billions of dollars gloving up, getting on our end of the electoral rope and pulling hard. Our first President, George Washington, was reluctant to serve a second term. Hadn’t he given enough already? In our times, each President looks to a second term as a validation of his leadership during his first term. There’s that word again – consensus.
Happy Passover and Happy Easter. Now that tax day is past, let’s raise our heads and look at long-term growth trends of real, or inflation-adjusted, GDP. For the past seventy years real GDP has averaged about 3% annual growth. In the chart below, I’ve charted the annual percent change in a ten-year average of GDP (GDP10, I’ll call it). As you can see on the right side of the graph, growth has been below average for the past decade.
In 2008, growth in the GDP10 crossed below 3%. Was this due to the Financial Crisis (GFC) and the housing bust? No. The GFC barely figured into the computation of the ten-year average. The housing market had been running hot and heavy for four to five years, but this longer-term view now puts the housing boom in a new perspective: it was like lipstick on an ugly pig. Without the housing boom, the economy had been faltering at below average growth since the 1990s tech boom.
The stock market responds to trends –
the past – of past output (GDP) and the estimation of future output. Let’s add
a series of SP500 prices adjusted to 2012 dollars (Note #1).
For three decades, from the late 1950s to the mid-1980s, the real prices of the SP500 had no net change. The go-go years of the 1960s raised nominal, but not real, prices. Investors shied away from stocks, as high inflation in the 1970s hobbled the ability of companies to make real profit growth that rewarded an investor’s risk exposure. From the 2nd quarter of 1973 to the 2nd quarter of 1975, real private domestic investment lost 27% (Note #2). In less than a decade, investment fell again by a crushing 21% in the years 1979 through 1982.
In the mid-1980s, investors grew more confident that the Federal Reserve understood and could control inflation and interest rates. During the next decade, investors bid up real stock prices until they doubled. In 1996, then Fed chairman Alan Greenspan noted an “irrational exuberance” in stock prices (Note #3). The “land rush” of the dot-com boom was on and, within the next five years, prices would get a lot more exuberant.
The exuberance was well deserved. With the Fed’s steady hand on the tiller of money policy, the ten-year average of GDP growth rose steadily above its century-long average of 3%. A new age of prosperity had begun. In the 1920s, investment dollars flowed into the new radio and advertising industries. In the 1990s, money flowed into the internet industry. Construction workers quit their jobs to day trade stocks. Anything less than 25% revenue growth was the “old” economy. The fledgling Amazon was born in this age and has matured into the powerhouse of many an internet investor’s dream. Thousands of other companies flamed out. Billions of investment dollars were burned.
The peak of growth in the ten-year average of GDP output came in the 1st quarter of 2001. By that time, stock prices had already begun to ease. In the next two years, real stock prices fell almost 50%, but investment fell only 12% because it was shifting to another boom in residential housing. As new homes were built and house prices rose in the 2000s, long-term output growth began to climb again.
From the first quarter of 2006 to the 3rd quarter of 2009, investment fell by a third, the greatest loss of the post-war period. In the first quarter of 2008, growth in the GDP10 fell below 3%. In mid-2009, it fell below 2%. Ten years later, it is still below 2%.
The Federal Reserve has had
difficulty hitting its target of 2% inflation with the limited tools of
monetary policy. There simply isn’t enough long-term growth to put upward
pressure on prices. Despite the low
growth, real stock prices are up 150% since the 2009 lows. A prudent investor might ask – based on what?
The supply side believers in the Trump administration and Republican Party thought that tax cuts would spur growth. In the first term of the Obama administration, believers in Keynesian counter-cyclical stimulus thought government spending would kick growth into gear. Faced with continued slow growth, each side has doubled down on their position. We need more tax cuts and less regulation, say Republicans. No, we need more infrastructure spending, Democrats counter. Neither side will give up and, in a divided Congress, there is little likelihood of forging a compromise in the next two years. The stock market may be waiting for the cavalry to ride to the rescue but there is no sign of dust on the horizon.
Economists are just as dug in their
ideological foxholes. The Phillips curve, the correlation between employment
and inflation, has broken down. The correlation between the money supply and
inflation has also broken down. High employment but slow output growth and low
inflation. Larry Summers has called it secular stagnation, a nice label with only
a vague understanding of the underlying mechanism. If an economist tells you they
know what’s going on, shake their hand, congratulate them and move to the other
side of the room. Economists are still arguing over the underlying causes of
the stagflation of the 1970s.
A year ago, I suggested a cautious stance for older investors if they needed to tap their assets for income in the next five years. The Shiller CAPE ratio, a long-term evaluation of stock prices, is at the same level as 1929. At current prices in a low growth environment, stock returns may struggle to average more than 5-6% annually over the next five years.
Adjusted for inflation by the Federal Reserve’s preferred method, the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (FRED series PCEPI). Prices do not include dividends
Real Gross Private Domestic Investment – FRED Series GPDIC1.
A video of the 1996 “irrational exuberance” speech
This week the investment community mourned the death of John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, the mutual fund giant. He had the crazy idea that mom-and-pop investors should buy a basket of stocks and not attempt to beat the market (Note #1). In 1976, he launched the first SP500 index fund, VFINX, a low-cost “no-brainer” or passive fund. Because people did not want to invest in the idea of earning just average stock returns, the initial launch raised very little money. “Bogle’s folly” now has more than fifty imitators (Note #2).
Vanguard has over $5 trillion under management. Let’s turn to them to answer the age-old question – what percent of my retirement portfolio should be invested in bonds? Bond prices are much less volatile than stocks and stabilize a portfolio’s value. Several decades ago, people retired at 65 and expected to live ten years in retirement. An old rule was that the percentage of bonds and cash should match your age. A 50-year old, for example, should have 50% of their portfolio in bonds and cash. Few advisors today would be so conservative. Many 65-year-olds can expect to live another twenty years or more.
Vanguard, Schwab, Fidelity and Blackrock offer various life cycle funds that have target dates. The most common dates are retirement; i.e. Target 2020, or 2030 or 2040. These funds are composed of shifting portions of stock and bond index funds offered by each investment company. The funds adjust their stock and bond allocations based on those dates. For example, if a 55-year old person bought the Vanguard Retirement Target Date 2020 Fund VTWNX in 2005, it might have been invested 75% stocks and 25% bonds when she bought it. As the date 2020 nears, the stock allocation has decreased to 53% and the bond portion increased to 47%. The greater portion of bonds helps stabilize the value of the portfolio.
In the chart below, I’ve compared the stock and bond allocations of various retirement funds offered by Vanguard (Note #3). Notice that the stock portion of each fund increases as the dates get further away from the present.
A 46-year old who intends to retire in 2040 when they are 67 might buy a Target 2040 fund which is 84% invested in stocks. The bond allocation is only 16%. Using the old rule, the bond portion would have been 46%.
What happens after that target date is met? The fund continues to adjust its stock/bond allocation towards safety. Over five years, Vanguard adjusts its mix to that of an income portfolio – 30% stocks and 70% bonds (Note #4).
These strategies can guide our own portfolio allocation. I have not checked the allocations of Schwab, Fidelity and others in the industry but I would guess that they have similar allocations for their life cycle funds.
If your twin brother went away on a spaceship a month ago and looked at the current price level of the SP500, he wouldn’t see much change. What a month it has been! A 7% drop in stock price the week of December 17th, followed by a Christmas Eve when Santa left a lump of coal in investor’s stockings, followed by a government shutdown.
Let’s say your twin brother went off to the Romulan Galaxy on a spaceship flying near the speed of light on October 1, 2007. He has just come back and has aged a few weeks. You have aged a great deal. The financial crisis, the housing crisis, the job crisis, the crisis crisis. No wonder you look older. There are too many crises.
Your twin brother notes a similarity in the behavior of the stock market the past few months and the fall of 2007 when he took his starflight cruise. What similarity you ask? He hauls out his Romulan graphing tool and shows you a plot comparison of SP500 prices (SPY) in the fall of 2007 and the fall of 2018. Not only does your twin brother look younger but he also got a Romulan grapher on his journey. It is not fair.
“In both periods, prices fell about 15% in 15 weeks,” your brother says.
“They happened to fall the same percentage in the same amount of time,” you answer. “That probably happens all the time and we just don’t notice.”
“15-20% drops in as many weeks doesn’t happen all the time,” your brother says. “It happens when there are fault lines forming. It happened in December 2000, January 2008, again in August 2011 during another government shutdown, and now.”
“Sure, there are some trade problems and the government shutdown,” you protest, “but the economy is good. Employment is at all- time highs, wage gains were over 3% last month, and inflation is relatively tame.”
“Everything was still pretty good in December 2000 and January 2008,” your brother responds. “‘A healthy correction after a price boom,’ some said. ‘The market is blowing off the excess froth before going higher,’ others said. At both times, there was something far more serious going on. We just didn’t know it.”
“You got pretty smart in the time you were gone,” you tell your brother. “Can I get one of those Romulan graphers?”
“Yes, I bought one for your Christmas present 11 years ago,” your brother says and hands you a grapher from his spacesack. “Tell me, what are these picture phones that people are carrying around now? I don’t remember them from when I left. And what’s Facebook?”
On the week before Christmas, the stock market fell more than 7%. I wrote about the historical trends following previous falls of that magnitude. The week opened on Dec. 17th with the SP500 index. Two months was the shortest recovery period after 7% falls in 1986 and 1989. In a previous budget showdown in 2011, the market recovered after five months, but shutdowns are just one component of a complex economic environment. If the outlook for corporate profits looks positive, the market will pause during a long showdown, as it did in October 2013.
Investors wanting to contribute to their retirement plans can do so in a measured manner. The uncertainties that produce tumultuous markets take some time to resolve. Although the market rose for five straight days in a row this week, it was not able to reach that opening level of 2600 three weeks ago.
Let’s turn to a persistent problem: the lack of income growth. Beginning in the early 1970s, the annual growth rate in real personal income began to decline (Note #1). I calculated ten-year averages of annual growth to get the chart below. 5% annual inflation-adjusted growth during the 1960s became 3% growth during the 1980s and early 1990s. The dot-com and housing booms of the late 1990s and early 2000s kicked growth higher to 3.5%. In 2008, annual growth (not averaged over ten years) went negative and reached as low as -4.9% in May 2009. Following the Financial Crisis, the ten year average is stuck at 2% growth.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tracks total employee compensation costs, including benefits and government mandated taxes (Note #2). I compared ten-year averages of both series, income with (blue line) and without (orange line) benefits. The trend over five decades is down, as before. When the labor market is tight, employers have to offer better benefit packages and the growth in total compensation is higher than income without benefits. When there is slack in the market, employees will accept what they can get, and the growth of total compensation is less.
Beginning in early 2008, we see the dramatic effect of the last recession and the financial crisis. Income growth went negative, but income with benefits plunged 19% by January 2009. With unemployment stubbornly high, employers could attract employees with rather skimpy benefit packages. The ten-year average growth of income with benefits (blue line) sank to 1%, a full percent below income without benefits. In the last two years, the two series are starting to converge but the trend is below 2% growth.
The data contradicts those who claim that income growth is low because employers are spending more in benefits.
This will be my tenth year writing on the financial markets. As I’ve written in earlier posts, we’ve been sailing in choppy waters this past quarter. In 2018, a portfolio composed of 60% stocks, 30% bonds and 10% cash lost 3%. In 2008, that asset allocation had a negative return of 20% (Note #1). We can expect continued rough weather.
If China’s economy continues to slow, the trade war between the U.S. and China will stall because a slowing global economy will give neither nation enough leverage. Will the Fed stop raising interest rates in response? If there is further confirmation of an economic slowdown, could the Fed start lowering interest rates by mid-2019? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
Thanks to good weather and a strong shopping season, December’s employment reports from both ADP and the BLS were far above expectations (Note #2). Wages grew by more than 3%. Will stronger wage gains cut into corporate profits? Will the Fed continue to raise rates in response to the strong employment numbers and wage gains? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
The global economy has been slowing for some time. After a 37% gain in 2017, a basket of emerging market stocks lost 15% last year. Although China’s service sector is still growing, it’s manufacturing production edged into the contraction zone this past month (Note #3). Home and auto sales have slowed in the U.S. What is the prospect that the U.S. could enter a recession in the next year? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
The partial government showdown continues. The IRS is not processing refunds or answering phones. If it lasts one more week, it will break the record set during the Clinton administration. Trump has said it could go on for a year and he does like to be the best in everything, the best of all time. Could the House Democrats vote for impeachment, then persuade 21 Republican Senators (Note #4) to vote for a conviction and a Mike Pence Presidency? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
When the winds alternate directions, the weather vane gets erratic. This week, the stock market whipsawed down 3% one day and up 3% the next as traders digested the day’s news and changed their bets. Interest rates (the yield) on a 10-year Treasury bond have fallen by a half percent since November 9th. When yields fell by a similar amount in January 2015 and January 2016, stock prices corrected 8% or so before moving higher. Since early December, the stock market has corrected by a similar percentage. Will this time be different? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
Staying 100% in cash as a long-term investment (more than five years) is not betting at all. From a stock market peak in 2007 till now, an all cash “strategy” earned less than 1% annually. A balanced portfolio like the one at the beginning of this article earned a bit less than 6% annually. Older investors may remember the 1990s, when a person could safely earn 6% on a CD. Wave goodbye to those days for now and place your bets.
The Constitution requires two-thirds majority in Senate to convict an impeached President. Currently, there are 46 Democratic Senators and Independents who caucus with Democrats. They would need to convince 21 Republican Senators to vote for conviction to get a 67 Senator super-majority. 22 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2020 and might be sensitive to public sentiment in their states.
For the past two months, the stock market’s volatility has doubled from late summer levels. The Fed announced its intent to continue raising interest rates in 2019 at least two times, and the market nosedived in response. It had been expecting a more dovish policy outlook from Chair Jerome Powell.
What does it mean when someone says the Fed is dovish, or hawkish? Congress has given the Fed two mandates: to manage interest rates and the availability of credit to achieve low unemployment and low inflation. That goal should be unattainable. In an economic model called the Phillips curve, unemployment and inflation ride an economic see-saw. One goes up and the other goes down. To rephrase that mandate: the Fed’s job is to keep unemployment as low as possible without causing inflation to rise above a target level, which the Fed has set at 2%.
There are periods when the relationship modeled by the Phillips curve breaks down. During the 1970s, the country experienced both high unemployment and high inflation, a phenomenon called stagflation. During the 2010s, we have experienced the opposite – low inflation and low unemployment, the unattainable goal.
Convinced that low unemployment will inevitably spark higher inflation, the Fed has been raising interest rates for the past two years. The base rate has increased from ¼% to 2-1/2%. The thirty-year average is 3.15%. Using a model called the Taylor Rule, the interest rate should be 4.12% (Note #1). After being bottle fed low interest rates by the Fed for the past decade, the stock market threw a temper tantrum this past week when the Fed indicated that it might raise interest rates to average over the next year. Average has become unacceptable.
In weighing the two factors, unemployment and inflation, the Fed is dovish when they give greater importance to unemployment in setting interest rates. They are hawkish when they are more concerned with inflation. The Fed predicts that unemployment will gradually decrease to 3.5% this coming year. Unemployment directly affects a small percentage of the population. Inflation affects everyone. The Fed’s current policy stance is warily watching for rising inflation.
The stock market is a prediction machine that not only guesses future profits, but also other people’s guesses of future profits. As the market twists and turns through this tangle of predictions, should the casual investor hide their savings in their mattress?
These past five years may be the last of a bull market in stocks; 2008 – 2012 was the five-year period that marked the end of the last bull period that began in 2003 and ran through most of 2007. Here are some comparisons:
From 2014-2018, a mix of stocks returned 7.7% per year (Note #2). A mix of bonds and cash returned 1.96%. A blend of those two mixes returned 4.91% per year.
From 2008-2012, that same stock mix returned just 2.66% per year. The bond and cash mix returned 5.5%, despite very low interest rates. A blend of the stock and bond mixes returned 5.26%.
For the ten-year period 2008 thru 2017, the stock mix earned 7.7%. The bond and cash mix returned 3.54% and the blend of the two gained 6.35% annually. On a $100 invested in 2008, the stock mix returned $13.5 more than the blend of stocks and bonds. However, the maximum draw down was wrenching – more than 50%. The $100 invested in January 2008 was worth only $49 a year later. Whether they needed the money or not, some people could not sleep well with those kinds of paper losses and sold their stock holdings near the lows.
The blend of stock and bond mixes lost only a quarter of its value in that fourteen-month period from the beginning of 2008 to the market low in the beginning of March 2009. The trade-off between risk and reward is an individual decision that weighs a person’s temperament, their outlook, and the need for to tap their savings in the next few years.
A rough ride in stormy seas tests our mettle. During the market’s rise the past eight years, we might have told ourselves that our stock allocation was fine because we didn’t need the money for at least five years. If we are not sleeping because we worry what the market will do tomorrow, then we might want to lower our stock allocation. Sleeping well is a test of our portfolio balance.
1. The Atlanta Fed’s Taylor Rule calculator
2. Calculations from Portfolio Visualizer: 30% SP500, 30% small-cap, 20% mid-cap, 20% emerging markets. Bond mix: 70% intermediate term investment grade bonds, 30% cash. The blend of the two was half of each percentage: 15% SP500, 15% small-cap, 10% mid-cap, 10% emerging markets, 35% bonds, 15% cash.
For the third time in six weeks, the SP500 fell below its 200-day moving average. This ten-month average of trading activity is a benchmark that indicates mid to long-term sentiment. It is a tug of war between the bulls and the bears, the buyers and sellers, over the developing trade war between the U.S. and China.
Technical market watchers call a crossing below the 200-day a Death Cross, a too dramatic name for something that may occur once or twice a year. Less frequently does it happen twice in a two-month period – a Double (Note #1). Rarely does it occur three times in such a short period of time – a Hat Trick (Note #2).
Hat Tricks signal strong investor worry about one or more structural conditions that will impact future earnings. The situation may resolve, and the market regain its upward trend. If the situation does not resolve, expect further price declines.
What does this mean for the casual investor? Contributions to an IRA at current prices will be priced as though you had dollar-cost averaged (DCA) each month of this year. As I showed in 2011 (Note #3), the DCA strategy has produced the highest long-term returns on the SP500. Look at the monthly bar on the chart below.
History is the only guide we have to investor behavior. Previous Doubles occurred in 2015 and 2012. Previous Hat Tricks developed in 2011 and 2010, producing strong price corrections (Note #4) in response to budget duels between Republicans and President Obama (2011), and debt crises in the Eurozone (2010).
In hindsight, the Hat Trick that occurred during four weeks in August 2007 signaled that this was more than a well-deserved correction in the housing market. Don’t we wish we had the clarity of a rearview mirror? Another Hat Trick a few months later in November and December 2007 coincided with the beginning of the recession that lasted 20 months and chopped 60% off the price of the SP500. Another Hat Trick in May and June 2008 came just months before the onset of the Financial Crisis in September 2008.
A Hat Trick accompanied the peak of the housing market in 2006, and the peak of the dot-com market in 2000. It signaled the start and end of the 1990 recession.
Lesson: be cautious.
Notes: 1. In technical analysis, this double bottom forms a ‘W’ and indicates a possible exhaustion of selling before a reversal to the upside.
2. Hat Trick is a name I made up for 3 dips below the 200-day in a two-month period.
3. I compared various IRA investing strategies in May 2011
4. Price declines in 2010 and 2011 barely escaped being classified as bear market corrections, defined as a closing price 20% below a previous closing high price.
Near the top of the Democratic agenda in the new Congress is a minimum wage of $15. The bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, but it will signal to the voters that the Democratic House is meeting campaign promises. The states with the most solid Democratic support are those on the west coast and northeast coast where the cost of living is much higher. A single minimum wage for the entire country is not appropriate. Republicans control the Senate and they are from states with much lower costs of living. They will reject an ambitious minimum wage that is one-size fits all.
Housing is the largest monthly expense for most families. Below is a graph of home prices in several western metropolitan areas (MSAs) and the national average of twenty large MSAs. Home prices in Dallas and Phoenix are a 1/3 less than Los Angeles and San Francisco. Housing costs in many smaller cities will be below Dallas and Phoenix.
Why isn’t the minimum wage indexed to inflation? Because politicians of both parties, but particularly Democrats, have used it as a wedge issue to gain voter support. If the House Democrats wanted to pass bi-partisan legislation on a minimum wage, they could use a flexible minimum wage that is indexed to the average wages for each region within the country. These are published regularly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the same agency that publishes the monthly report of job gains and the unemployment rate. I’ve charted the annual figures for those same cities.
A $15 minimum wage is 40% of the average wage in San Francisco, and a bit more than half of the average wage in Los Angeles. It is almost 60% of the national average. The current minimum of $7.25 is 28% of the national average.
If the House passed a minimum wage bill that set the wage to 40% of the average wage for each region, Senate Republicans might at least consider it. In Denver and L.A., the minimum wage would be about $11.50. In Dallas and Phoenix, it would be about $10.60. Democrats could show that they are in Washington to pass legislation for working families, not pound some ideological stump as Republicans did for eight years with the repeal of Obamacare.
Stocks and Taxes
There is a close correlation between stock prices and corporate tax collections. The tax bill passed last December lowered corporate tax revenues in the hope that businesses would invest more in the U.S. The divergence between prices and collections has to correct. Either tax collections increase because of greater profitability or stock prices come down.
///////////////////////// Income Growth
The financial crisis severely undercut income growth. Real, or inflation-adjusted, per capita income after taxes decreased for three years from 2008 through 2010, and again in 2014. It is the longest period of negative growth since the 1930s Depression.