Guns and Stocks

Two recent articles grabbed my attention, preaching to the choir in my case. 

First, the endless posturing of Republican candidates as to who loves God and Guns the most, or is it Guns and God?  Ted Cruz is particularly blunt on these topics, saying something to the effect that no person is fit to be President who does not get down on his (or her) knees each morning to pray and his contention that all us “good guys” need guns to take care of the “bad guys.”  In regard to the latter, the Canadians see it for what it is, a spot on article in their National Post: More guns aren’t the answer. For Canadians, America’s gun cult looks like a collective suicide pact:  The America of the NRA’s imagination is a mythic, death-match arena populated by “good guys” and “bad guys,” “monsters” and “patriots.” As in a videogame or superhero comic book, everyone apparently falls into one category or the other. And since the patriots are more numerous, the theory goes, life is arithmetically safest when Americans are all armed to the teeth, ready to rake others with gunfire at the slightest provocation  

It goes on to conclude that when pro-gun activists and politicians make their case, they often regress into adolescent fantasy worlds — where ordinary Joes and Janes are transformed into heroic commandos. In real life, ordinary people faced with a mass-shooter situation are more likely to wet their pants. [Emphasis, mine – and this conclusion is documented in the article]

I’ve written about this so many times that I’m afraid of repeating myself, so instead I paste below just some excerpts. They certainly explain why the National Post article speaks so directly to me.  Read the National Post’s article though, it’s how we’re seen from our neighbor’s viewpoint.  We are so often chasing our own tails that we lack the necessary perspective.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

It Can’t Happen Here?

Unfortunately, the horror in San Bernardino has fed into all of this, “legitimizing” such dangerous rhetoric and escalating it to personal attacks on President Obama (who now has low polling numbers about keeping America “safe,” the exact inverse of what those numbers were after bin Laden was nailed) - and subsequent accusations that any call for stronger gun control laws is merely politicizing the San Bernardino tragedy.

But such calls have gone on for years with fierce Republican and NRA opposition.  I do not naively believe that better gun control laws and enforcement would magically eliminate such tragedies, especially in the short term.  But I do believe that the Second Amendment, which was written in the days of musket rifles and flintlock pistols, needs serious updating.

At that time, we needed an armed militia and also the founding fathers believed that an armed citizenry would be deterrent to the rise of a despotic government.  The world has changed since then, weapons of war unimaginable to our forefathers, and, now, mostly in the hands of the military and law enforcement.  To make some of the same weapons legitimately available to the citizenry no longer serves the purpose of protecting us from a despotic government as the military will always have superior weaponry (is an converted AR-15 adequate protection against a tank?). The proliferation of automatic weapons just further endangers us all, giving us a false sense of security by just having one in our closet.

No, this is a country of laws and checks and balances and we have to depend on our tried-and-true institutions as well as the much maligned (by Trump in particular) fourth estate to keep our government transparent and trustworthy. If some fringe element threatens us in our homes and public places, we need better intelligence to prevent it and rapid response law enforcement to protect us.

Fully automatic weapons (ones that operate as a machine gun) need to be banned, and guns should be registered just like a car, an equally dangerous thing.  That means getting a license, passing a rigorous background check and license renewals (a gun owner having to report if it is sold, just like a car).  Guns for self defense, hunting and target practicing are understandable but how can one argue that an automatic weapon is needed?  Certainly not for hunting (where is the sport in that?).  Do we really want our neighbors to be totting an automatic weapon citing Florida’s ambiguous “stand your ground” law as a justification?

Will that keep guns out of the hands of the “bad guys” as the Republicans like to call them?  No, but it’s a start and of course the devil is in the details of how such gun control is administered.  Senseless to get further into it here – I’m merely expounding an opinion.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Carly Sidesteps

Switching gears to one of the major issues of our times, gun control.  I’ve written about this topic before and it is sad that we make no progress in this area and now, still, another mass slaughter, this one at the Umpqua Community College in Oregon.  CNN now reports that the police have identified thirteen (!) weapons connected with the murderer.

As President Obama wearily declared in his news conference, these incidents have become routine in this country and our response is routine:  commiserate with the families and do absolutely nothing to diminish the problem.  Thank you NRA and its obedient congressional cronies.  

I’m no Pollyanna when it comes to this subject.  People should have the right to have registered weapons for target practice and hunting, and for self protection (with licensing akin to getting a driver’s license, testing etc.), with stringent background checks before any weapon could be bought.  Assault weapons should be banned.  Would those steps eliminate the problem?  No.  But it’s a start.  On a macro basis, it is a cultural problem (just look at popular culture which glorifies violence and guns), as well as educational and income equality feeding the problem. 

Monday, January 20, 2014

"Existential Illegitimacy"

There have been twenty mass shootings since Obama became president and he is helpless to do anything about it without the complete cooperation of Congress.  After the shooting in Newton, Connecticut, only a few miles from where we lived for twenty plus years, there was a ground swell (verbal only) in Congress to do something to control the sale of certain automatic weapons, but by the time the NRA got finished with their lobbying campaign, that effort was AK47ed to death.  Explain that failure to the parents of the children slaughtered.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

You Call That a Gun?

Florida airwaves are chock full of reports of surging gun sales and crowded local shooting ranges before the sword of Damocles (Obama) comes swiftly down.  Interestingly, or tellingly, it is the sales of the AK47 type of military weapons that are selling most briskly and at record prices, soldier citizens plunking down $1,000 or more for their favorite assault weapon.  Apparently, their rationalization for needing a military weapon is, well, for their inevitable confrontation with the US Military.  These particular stalwart supporters of the Constitution (a.k.a. conspiracists) "know" of clandestine government plans to send troops door-to-door to confiscate their booty.  The problem with that is if they are harboring AK47s, perhaps the military might come knocking on their doors with a tank?  Now that's a gun!

In a more serious vein, it's about time after all the empty talk that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is brought into the 21st century.  The framers of the Constitution could never have envisioned what now constitutes the word "arms."

Then my favorite blogger, Barry Ritholtz wrote a sobering article for the Washington Post on the first week’s slide (crash?) of the stock market. 

The essence of it is – well, these things happen; ignore the swings and stick to your “strategy.”  While I of course defer to Ritholtz’s expertise and mostly agree, I would suggest that it may not be that “easy” this time. Tried-and-true asset allocation models no longer seem to be valid.  Governments manipulated the markets to such a degree on their way up that the unwinding of those actions (particularly evident in China) have resulted in asset categories becoming highly correlated.  I will not quote the piece here, but I wrote about this a couple of years ago in Reflections of a Relic Investor

I agree with Ritholtz though that acting on investment decisions while emotions are running high is hazardous to one’s financial health. 

Reflections of a Relic Investor

I used to think I was a fairly knowledgeable individual investor, watching measures such as the money supply (no one even refers to that anymore), interest rates, and comparing those to the earnings yield on stocks (the reciprocal of the Price/Earnings ratio) to partially determine asset allocation.  Alternatively there was also the tried-and-true asset allocation approach, maintaining a fixed relationship between a percentage of bonds vs. stocks in a portfolio.  March 2009 presented an incredible buying opportunity with the S&P reaching its nadir of some 676 (vs. 1,800 plus today).  If you rebalanced every year thereafter, you would have missed out on some equity appreciation, but, nonetheless, participated in the rise of the S&P with less risk. Buying long term bonds today for balancing now implies taking on more risk because of the artificially low interest rates.  The asset classes would be highly correlated in a period of rising interest rates and declining equity values.  

During that same period, the earnings yield on stocks vs. bonds became more and more divergent as the Fed moved from one stage of "quantitative easing" to the next.  The impact on both markets can be seen with clarity if five years ago you decided to commit half of your investments to the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond (IEF) and the other half to the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) and, then, took a five year trip to Mars, leaving the market behind.  Returning today, you'd find your 50/50 bond/equity allocation now at 35/65, simply because of equity appreciation.  So, what to do if you don't want so much at risk?

Jason Zweig addresses that question in this past weekend's Wall Street Journal. Bottom line, "know thyself."  He quotes investment adviser David Salem who said that investors holding large stock portfolios or are considering buying more equities, should be "both willing and able to bear the loss," clarifying that "willingness is behavioral and ability is financial, and you can't know for sure in advance which one is going to trump the other."  As the last bear market quickly eroded 50% plus of equity values, a 65% equity weighting puts one's portfolio at higher risk.  What one did as that last bear market gathered momentum is a good indication of what one might end up doing if this market, too, ends badly.  Of course, it can go higher -- in that regard I'm always reminded of John Maynard Keynes' famous comment “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

Today's investment environment is now as foreign to me as the Mars landscape would be.  Hostile too.  While GDP is hardly growing, and unemployment stubbornly stays above 7%, peak profits are being racked up by major corporations.  How can this be?  Zero interest rates translate into profits, borrowing at nearly nothing to reduce corporate higher-rate debt or financing stock buy-backs.  Corporations have squeezed their workers too, many laid off, a reward to shareholders in the form of increasing dividends.  Labor unions are no longer empowered, a major consequence of labor competition from overseas.  We no longer "make things" here and even intellectual labor can be harvested overseas, at lower cost, thanks to the impact of the Internet. So, by some measures, the "market" is "cheap." It certainly is cheap if you look at earnings yields vs. bond yields, a spread that has widened with every nail in the QE coffin. 

At one time I thought the Fed's actions saved the world from a financial meltdown.  Perhaps it did. But sustaining its monthly $85 billion bond buying program ad infinitum, not to mention maintaining zero interest rates, is creating an asymmetrical investment environment with every passing day (I'm avoiding the word "bubble" as the latter I sort of understand).  It gets worse: recent Fed minutes implied lowering the interest it pays on bank reserves, which has led banks to warn that such an action might force them to charge depositors for holding money in savings and checking accounts (a negative interest rate!). 

Perhaps all of this is being engineered to create a feeling of prosperity from the inflated asset prices of 401Ks, real estate, and equities, hoping that some will trickle down to the middle class via increased spending by the main beneficiaries, the wealthy. (Not surprising, Tiffany & Co. "reported a 50% increase in net earnings in its third quarter..., largely resulting from 7% growth in worldwide net sales and a higher operating margin.")   Or, perhaps, there is something more ominous behind the Fed's actions, a fear of deflation outweighing its concern for (or even desire for) inflation.  Deflation would be an investor's clarion call to buy longer term "secure" bonds, even at these low rates, but, then, we will soon see the next round of the shoot out at the O.K. Corral (a.k.a. Congress), when the debt limit debate comes up again in March.  So, even US Government Bonds may not be rated AAA given the crazy political environment.

No, all the old rules of investment are out the window in this investment environment, as understandable to me as Bitcoins, the price of which surpassed $1,000 today vs. $30 earlier this year, resembling the parabolic price rise of Dutch tulip bulbs in the 17th century.

Ending on a more understandable note, a Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Data Points

Driving home today I happened to hear some stock market guru on the radio (there are countless numbers nowadays, and I didn't get his name during my brief time in the car) predicting that the "bull market" will steadily march onwards and upwards and he compared it to 1982 (when the S&P 500 Index was around 140 vs. today's 1,500 plus), pointing out that bull market move began when unemployment rate was more than 9% vs. a little under 8% today.  I didn't quite get the connection to the S&P other than the inference that things looked gloomy then on Main Street as they do today. 

He sounded like a youngish man, probably either unborn in 1982 or in diapers.  He's right about the gloomy part, but he failed to cite other relevant data points in the comparison, such as the Price Earnings Ratio (P/E) that was about 7.5 then vs. today's 17.5.  Also, adjusting the 1982 140 S&P for the CPI, it was really about 340 not 140.  So, half the growth of the S&P since then is explained by the expansion of the P/E multiple.

Here are some other interesting data point comparisons (these are approximates -- not exact averages for the years cited):

                                                           1982                2013

3 month T Bill Rate                       12.49%            0.11%

10  year T Note Rate                    13.86%            1.88%

S&P Dividend Yield                       4.93%             2.13%

S&P Earnings Yield                        9.83%             7.18%

Classic asset allocation models dictate that if the earnings yield is less than the yield on a 10 year Treasury Note, stocks are overvalued and conversely, if the earnings yield is more than the 10 year T Note, they are undervalued.  By that measure, stock markets should indeed continue to rise now, but they should have been flatlining in 1982.

The reason the usual asset allocation rules may not apply to either scenario is that both 1982 and 2012 represent extraordinary economic times, almost the mirror images of one another, but with one thing in common: the Federal Reserve is in the pilot's seat.  Remember during the Ford administration we were brandishing "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons?  The oil embargo of 1973 had ratcheted up crude prices from 1972's $3.60 to more than $30.00 by 1982.  Consumer prices followed and wage demands took off.  Paul Volker's Federal Reserve slammed the breaks on the economy raising interest rates to unheard of levels. 

Today, we have the flip side of the coin.  The economy nearly collapsed five years ago into a depression and the Fed became the purchaser of last resort of mortgage-backed securities and is still buying 90% of new US Treasury securities, creating a scarcity of Treasury debt and ratcheting down rates to unheard of levels, this time to "Whip Deflation Now."

What does it all mean for investing?  I can't imagine it means a "new bull market," but who knows as we've never been in this situation before (and throw a calcified government into the mix). One thing I do know, in extraordinary times markets can behave illogically -- unremittingly postponing a normal reversion to the mean --  or as John Maynard Keynes said, “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”

Reprise

He made me do it

He made me do it

But we only have

Ourselves

To blame

Reprise...

He made me do it

He made me do it

But we only have

Ourselves

To blame

Investors could easily sing these bastardized lyrics from Chicago's "Cell Block Tango."  The "he" is Federal Reserve's Ben Bernanke (a.k.a. Uncle Ben) and the "it" is, well, investment allocation and spending decisions which, probably, in retrospect, we will "only have ourselves to blame."  Poor Ben.  He was dealt an impossible hand, an economy teetering on the brink of depression, investment bankers gone wild in a regulatory free-for-all, and a calcified Federal government.  In the absence of long-term prudent fiscal policy, monetary policy became a surrogate.  While the inexorable march towards zero interest rates seemed to be the right Keynesian tonic to drag the economy back from the brink, it has gone on long, too long perhaps, and it is leading to investment consequences of unknown dimensions. 

Just a glance at the blogosphere and financial publications demonstrates completely divergent opinions, ranging from new highs, and not merely marginal ones, for the S&P 500, to apocalyptic prognostications.  The problem is the ' rear view mirror' is less useful than in the past.  Into uncharted waters we have sailed, not knowing whether this economic world is really round.

John Hussman, who has been coined a "perma-bear" is nonetheless an astute economist.  He has accused Bernanke of creating an investment bubble of historic proportions, making people feel wealthier and thus more willing to spend, spend, spend, on "stuff" and on more speculative investments.  Whether that was Bernanke's objective, or whether it is merely a side-effect of righting the sinking ship is anyone's guess.

Hussman's most recent column, A Reluctant Bear's Guide to the Universe provides a lengthy, well reasoned, and highly statistically supported view, concluding with his own prediction:

...market conditions remained characterized by an overvalued, overbought, overbullish, rising-yields condition, the extremes of which have been observed only 6 other times in history: 1929, 1972, 1987, 2000, 2007, and 2011 (the last being reasonably forgettable, but still followed by a near-20% market decline). I doubt that the present instance will end any better, but that resolution may not be immediate, and I am quite aware how quickly each marginal new high in the market can erode both patience and prudence.

But, if that doesn't grab one's attention, there is Bill Gross' latest missive Credit Supernova!

As Gross is known as the "Bond King" managing more debt securities than anyone on the planet (other than Uncle Ben perhaps), one has to sit up and take notice when he forebodes possible economic disaster.  He cites the work of the economist Hyman Minsky on what he called "Ponzi finance:"

First, he claimed the system would borrow in low amounts and be relatively self-sustaining – what he termed “Hedge” finance. Then the system would gain courage, lever more into a “Speculative” finance mode which required more credit to pay back previous borrowings at maturity. Finally, the end phase of “Ponzi” finance would appear when additional credit would be required just to cover increasingly burdensome interest payments, with accelerating inflation the end result.

Minsky’s concept, developed nearly a half century ago shortly after the explosive decoupling of the dollar from gold in 1971, was primarily a cyclically contained model which acknowledged recession and then rejuvenation once the system’s leverage had been reduced. That was then. He perhaps could not have imagined the hyperbolic, as opposed to linear, secular rise in U.S. credit creation that has occurred since....While there has been cyclical delevering, it has always been mild – even during the Volcker era of 1979-81. When Minsky formulated his theory in the early 70s, credit outstanding in the U.S. totaled $3 trillion....Today, at $56 trillion and counting, it is a monster that requires perpetually increasing amounts of fuel, a supernova star that expands and expands, yet, in the process begins to consume itself. Each additional dollar of credit seems to create less and less heat. In the 1980s, it took four dollars of new credit to generate $1 of real GDP. Over the last decade, it has taken $10, and since 2006, $20 to produce the same result. Minsky’s Ponzi finance at the 2013 stage goes more and more to creditors and market speculators and less and less to the real economy. This “Credit New Normal” is entropic much like the physical universe and the “heat” or real growth that new credit now generates becomes less and less each year: 2% real growth now instead of an historical 3.5% over the past 50 years; likely even less as the future unfolds.

So our credit-based financial markets and the economy it supports are levered, fragile and increasingly entropic – it is running out of energy and time. When does money run out of time? The countdown begins when investable assets pose too much risk for too little return; when lenders desert credit markets for other alternatives such as cash or real assets.

Gross' recommendations: (1) Position for eventual inflation.....(2) Get used to slower real growth....(3) Invest in global equities with stable cash flows...(4) Transition from financial to real assets if possible at the margin: buy something you can sink your teeth into – gold, other commodities, anything that can’t be reproduced as fast as credit....(5) Be cognizant of property rights and confiscatory policies in all governments....(6) Appreciate the supernova characterization of our current credit system. At some point it will transition to something else.

Wow, this is a bond guy arguing for hard assets and even intimating government confiscation.

One only has to look at the stock market, real estate, and even collectibles to see the results of a prolonged zero interest rate environment.  How far and how long is the question.  Meanwhile, investors and savers are left with a conundrum, a sense of cognitive dissonance in a world in which an inflationary or disinflationary outcome can be argued simultaneously.  No doubt though, the longer the asset bubble lasts, the more comfortable people become with it as a representation of reality and they spend and invest accordingly, until we reach either the implosion of the supernova Gross mentions, or, in the best of worlds, a governmental devised glide path, over time, to reduce the deficit, setting down the economy in the halcyon fields of a balanced budget. If the latter can be engineered, then, perhaps, the market is discounting the same.  Otherwise, watch out below!

As a retiree I have chosen to self manage my investment portfolio.  These last couple of years have been exasperating; old asset allocation rules seem to no longer apply, with many categories now highly correlated. Bonds mature and reinvesting in the same at today's interest rates seems insane.  This is exactly what the Fed wants, so either one goes out further on the risk curve, (in fact, much further) or sits with cash earning no return, or spend it (the other option the Fed would like one to do).

I've resisted the latter until now.  We went to the Art Palm Beach Exhibit at the West Palm Convention Center as we did last year. Talk about collectibles and at astronomical prices. But if we have the inflationary engine that some predict, these might be bargains. 

One such painting I liked was Pham Luan's Boats at Sam Son Beach at $9,200, but I've always been a sucker for boat and sea scenes.

Or the whimsical Vextrola by Jerry Meyer (note some of the "hits" such as those by the band I'm Through with Love entitled "Carl's Got the Clap" and on the flip side "Herpes Forever" and the more appropriate -- for us -- the band Senescence Singers' top hits, "Did I Take My Pills?" and "I Forgot What I Forgot").  Alas, no price was listed, but that was one I'd be interested in. 

For a mere $595k one could buy the star of the show, Marc Chagall's Le Paysan à la Hache, and who knows, that might be a steal if central banks induce an inflationary binge. Our check book was short a few bucks.

If I had money to invest in art at the show, no doubt I would have just stopped at the exhibit of Lino Tagliapietra's beautiful glass work.  Lovely to see, and he was honored as the recipient of the Visionary Award.

I also liked a piece that seemed to capture the essence of today's merriment on Wall Street, the one of the three dancing sheep. Unfortunately, I failed to note the artist's name, so apologies to him/her.

Returning from the exhibit, we decided to buy another kind of "work of art" -- this one is guaranteed to depreciate, no matter what the economy does.  Nice to have some certainty for a change!   Returning to the beginning theme, a reprise if you will, "he made me do it!"  As the Federal Reserve is encouraging either risky investments or just plain old vanilla consumer spending, we chose the latter and bought a new boat, not just any boat, but one we think is beautiful and one that will indubitably be the last boat of my life.  It is a small boat, and although Grady-White gives it the moniker of the "209 Fisherman," I am outfitting it for cruising, not long range of course, but something Ann and I can take out on a lovely day, perhaps to Peanut or Munyon Island, or down to West Palm Beach, or even an occasional overnight to Ft. Lauderdale or Stuart, staying at a marina/hotel.  It even has a head so that makes a full day on the boat practical. 

We are naming it 'Reprise' and with the magic of Photoshop we've been able to get an idea of how the name will look on the hull, using Grady's stock photograph (the younger version of me and my two sons do not go with the boat). The name of course comes from our love of music, and Wikipedia describes it best: "In musical theatre, reprises are any repetition of an earlier song or theme, usually with changed lyrics to reflect the development of the story."  And at our stage in life, the developmental section is definitely a thing of the past, and this represents a true "reprise" as we started with a 20' boat more than thirty years ago.  And, so, our boating life will ultimately conclude with the same size boat, one that is being made to our specifications. Most would consider it a folly, but to us it will lovely to look at sitting on our boat lift and a joy to run with its quiet four-stroke Yamaha while listening to some of our favorite jazz pieces on its stereo. Thanks for the suggestion, Uncle Ben!