Tag Archives: long wave valuation cycles

Very amateur investing, yellow-tinted glasses edition

(originally written Oct 2, 2011.  Part of Great Upload of 2013.)

I find it amusing that, while many of my fellow Vancouverites are attending places of worship this Sunday morning, I’m taking a break from work to muse about money, that root of all kinds of evil.  :)

Right now, the stock market is a relatively cheery (I said relatively) topic for me, since I’ve fared so badly in my first few attempts at Fate of the World, a computer game in the “Civilization” genre where you, at the head of a UN-like agency, attempt to prevent catastrophic global warming.

Designed in conjunction with climate researchers, you need to shrewdly manage your budget by enacting effective climate legislation, while appeasing locals on each continent just enough that they don’t kick you out and pursue their own path.  :)

In addition to the well-known options like cap-and-trade, renewables, biofuels, nuclear and efficiency policies, you can do more exotic things like legislate organic farming, enforce a vegetarian diet (cows burp a lot), spray aerosols to reflect sunlight, or use a Tobin Tax on financial speculation to raise funds.

Meanwhile, back in Reality…

While the planet (or at least, Texas) burns, stock markets hit an important milestone recently, with dividend yields from American blue-chip companies surpassing the yields on US gov’t bonds.  This hasn’t happened for a very long time, and is a signal that in several years, the price of most stocks (relative to earnings) will reach the point where even your financial advisor can invest your money for a decent rate-of-return.  ;)

This is due to the fact that — for whatever reason — stock market prices tend to cycle between too-optimistic (1929, 1966) and too-pessimistic (1947, 1980).  We came off a too-optimistic high around 2000, so one would reasonably expect that after about five more years of investment purgatory, stock price trends will slant upwards again.

In the absence of catastrophic global warming, that is.  :P

Gold

Gold feeds off stock market pessimism, so one would expect that maybe sometime between the next two Winter Olympics, it will spike upwards in a manner that dwarfs the frenzy that happened in August.  I guess I’ll insert yesterday’s Dilbert cartoon here:

Dilbert Oct 1 2011

Gold has properly dropped for the past month, but past precedent has such hangovers lasting two.  Too many enthusiasts are still humming “don’t stop believing”.  ;)

The corporate locusts known as gold mining stocks didn’t go up much earlier this year, and as such are likely to enjoy a big run-up through next spring.  [note from 2013: this totally didn’t happen.  By which I mean, the absolute opposite happened.]  The main reason is that companies’ profit margins have now gone through the roof, which means they’ll increase dividends, which in turn will attract pension funds and other big money pools.

It’s worth wondering why the stocks would rise with the metal in winter but not in summer.  The most plausible explanation I’ve encountered, is that when a commodity price rises to unprecedented levels (as gold did in the summer) no one thinks they’ll stay there for long.  After all, it’s unprecedented…!

A Tim Thomas tangent

Taking a hockey example, goalie Tim Thomas had a great year in 2008-2009.  But since he was 35 at the time, and had never really shone before, a lot of people thought it was a fluke.  Especially since he had a ho-hum year in 2009-2010, even losing the starting goalie position to Tukka Rask.

But if a commodity starts creeping upwards a second time to hitherto-unprecedented levels, stock analysts start revising their price assumptions upwards; companies get valued much more richly; and thanks to stock options, mediocre executives get valued most richly of all.  ;)

Back to hockey, Tim Thomas did the impossible and put up better-than-Dominik-Hasek numbers in 2010-2011; what with his 2008-2009 performance, everyone now expects him to the best goalie in the league, and he was probably the first goalie picked in every hockey pool this fall.  This, despite the fact that at 38, he can’t have that many good years left in him.  Such are our human foibles.

On Expert Foxes and Hedgehogs

We recently covered a book (Future Babble) in our work book club about the uselessness of expert predictions for the future.  The author argued that experts who present themselves (over)confidently — that is to say, expert “hedgehogs” — are more likely to be wrong than the ones who hedge their predictions (expert “foxes”).  A good pairing here would be that of Dennis Gartman and Richard Russell.  …and the argument holds!

Gartman, a bombastic investment newsletter writer, made the mistake of enabling skeptics (such as me) to follow his performance, by allowing an exchange-traded fund to follow his instructions.  It was outperformed by 98% of mutual funds in 2009, and 82% of funds in 2010.  I’m looking for a three-peat come December.  :)  [note from 2013: I think Gartman actually did above-average in 2011 among mutual funds.  But not compared to the index, of course.  :)  ]

Richard Russell has been writing his financial newsletter writer almost as long as Elizabeth II has been the Queen of England.  Apart from beating his drum about decadal trends, he doesn’t claim to know much about where things are going.  But he takes subscribers’ money anyways.  ;)

He’s credited with recommending buying stocks at the bottom in 1974, switching from gold to stocks in 1980, and then switching back in 1999, all of which were prescient.  I remember reading something he wrote around 2003, suggesting that by the time gold finished rising, one ounce would almost buy the Dow.  Emphasizing his reluctance to predict the number, he suggested that if absolutely forced to guess he’d say $3000, but that he wasn’t confident in it.  (It was about $300/oz at the time.)

At the time I thought, “must be nice to have rich-person problems”.  Actually, come to think of it, I still do… :)

Goodness, the biggest bull market in history is about to begin — eventually! :)

(originally written May 8, 2012.  Part of my “Great Upload of 2013”)

There was a great article in the Globe & Mail investment section about one John Maudlin’s predictions that after the stock market moves down for awhile, it will move up.  Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is brilliant stuff — blindingly insightful.  Worth every penny!  (Mainly because his online newsletter is free.  :)  )

Alas, as much as I’d like to skewer his ideas, there’s a maddeningly good chance that he’ll be right.  If stocks actually start rising “for good” five years from now, there will have been a 17-year period where the stock indexes stayed flat, finishing at roughly the level where they started (2000-2017).  This was preceded by an 18-year period where stocks kept moving up (1982-2000) which was itself preceded by a 16-year period of relative flatness (1966-1982) which was preceded by a 17-year period… well, you get the picture: tide goes in, tide goes out.*

With this kind of self-reinforcing 17-year cycle, you would think the stock market’s mascot would be a cicada.  But no, they inexplicably chose a bull and a bear; about the only thing they have in common, is tapeworms.

Of course, bold predictions don’t always turn out well, as gold mutual fund runner Charles Oliver found out last month.  Having bet his hair in April 2008 that gold would hit $2000 by last month, he now sports the Lex Luthor look.  Mercifully declining to go double-or-nothing, he maintains a confidence that gold would hit the big 2-0-0-0 by year’s end.  As of this morning [in May 2012], he’s “only” got $400 to go.  ;)

I’d imagine the two aforementioned predictions will interrelate, because bad times float gold’s boat, while in good times it drops like the rock it is.  (And that generally means platinum gets cheaper, so yay, fuel cells!)  Dr. Evil above foresees ongoing misery pushing gold upwards, and Mr. M sees it keeping stocks down.  But whenever we go through the looking glass to prosperous times, gold is likely to lose its allure.  So I plan to be decidedly dismissive towards the stuff from roughly 2017 to, let’s see… 2034.  ;)

Good times ’til the mid-twenty-thirties would be nice for guys like me, who would be pushing sixty; it would imply that our retirement savings could be in reasonably good shape — even if the retirement age will be something like 80 by then.  :)  (I wonder how long until London Life changes its product name to “Freedom 65”?)  Of course, this all depends on one’s being in the position of being able to save money, something that commentators often forget, because that’s generally not their problem.

Upon achieving crotchety old geezerdom, I for one am particularly looking forward to regaling young-folk with boring stories about how much better things were when I was young — once you factor out the lesser technology, widespread poverty, appalling injustice and environmental wreckage.  ;)

Of course, I’ll want to emphasize how much tougher we were as kids.  For example, we attended seismically unsound schools: the Vancouver School Board recently announced plans to raze my earthquake-vulnerable elementary-school alma mater, L’Ecole Bilingue, and replace it with something a bit less crumbly.  Of course, having been built long before bilingualism — back in 1912, when BC was led by Premier Dick McBride (seriously) — for the first few decades it went by its maiden name, “Cecil Rhodes School”.

——-

* there’s nothing magical about 17 years, except for the fact that since it’s happened a few times before, enough people are likely to expect it to happen again, causing a self-reinforcing cycle.  More mundanely, if the stock market is still at current levels five years from now, dividends and profits are likely to be attractive enough that “value investor” types come out of hibernation and shovel gobs of money into stocks, eventually driving them upwards.  :)