With interest rates near zero and property owners facing potentially massive problems with occupancy and rent collection, stocks are becoming the only game in town. But it is an increasingly expensive game to play. The U.S. economy shrank by around 10% this past quarter, taking us back to the GDP levels of about five years ago after adjusting for inflation, but the stock market continues to rise to almost record highs. While it is common for stocks to move ahead of the economy, both down and up, there are no previous cases of GDP being this far below its all-time high but stocks near all-time highs.
Our strongest areas were emerging markets, notably China, with FRANKLIN FTSE CHINA (FLCH) up 9.46%. The now large-cap-tech-dominated S&P 500 did better than almost everything else worldwide, with particular weakness in energy stocks in our portfolios, as VANGUARD ENERGY (VDE) fell 4.19%. As for bonds, a falling dollar and a continued rebound in risky debt helped iSHARES JP MORGAN EM BOND (LEMB) climb 3.78%, while our safer bond fund VANGUARD ST INFLATION PROTECTED (VTIP) gained just 0.76%, which was only half the return of the overall bond market last month.
The stock market's total value is about double the new lower annual GDP of $19.4 trillion. This is a record level, in what is one of Warren Buffett's snapshot measures of valuation of a national stock market. This ratio of market value to GDP is lower in every other country.
The previous high for this ratio was about 150%, in 2000, followed by around 140% in 2007. In both cases, slides of roughly 50% in stock prices followed. The 2007—09 slide took the stock market down to around 90% of GDP, which would equate to maybe a 55% slide in the market from current levels — if the economy stops shrinking. But such a slide in stocks is a long shot, because during the last two crashes you could still earn a decent return in bonds, whereas today stocks are likely your only chance of positive inflation-adjusted returns. Such a drop would be more likely if rates were to climb fast hitting bond prices hard.
At this point the Federal Reserve isn't so much creating long-term future earnings growth so much as removing short-term downside. We saw this explicitly a few months ago when it started supporting bond prices across the board as investor panic selling began. This support is the main reason to own bonds at all, with the risk of a slide due either to interest rates going back up or corporate (and maybe state) defaults rising in a weak economy. The Fed has your back and will support prices, directly. It is doing much the same thing with stocks, indirectly for now, which is why a 1.75% yield in the S&P 500 — which could be cut in half or more at this rate of economic trouble — is not shabby at all, if you remove the risk of losing more than maybe 25% in the short run.
Imagine if the Fed said it would print money and buy stocks if they go down 25%, take them back to their old highs, then slowly sell. What would the correct price for stocks be? With 1% interest rates, perhaps double their current levels, as stock dividends grow (most of the time) and are taxed favorably.
The only reason NOT to own stocks, with the Fed covering your losses and downside risk, is opportunity cost: what could you have earned elsewhere? To do better somewhere else would require interest rates to rise, but the Fed has already said in essence that it will not let rates go up either. So you are back to stocks again. The Fed's behavior could cause inflation, which is bad for bonds and maybe for the U.S. dollar, but not necessarily bad for stocks or real estate. But other major countries are in this same boat unless they can avoid longer-term lockdowns and continuing monetary support. The real risk is still deflation, such as Japan experienced after its 1980s bubble. But with aggressive money creation, is that possible? Stagflation is more likely: higher inflation with slow economic growth.
Investors aren't buying into this market recovery, and really haven't since the 20% drop in stock prices in late 2018, which also rebounded quickly. Over the last couple of years, around $400 billion has departed stocks for bonds. These days investors are putting tens of billions into bonds each week, with near guaranteed low returns, and pulling as much out of stock funds. Normally this is a huge positive for future stock prices and a huge negative for bonds, but these are not normal times. Much of this is likely just rebalancing because stocks are climbing faster than bonds, and much of it is on autopilot in index funds these days. But there were signs of panic selling of stocks on the way down, and huge outflows from bonds (the highest on record, it seems) when they briefly tanked in March. True rebalancing would have seen money go into stocks and probably into bonds, and out of cash.
For reference, in 2000 everybody was gaga about U.S. stocks. There was about 20% more investor money in stocks relative to bonds and cash, and all the new money was going into U.S. stocks. This was the beginning of poor returns in stocks and very good returns in bonds. In fact stocks still haven't caught up with long-term Treasury bonds purchased in 2000, and might need another decade or more to do so. This highlights the problem with buying stocks at valuations near all-time highs.
The 20-year annualized return on the Vanguard 500 stock fund Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX) is around 5.8%, but it is a whopping 7.7% for the Vanguard Long Term Treasury fund (VUSTX) — a huge difference over 20 years. The chance of stocks underperforming long-term Treasuries over the next 20 years is about zero, unless we go into a Japan-style bubble deflation period, which is possible. But for stocks to catch up will require a big spread over bond returns for years to come.
At this point, at best, sluggish earnings growth (inflation-adjusted, after tax) is pretty much going to be here for years. Even with a relatively fast return to semi-normalcy in the global economy, paying down the trillions of borrowed money will require some mix of tax increases and less borrowing by governments worldwide, which by itself should wipe out much of the already slow growth rates in recent years.
The bottom line is that stocks are not a good deal at these levels, but cash, bonds, and real estate are worse. Sharp drops in stock prices, even if not to historically good valuations, are opportunities to buy, but from all-time highs, future returns will be low.
July 2020 Performance Review
With interest rates near zero and property owners facing potentially massive problems with occupancy and rent collection, stocks are becoming the only game in town. But it is an increasingly expensive game to play. The U.S. economy shrank by around 10% this past quarter, taking us back to the GDP levels of about five years ago after adjusting for inflation, but the stock market continues to rise to almost record highs. While it is common for stocks to move ahead of the economy, both down and up, there are no previous cases of GDP being this far below its all-time high but stocks near all-time highs.
Our Conservative portfolio gained 2.05% and our Aggressive portfolio gained 2.72%. Benchmark Vanguard funds performed as follows in July 2020: Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), up 5.64%; Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund (VBMFX), up 1.55%; Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund (VTMGX), up 2.64%; Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index (VEIEX), up 8.38%; and Vanguard Star Fund (VGSTX), a total global balanced portfolio, up 4.39%.
Our strongest areas were emerging markets, notably China, with FRANKLIN FTSE CHINA (FLCH) up 9.46%. The now large-cap-tech-dominated S&P 500 did better than almost everything else worldwide, with particular weakness in energy stocks in our portfolios, as VANGUARD ENERGY (VDE) fell 4.19%. As for bonds, a falling dollar and a continued rebound in risky debt helped iSHARES JP MORGAN EM BOND (LEMB) climb 3.78%, while our safer bond fund VANGUARD ST INFLATION PROTECTED (VTIP) gained just 0.76%, which was only half the return of the overall bond market last month.
The stock market's total value is about double the new lower annual GDP of $19.4 trillion. This is a record level, in what is one of Warren Buffett's snapshot measures of valuation of a national stock market. This ratio of market value to GDP is lower in every other country.
The previous high for this ratio was about 150%, in 2000, followed by around 140% in 2007. In both cases, slides of roughly 50% in stock prices followed. The 2007—09 slide took the stock market down to around 90% of GDP, which would equate to maybe a 55% slide in the market from current levels — if the economy stops shrinking. But such a slide in stocks is a long shot, because during the last two crashes you could still earn a decent return in bonds, whereas today stocks are likely your only chance of positive inflation-adjusted returns. Such a drop would be more likely if rates were to climb fast hitting bond prices hard.
At this point the Federal Reserve isn't so much creating long-term future earnings growth so much as removing short-term downside. We saw this explicitly a few months ago when it started supporting bond prices across the board as investor panic selling began. This support is the main reason to own bonds at all, with the risk of a slide due either to interest rates going back up or corporate (and maybe state) defaults rising in a weak economy. The Fed has your back and will support prices, directly. It is doing much the same thing with stocks, indirectly for now, which is why a 1.75% yield in the S&P 500 — which could be cut in half or more at this rate of economic trouble — is not shabby at all, if you remove the risk of losing more than maybe 25% in the short run.
Imagine if the Fed said it would print money and buy stocks if they go down 25%, take them back to their old highs, then slowly sell. What would the correct price for stocks be? With 1% interest rates, perhaps double their current levels, as stock dividends grow (most of the time) and are taxed favorably.
The only reason NOT to own stocks, with the Fed covering your losses and downside risk, is opportunity cost: what could you have earned elsewhere? To do better somewhere else would require interest rates to rise, but the Fed has already said in essence that it will not let rates go up either. So you are back to stocks again. The Fed's behavior could cause inflation, which is bad for bonds and maybe for the U.S. dollar, but not necessarily bad for stocks or real estate. But other major countries are in this same boat unless they can avoid longer-term lockdowns and continuing monetary support. The real risk is still deflation, such as Japan experienced after its 1980s bubble. But with aggressive money creation, is that possible? Stagflation is more likely: higher inflation with slow economic growth.
Investors aren't buying into this market recovery, and really haven't since the 20% drop in stock prices in late 2018, which also rebounded quickly. Over the last couple of years, around $400 billion has departed stocks for bonds. These days investors are putting tens of billions into bonds each week, with near guaranteed low returns, and pulling as much out of stock funds. Normally this is a huge positive for future stock prices and a huge negative for bonds, but these are not normal times. Much of this is likely just rebalancing because stocks are climbing faster than bonds, and much of it is on autopilot in index funds these days. But there were signs of panic selling of stocks on the way down, and huge outflows from bonds (the highest on record, it seems) when they briefly tanked in March. True rebalancing would have seen money go into stocks and probably into bonds, and out of cash.
For reference, in 2000 everybody was gaga about U.S. stocks. There was about 20% more investor money in stocks relative to bonds and cash, and all the new money was going into U.S. stocks. This was the beginning of poor returns in stocks and very good returns in bonds. In fact stocks still haven't caught up with long-term Treasury bonds purchased in 2000, and might need another decade or more to do so. This highlights the problem with buying stocks at valuations near all-time highs.
The 20-year annualized return on the Vanguard 500 stock fund Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX) is around 5.8%, but it is a whopping 7.7% for the Vanguard Long Term Treasury fund (VUSTX) — a huge difference over 20 years. The chance of stocks underperforming long-term Treasuries over the next 20 years is about zero, unless we go into a Japan-style bubble deflation period, which is possible. But for stocks to catch up will require a big spread over bond returns for years to come.
At this point, at best, sluggish earnings growth (inflation-adjusted, after tax) is pretty much going to be here for years. Even with a relatively fast return to semi-normalcy in the global economy, paying down the trillions of borrowed money will require some mix of tax increases and less borrowing by governments worldwide, which by itself should wipe out much of the already slow growth rates in recent years.
The bottom line is that stocks are not a good deal at these levels, but cash, bonds, and real estate are worse. Sharp drops in stock prices, even if not to historically good valuations, are opportunities to buy, but from all-time highs, future returns will be low.