Now, sing along . . . "Happy Days Are Here Again"

It is a small secret that I find economics endlessly fascinating.  One would expect I would be a member of the American Economic Society, but I found those are the nerdy, academic type of economists who value mathematical purity more than usefulness.  Instead, I have been a long-time member of the National Association of Business Economics (NABE).

Yesterday, NABE released their latest Outlook, predicting that the GDP growth of 1.7% last year, will increase to 2.4% this year, and 3.0% in 2014.  That is very strong, compared to the last few years.

In February, they predicted the decreased government spending was a 1% drag on our GDP growth.  Since sequestration actually happened, they have increased that drag to 2.3%.  Now, putting politics aside, that means our GDP growth rate for this year would be a whopping 4.7%, which sounds like the "good ole days."  We haven't seen that much growth in many years.  This tells me the underlying economy is doing better than people realize.  Unemployment will remain high, and we'll hear a great deal of political chatter about the "jobless recovery."

With respect to the largest spending component of GDP, consumer spending rose 1.9% last year.  NABE expects consumer spending will rise another 2.3% this year and another 2.6% next year.  Again, this is very strong and also sounds like the "good ole days."

In addition, my favorite professor from my Wharton days was (and still is) Jeremy Siegel.  He is arguing this bullish stock market is not a mere reflection of quantitative easing but a reflection of the growing strength of the underlying economy.  (Of course, he does not explain what quantitative easing is actually doing, if not pumping up the stock market to make consumers feel good enough to increase their spending.)

Now, assuming both NABE and Dr. Siegel are correct, what are the political implications?

Thanking our European Friends . . .

One of the reasons that the U.S. stock market is doing so much better than the U.S. economy is that the U.S. economy is doing so much better than the European economy.  The latest data from Europe is not good, with GDP decreasing 0.2% last quarter.  Over the last 1.5 years, the GDP has decreased 1.5%.

The European GDP is now 3.3% lower than its peak in the first quarter of 2008.  By comparison, the U.S. GDP is 3.0% higher than its peak in the fourth quarter of 2007.  That's a huge 6.3% difference!

A slowing GDP doesn't need as much capital as a growing GDP.  "Capital always goes where it is treated the best."  European capital is now migrating to the U.S.  Logically, some of it should be migrating to China as well.  However, don't forget there are many restrictions on foreign capital in China and regulation can be arbitrary, to put it kindly.  Despite our terrible corporate tax code, capital is still treated better here than in Europe or China.

Of course, this in-migration of European capital is less important than competitive quantitative-easing (QE) by the central banks of the U.S., Japan, and, to a lesser extent, Europe.  Pundits in this country are already worried about what happens if Bernanke slows down quantitative easing.  I am less worried about this.  Bernanke may be many things, but stupid, he is not!  The end of QE will not be sudden and the period of tapering will be left undetermined by design.  There will be some initial disruption, but it will not be significant.  Don't forget, Bernanke has set a goal of reducing unemployment to only 6.5% before cutting back on QE, and that is no time soon, unfortunately.  But, when it gets here, the U.S. economy should be even stronger than it is now.

Thin Ice

As a white male, it is dangerous to discuss certain issues, and most of us avoid those subjects like the plague.   We can never discuss racial issues or gender issues . . . because we are wrong, no matter what we say.

But, I can report comments by a female speaker at the conference this week about gender issues.  She said women communicate with their eyes, and it is critical to maintain eye contact with them.  Women use stories to communicate, while men use data.  Women use words to find ways to cooperate, while men use words to compete.  Women are more conservative investors, while men tend to be gun-slingers.  Men look for competence, while women look for someone who cares about her family.  When there are three people in a meeting, it is best to sit directly in front of the woman.  And, never, never ignore her!

The purpose of her comments was to make her mostly male audience of investment planners more sensitive to the perspective of female clients.  Mission Accomplished, I think!  After all, women are expected to inherit 70% of the $41 TRILLION in inter-generational wealth transfer.  They already make 85% of household buying decisions, including financial services.

After an hour or so, I began to feel "politically correct" enough to think this is really a gross over-generalization, as I've met numerous women who are more involved in their financial planning and investment planning than their husbands.  Maybe, I'm just fortunate to have met many extraordinary women?  Because, I seriously doubt I care more about the man's opinion than the woman's opinion, as I normally prefer the company of women over men anyway.

An interesting side-note is that 43% of all household were "traditional" in 1960, composed of a married husband, wife, and children.  Today, only 20% are.  Co-habitation or "living together" has increased 1,700%.  The times, they are a-changing . . . indeed!

Econometrics, Accents, . . . and socks

Yesterday morning, I was in Indianapolis and spent three hours listening to a brilliant Italian mathematician speak rapidly in a thick Italian accent, as he discussed numerous, long complex formulas with lots of Greek letters.  (You know, the type of formulas that Warren Buffett doesn't trust.)  Listening required absolute focus, and I was exhausted after those three long hours.

The short version is that binary economic data operates under six different scenarios; meaning the binary relationships we assume, such as between unemployment and inflation, are different depending upon whether GDP growth is high, etc.  I'll you spare the details, but my thought was a sarcastic "you're kidding me?"

The most interesting part to me was that an investor can normally use diversification to hedge most risks.  However, the one risk that cannot be diversified, according to our speaker, is political risk.  This increased uncertainty means investors must expect a greater return for the risk they are taking.  Up to this point, I agree.  Then, he explained the strong market rally we're seeing now is due to investors demanding more return . . . OK, I lost something in his translation on that one . . . or he is simply wrong.

One other thing jumped out at me.  It took two hours of formulas to conclude that (1) the stock market likes Republicans better but (2) the stock market performs better under Democrats.  I've heard this for years and saw the mathematical proof today and just wondered "so what?"

It's gratifying that I can still stay focused so long -- until I realized I learned a great deal about something I either don't believe or don't care about.  Just think, I could have spent the time playing golf or even re-arranging my sock drawer instead!

Pensive Thoughts on Mother's Day

This is the seventh Mother's Day that I thought was the last one for my Mother.  It is also the first she has spent in hospice care.  It is not easy for anybody, especially my Father.

She has taught me much about life and death.  But, I have been thinking about the dying process - of being between life and  death.  As an existentialist, I normally view death as the ultimate absurdity.  But, the process of dying is more serious than death.

When a client and old friend died recently, I marveled at his process of dying.  He was athletic and fit, until a month before his death.  When the doctor gave him 2-6 months to live, he passed away 6 days later.  On his deathbed literally, he joked that getting a tattoo of the William and Mary logo on his behind was on his "bucket list."  That night, he passed quietly.  He had a good life and a good death.

In the meantime, I have watched my Mother wallow in misery for years, needing and demanding more and more of those around her.  It is not enough to have a good life.  It is just as important to have a good transition between the two worlds of life and death.


At a seminar on longevity in Baltimore last year, I learned that men die faster than women and are usually healthier before death.  In other words, men die more quickly and easily than women.  This is partially due to our estrogen-starved hearts and our tendency to "do God's work" by committing suicide.

Also, being a good and decent person doesn't guarantee an easy transition.  Saying "the Lord works in strange ways" is just a cop-out.  Earning an easy transition is never guaranteed, but I do believe you can improve your odds by becoming athletic and fit.

Undoubtedly, mothers teach us more than anybody else, even some things they don't mean to teach, which are probably the most valuable lessons of all.  I wish a pleasant transition to almost everybody, but I'm especially grateful for my Mother and wish her the best . . .

The Joy of Numbers

Yes, I'm aware that the Dow broke the 15,000 barrier.  That's great!  I'm actually more impressed that the S&P broke 1,600.  But, I'm most impressed by the fact that the stock market held both levels.  This rally is real!

The media is paying a lot more attention to the 15,000 barrier than it did when the Dow broke the 14,000 level, and I doubt it pays as much attention when the Dow breaks the 16,000 level, which it will, sooner or later.

15,000 is a media-worthy number.  1,600 is not.  I guess people have a need for the phony significance or specificity of numbers.  There is a school of investment theory for these people.  It is called the 'chartist" or technical approach of investment theory.  They believe that past movements in stock prices, plotted on a chart or graph, will predict future price movements, based on a complex, ever-changing set of patterns with such exotic names as "inverted head and shoulders".  To me, people who believe in astrology are most likely to embrace this chartist approach or this love of meaningless numbers.  I use chartistism merely as a reference point in some buy/sell decisions.  For example, one chartist is predicting gold will drop to $1,322/oz.  If I see that happen, I will likely buy some more gold.

To their credit, many chartists are now predicting an 8-10% market correction, meaning the Dow might drop to 13,500 or so before resuming its upward climb.  I suspect they are right, not because of some obscure pattern of price movements but simply because the recent market rally has been so steep.  Periodic corrections are good-thing, not a bad-thing.

When good news is good and bad news is also good, the bull is out-of-control.  We've seen that several times in the past two weeks, when the market simply ignored bad news and rallied anyway.  While nobody knows if there is a 10% correction in front of us or not, I do believe that it will happen in the short-run but continue rising in the long-run . . . until that day when we have our "Jim Fixx" moment, and it will likely begin in Europe.

Stay tuned . . . I'm looking for more obscure, non-media-worthy numbers!

The SEC, The Army Inspector General, and . . . socks

While most people consider their military experience to be good, most of their memories are bad.  Some memories, however, are just plain annoying.  My nomination for the most annoying of all military memories is the "IG Inspection."  This is when some field-grade officer from the Inspector General Department comes to inspect the troops.  Ostensibly, he makes sure the troops have the equipment they need and that equipment is properly maintained.  Actually, it is a great way to increase and enforce conformity of the troops.

As an example, soldiers were issued two pair of wool socks and two pair of nylon socks.  They were to be presented for IG Inspection by being placed in the top tray of our foot locker.  The top tray had a left and a right compartment.  The wool socks were displayed on the bottom left corner of the left compartment, and the nylon socks were displayed on the bottom left corner of the right compartment.  Further, the two pair of wool socks should be touching.  The nylon socks had to be separated by a quarter inch.

The most similar experience to IG Inspections in civilian life must be regulatory inspections.  As one absurd example, an SEC auditor once criticized me years ago for having light blue files instead of dark blue files.  Fortunately, I have found the Virginia regulators to be far less absurd, even helpful.

The SEC never caught Bernie Madoff, because they were looking for absurd little things that don't matter, just like the Inspector General.  On the other hand, the Virginia regulators first make a good-faith effort to determine if the advisor is a crook or not, before then showing the advisor some helpful hints to actually improve his compliance.

Yesterday, we were audited by the state, and they didn't care if my nylon socks are touching or not.

I know it is not fashionable to say anything good about state employees, but maybe we should let them run the SEC . . . or at least run the Army's Inspector General Department.

Do I hear a motion?

Good Company

Conventional wisdom is a dangerous thing.  For generations, investors have been told that bonds are always safer than stocks, which is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!  Today, the popular "retirement-date funds" just allocate a greater and greater portion of a person's portfolio into bonds as they get older, which should be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!  Investors think they are being prudent by investing in bonds -- but are being anything but . . .

Suppose you pay $10,000 for a bond paying 5%.  That means you get paid interest of $500 annually.  Now, let's suppose interest rates go up to 6%.  But, your bond still only pays $500 or 5%.  However, you can still sell your bond but not for the $10,000 you originally paid for it.  How much would somebody else pay you for it?  You can compute it this way:  $500 divided by 6% equals $8,333.  That is all your bond is worth after rates go up -- just one percent.  In other words, your bond just lost almost 17%, which doesn't sound all that safe to me.  If interest rates go up 2%, you lose almost 29%

(I'll spare you the arithmetic but long-term bonds are much more risky than short-term bonds.  That's why extra cash should only be parked in short-term bonds, not long-term bonds, even though short-term bonds normally pay lower interest than long-term bonds.)

According to the conventional wisdom (AKA old wives' tales) investors primarily seeking income (as opposed to capital growth) should be invested in a portfolio of bonds with varying maturities.  With so little safety of capital in bonds and with so many excellent stocks paying dividend rates much higher than interest rates, the conventional wisdom is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

This morning, I felt vindicated watching Warren Buffett, as he said that investors "could lose a lot of money on long-term bonds" even U.S. Treasuries.  I've been saying this a long time.  I may not agree with Warren on everything, but I am always delighted when he agrees with me.

Now, do you have any long-term bonds?  If you don't know, why don't you know?

Advertising, Responsibility, and Existentialism

Recently, I discussed the pervasive nature of advertising in our society -- hoping to drive home the point that business wouldn't spend billions of dollars on it, if it didn't actually channel consumer behavior.  This has generated some interesting discussion; questioning whether it is consistent with an existential viewpoint.

You'll recall the stereotype of existentialism is that individuals live on their own individual and isolated islands, where they are the King and responsible for whatever happens there.  Still, the island is impacted by exogenous factors, such as weather systems, technology, shipping routes, etc.

Sitting smugly on my island, I am bombarded with advertisers telling me what choices I should make.  They are trying to instruct me, not teach me.  As King of this island, I must make prudent choices and must bear that responsibility.  The individual advertisers are not responsible for my choices -- I am!

My question is whether the industry-as-a-whole bears any moral or financial responsibility for consumer behavior?  Does the dope-dealer bear any responsibility for enticing a kid to become a dope-addict, any responsibility at all?

Happy Days Are Here Again . . . ???

At 8:30 AM this morning, Dow futures indicated the stock market would open flat.  Within minutes, it indicated the market would gain 100 points as soon as it opened.  What happened?

Of the 130 economic reports issued each month, the stock market pays the most attention to the monthly Jobs Report.  Judging from the sudden jump in futures, you know the report must have been better-than-expected.

The market was expecting that only about 135 thousand new jobs were created last month.  Instead, it was 165 thousand, and the unemployment rate dropped from 7.6% to 7.5%.  More significantly, we learned that the Jobs Reports for February and March were under-stated by another 114 thousand jobs.  Jobs created in February were revised from 268 thousand up to 332 thousand, which is the best in years.  Despite severe fiscal headwinds from the Sequester and increased taxes, the job market looks better than we previously thought.

But, it is not great!  We need to average at least 250 thousand a month to make a meaningful dent in the unemployment problem.  The number of both unemployed and under-employed workers is still well over 13 million.  Every single day they are not employed fully creates a permanent loss of income for the country.

Remembering that our Federal Reserve is the only central bank in the world that has a combined mission of controlling inflation AND unemployment, the slowly improving job market with minimal inflation means the Fed is accomplishing its mission in the short-run . . . even if it is not the right thing in the long-run.

The Darling of Austerity-Fatigue

There are many schools of thought on economics.  For convenience, this blog has always focused on The Big Three.  First, there is the Austrian or "Tough Love" school that says budgets should be balanced at all times.  Second, there is the Keynesian school that says deficits are good during bad times as long as the budget has a surplus during good times.  Third, there is the relatively recent Supply-side school that argues debt is easier to handle if the economy is growing faster, which results from a cut in the highest marginal tax rate.

Europe has been using the Austrian approach to recover from its financial crisis and has been applying "tough love" or austerity to their budgets and their people.  However, the time for this approach to work is running out.  Already, there are anti-austerity demonstrations and riots.  In addition, the ongoing scandal over the research methodology of This Time Is Different by Reinhart and Rogoff has dis-credited the intellectual basis of the Austrian approach, at least temporarily.

So, it should not be surprising that a relatively obscure school of economic thought is now getting much more attention, and that is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which has been around since 1895.  It argues that nations with their own free-floating (not linked to gold) currency have an obligation to run budget deficits in order to finance GDP growth.  They believe deficits increase money supply.  (There is little disagreement that economic growth must have some increase in the money supply, but how much is too much?  Plus, should that increase in money supply come from the central government or the central bank?)  When a government runs a deficit, it gives the private sector a piece of paper called a bond and then re-deposits the cash into the private sector.  It is a win-win, no?

When former Vice President Dick Cheney famously said "deficits don't matter," he unknowingly re-energized Modern Monetary Theory.  Liberal Nobel-Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that MMT is "just not right" because it places too much emphasis on the freedom of the central government to run deficits in both bad economic times and good economic times, as long as they have their own free-floating currency.  MMT may have more friends on the right than the left.

Certainly, MMT is not one of The Big Three of economic theories, but it is now growing as a logical result of austerity-fatigue.  The intellectual tide is shifting . . .


NOTE:  Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) should not be confused with Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), which deals with improving investment performance while managing risk, not budgets and money supply.

Your Digital After-Life

Ricky Rash was a 15-year-old kid who committed suicide.  His grieving parents wanted to understand what was in his mind before he died.  Understandably, they wanted to see what he was saying and doing online.  But legally, the online companies like Facebook, Yahoo, etc. could not allow any cooperation.

So, what happens to your online world when you die, and should somebody be allowed to shut down any online accounts you have?  A professor at George Washington University has estimated the average adult has 20-25 online accounts.

Some of these accounts are, of course, just foolishness, but some could have financial significance, such as online banking and investment accounts.  While a few states, including Virginia, have enacted laws to help bypass the privacy issues, who wants to hire a lawyer just to deal with online accounts, when it can be done quickly and simply by your friend or executor?

What should you or your spouse or your parents do?  A retired financial planner has prepared a spreadsheet to capture that information for the benefit of your heirs or successors.  I will be mailing a copy to my clients.  If you would also like a copy, just email us at renee@baycapitaladvice.com  (If you would like to follow his excellent blog on the overlapping subjects of estate planning and elder care, you can do so at http://parentcareplanning.wordpress.com)

Yes, Virginia, there is an after-life . . . digital and otherwise!

Individually Innocent . . . But Cumulatively Guilty

Yesterday's report that personal income rose less-then-expected, while personal spending rose more-than-expected, made me wonder about our rate of savings.

As everybody knows, cigarette companies were held legally responsible for the misfortunes caused by smoking, even though the cigarette companies didn't hold a gun to anybody's head.  Smokers smoked because they chose to do so.  So, why did cigarette makers owe damages?  And, why did all cigarette makers owe damages?  Why should the manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes have to pay damages for someone smoking Salem cigarettes?

So, why do Americans save so little?  Financial planners like to see clients save 10% of their income, and Americans have often done that but not since the early 1980s.  During the financial crisis of 2008/9, our savings rate briefly touched a respectful 8%.  Today, it is only 2.5%.

Compounding the problem of declining savings, companies have discontinued most pension plans.  When Americans need to save more, they are saving less.  This is bad for individuals, bad for families, and bad for America.  Many see this problem as a moral issue, i.e. that people don't have to self-discipline to save.

Another theory is that, as Americans spend more and more time watching hundreds of cable channels, they are not only getting fatter but also more susceptible to advertising, which means they can "have it all" by charging more on their credit cards or they can "find happiness and fulfillment" by again charging more on their credit cards.  Stated starkly like this, the stupidity shows.

Of course, people could spend less and save more, if they wanted to.  People could also exercise and live longer, if they wanted to.  Instead, they engage in harmful practices, like spending and smoking.

Some make the distinction that addiction is only physical -- never emotional nor spiritual.  Cigarettes create a physical addiction, and their manufacturers had to pay damages.  But, psychologists tell us there are different types of addiction.  Some have deep-seated needs I cannot pretend to understand but accept.  I do know that some people are more susceptible to advertising than others.

So, should the Madison Avenue advertising agencies pay damages for harm done to people who spent too much and saved too little?  If advertising does this, shouldn't they pay?  If advertising doesn't do this, why do companies spend billions to advertise?

No one advertiser wants to hurt anybody, but doesn't the cumulative effect of billions of dollars spent to influence behavior . . . actually influence behavior?

Of course, Madison Avenue advertising agencies convinced us that smoking was sexy and sophisticated, before convincing the courts that the manufacturers were the guilty parties.  Now, they have convinced us that spending is sexy and sophisticated, before blaming it on the victims.

Does the advertising industry have any liability for anything they do?  Do they have a moral compass?

Patiently Awaiting Inflation

A year or so ago, I read the excellent book This Time Is Different:  Eight Centuries of Financial Folly by Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff.  One of the interesting conclusions from the ponderous 463-page study was that nations are condemned to slow economic growth, once their ratio of debt-to-GDP passes 90%.  (In fact, economic growth became slightly negative at -0.1%.)  Because the U.S. is experiencing slow growth and because our ratio is already about 100%, this study offered strong support for the Austrian approach to economics, i.e., balance the budget at all costs and reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.  This was especially true in Europe, where pensions and social services have actually been cut somewhat and taxes have actually been raised.  This approach was also acclaimed by the Republican party during the November election campaign.

Then, a young doctoral candidate from M.I.T. was given the routine assignment this year of checking the research methodology of the work done by Reinhart & Rogoff.  As it turns out, the original research omitted five nations that had high economic growth AND high debt-to-GDP, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.  This skewed the data suspiciously.  Even more amazing, there was a simple programming error in the Excel spreadsheet that nobody noticed until this young doctoral student came along.

When these oversights and the error are corrected, we find economic growth improves from a negative 0.1% to a positive 2.2%.  This is a huge difference!  Suddenly, the anti-austerity crowd in Europe became emboldened, fortified by the revised Reinhart & Rogoff study.  Everywhere, Keynesian economists feel reborn and recharged.

With central banks in the U.S. and Japan expanding the money supply so rapidly and with the expectation that Europe's central bank will soon begin the same and with the expectation that Austrian or austerity economics is "on its heels," I just don't see how hyper-inflation can be avoided in the long-run.

But, how long is the long run?

Computers, Lawyers, and The Limits of Expertise

At 1:07 PM on April 23rd, the respected Associated Press announced on their Twitter account that there were explosions at the White House and the President was injured.  Within three minutes, the Dow lost 143 points but then recovered -- leaving a bad case of whiplash.  No harm, no foul -- right?

What happened is that some group of sick hackers (who have identified themselves as Syrians?) hacked into the AP's Twitter account and sent out a fake tweet.  Ha, Ha!

It's not funny!  It is not a victimless crime.  There were investors who were selling and received less than a fair price, and there were investors who were buying and paid less than a fair price.  People with Stop-Loss orders got sold-out needlessly, possibly with tax consequences.

Two things bother me about this story.  First, hackers are hard to catch but are under-punished when caught.  Second, this incident illustrates the market's vulnerability to algorithmic trading by computers.  When you saw the tweet, how long did it take you to think "What, this can't be?  How can I check this?  If true, what are the consequences?"  In that short time, the high-frequency trading computers who read ALL news feeds, including tweets, saw the words "explosions" and "White House" in the same message and immediately sold stocks, avoiding the loss in nano-seconds,while humans were still scratching their heads.

Certainly, this is not in the same league as the Flash Crash on May 6, 2010, when the Dow dropped almost a thousand points (9%) within minutes.  That was a failure of technology.  This time, technology performed exactly as expected.  The point is:  whether computers work as expected or not, the average investor is at a disadvantage.

Computerization of the stock exchanges has clearly been beneficial to the average investor, by increasing liquidity and reducing costs.  But, the technical complexity has over-whelmed the lawyers who run the S.E.C., who simply have not idea how to regulate something they don't understand.  In the meantime, the high-frequency computerized traders have the advantage . . . and we have the lawyers.

BlackRock Speaks

Depending on what you measure, BlackRock is the largest asset manager in the world.  To some extent, this actually makes their predictions of market behavior self-fulfilling; which means they manage so much money they could theoretically cause the market to behave as they suspect.

Anyway, here are their latest predictions:

1.  They believe the market will continue upwards over the coming months but volatility will also increase.
2.  Don't think emerging markets are yesterday's story.  They will still out-perform developed markets.
3.  The Fed will begin tightening credit conditions before year-end.
4.  Generally speaking, they don't like bonds, except for bank-loans and some municipal bonds.
5.  They like mega-cap U.S. stocks, global technology stocks, and energy stocks.
6.  The dollar remains too strong to expect much improvement in oil or gold prices, but they didn't predict how long the dollar would remain so strong.

There has been much speculation lately that the U.S. is the "best-looking horse in the glue factory" because the rest of the world is so deeply mired in debt and other troubles.  My observation is that the U.S. is recovering better than most of the world but remains too hide-bound for the significant growth expected in many foreign nations.  I was gratified to see BlackRock agree.  Remember:  over half of the world's stocks are outside the U.S.

Their enthusiasm for mega-cap U.S. stocks also reflects a way to invest in international growth, since most of the business of mega-cap companies is international.

Lastly, BlackRock deserves the "truth-in-predictions" award for saying a market drop could result from "unknown unknowns" . . . well, duh!  That is just a stylish way of saying "I don't have any idea what else might happen to hurt the market."

Situation normal!

Voices in the Wilderness

Being a voice in the wilderness can be a lonely experience.  So, it can be nice to hear another voice and even nicer if that voice agrees with you.

I have been worried for some time that we will experience a "Jim Fixx" moment, remembering the highly trained, low-body fat runner who suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack.

According to Investment News, "Jeffrey Gundlach is known as one of the best bond fund managers on the planet, but he also has a remarkable knack for predicting where markets are headed."  He just predicted we will have a "ka-boom" moment.

I think we are saying the same thing, i.e., that the market will continue upwards, after our Spring swoon, until it has a sudden extreme fall.

He believes it will happen when debt, mostly government debt, reaches an undetermined point, at which time the market collapses under the weight of so much debt.  I expect it will happen due to a derivative blow-up that could easily predict an immediate debt collapse.  It could also result from a technology collapse or inside a "dark pool" with the same result.

In other words, everything will be fine . . . until it isn't!

It sure is nice to have a little company . . .

The Vampire Squid Speaks

One of the companies that I respect the most but trust the least is Goldman Sachs, which was once famously described as a vampire squid sucking on the face of mankind.  In no particular order, here are some of their latest predictions:

1.  GDP growth will slow to 2.1% this year but accelerating to 2.9% next year.
2.  Unemployment will drop from 7.6% now to 6.9% by the end of next year.
3.  It is time for interest rates to begin rising.
4.  The S&P will end this year at 1625 or up another 4.5%.
5.  Gold will end next year at $1,270 or down another 9%.
6.  Stock markets worldwide will rise over the next 3 years, from 9% in the U.S. to 21% in most of Asia.

It was refreshing to read a market analysis that ignored the circus in Washington.  Their predictions were not hedged on which political party does what.

And, their analysis ignored the "heart attack" factors that worry me.  They didn't discuss any potential impact from a derivatives collapse or a technological collapse or the "dark pools" . . . as they are on the cutting edge of all three.

Still, except for those ignored risks, it is comforting that they continue to see continued growth in both the economy and the stock market.

Let The Battle Begin . . . as usual

While there are many schools of thought on economics, we have, for convenience, concentrated on the Big Three.  First, there is the Austrian school, which advocates a balanced budget at all times.  It is often called the "tough love" school.  Then, there is the Keynesian school, which advocates deficit spending when the economy has slack and budget surpluses when the economy is doing well.  It is often called the "sin now, repent later" school.  Lastly, there is the Supply-side school, which advocates tax cuts to stimulate growth.  They are often ridiculed for advocating a tax cut to cure the common cold.  Supply-side economics is U.S. based and largely ignored outside the U.S.

Europe is now having a heated debate between Austrians and Keynesians -- between austerity and stimulus.  As the European crisis worsened, the Austrian economists have prevailed in pushing austerity.  However, Keynesian economists are staging their own "surge".  The leader of the International Monetary Fund has urged European leaders to back off austerity and begin stimulating the economy -- by increased deficit spending.  The battle has been joined.

There are many protests against austerity all over Europe.  After all, nobody wants to work another year before retirement or for Grandma to take a 1% retirement cut.  Voters don't like austerity, and the bad news for  European politicians is that . . . voters vote!  The politicians will be pushed toward the Keynesian school.

The European financial crisis is off the front page today, but the parliament of Cyprus has just decided to vote on the Troika package, which it will probably reject, putting Cyprus back on the front page.  The Cypriots may pull Lord John Maynard Keynes out of his grave to lead them.

Part of the intellectual basis for pushing austerity has been the highly-regarded 2009 book by Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff called This Time is Different:  Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.  They concluded that a nation is condemned to slow growth once the debt-to-GDP ratio reached 90%.  (The U.S. is now at 100%.)  However, there is recent scholarly criticism of their research, including mathematical errors.  While I cannot speak to that criticism, I can see it powering the new "surge" by the Keynesians in Europe.

It is an unexplained oddity that the stock market has swooned during the Spring for the last three years, each time due to some European misstep.  Can we expect the same this Spring?  Why wouldn't we? 

Emptying the tank . . .

Philosophers debate whether people have an infinite capacity for emotion or merely a finite capacity.  Clearly, some people feel more emotion longer and more strongly than other people.  However, most philosophers will agree that existentialists have a smaller capacity than most.  If that is the case, then emotion becomes "a terrible thing to waste."

It is probably then a waste of emotion to spend it on anger, but that is what I feel about the Boston Marathon tragedy.  So many good and decent people killed and maimed by some lunatic!

Of course, a society is judged by the mercy it shows . . . or so some people think.  I do not!

Capital punishment is too good for this lunatic.  If it was a foreign terrorist, he should be publicly executed on television.  If it was a domestic terrorist, he should also be publicly executed on television.  Showing compassion for the insane, if he was merely a crazy American killer, he should be privately executed off-camera.  There can be no circumstance that Americans should provide this guy with free room & board plus health care the rest of his life.

Yes, I know the Bible says we should "turn the other cheek" and forgive.  But, that is the same Bible that says "an eye for an eye."  Frankly, justice demands more, but execution is enough.  Some advocate that the lunatic be locked into a room with the surviving family members.  That would be real justice.

Okay, that's all the emotion I can spare for anger . . . my tank is getting empty.  I may need to feel some other emotions today or tomorrow?

Linking the Stock Market with the Economy

Long-time readers know whenever there is a lull in blog posting, there is a column in the near future.  And, here it is:

http://insidebiz.com/news/great-disconnect-market-and-economy 

In this quarterly column for Inside Business, I discuss economic and investment performance during the first quarter and offer thoughts on the second quarter.  The question posed in this column is:  How can the stock market do so much better than the underlying economy?  One answer is that the stock market predicts the future economy while the economic data reflects past economic conditions.  In other words, the stock market looks through the front windshield, while economic data looks in the rear-view mirror.  This suggests good times are coming.  

However, it is more likely that the wedge separating the stock market from the economy is the Fed, which may have done a great job of holding up the economy in the short term but may be producing great inflation in the long term.  We'll see . . .

Guilty Pleasure

If confession is good for the soul, I confess to enjoying the AMC award-winning series Mad Men, which just returned to the air last Sunday.  It is perhaps the most existential TV program ever.  The lead character is Don Draper, who is a big-time advertising executive.  He is also a brooding, unhappy person.  Surrounded by both talented men and beautiful women, he is still miserably alone.  Despite his material success, he could easily sing the old Peggy Lee song, Is That All There Is?.

Existentialists realize we are all islands, connected only by such undependable links as small boats in a storm.  They realize that "yes, that's all there is."

However, just like Christians believe you must be "born again" to be happy, existentialists have to achieve "authenticity" to be happy.  Don Draper is miserable because he doesn't know he has an existential perspective.  Once he accepts his flawed perspective or once he becomes authentic, he will sing, "yes, that's all there is, and that's okay!"

Existentialism is not a philosophy.  It is not a religion.  It is merely a perspective, that colors our view of the world.  For Don Draper, his perspective darkens his world and isolates him from the joy in that world.  Once he realizes his perspective has merely discolored the world he sees, he will be "authentic" . . . and then he will be happy enough to enjoy the talented men and talented, beautiful women around him . . . and that's okay too!

Adding Up Intangibles

Democrats were happy enough with Friday's Jobs Report, because the economy has been adding jobs for 37 straight months.  And, the unemployment rate dropped from 7.7% to 7.6%.  What's wrong with that?

Republicans were worried that job creation dropped two-thirds in one month.  They were angry that the labor participation rate dropped to the lowest level since May of 1979.  That means more people are NOT even looking for jobs; suggesting some people are cheating the system.

Economists were confused.  Job growth has slowed dramatically during the Springtime for the last four years.  There is no handy economic explanation for this, so they are looking at the routine seasonal adjustments made each month.  Are they skewing the seasonal data somewhat?  What changed four years ago?

However, sociologists were convinced that we are building a generational sub-class of young people.  Almost 500 thousand people dropped out of the labor force in March.  (There is always some rotation in and out of the labor force, as people drop out to care for families, go back to school, retire, etc.)  But, 500 thousand is huge.  And, half of those dropouts were under the age of 25.

Sometimes, being old and achy is not too bad.  It is probably better than being a recent college graduate with college debt but no job and facing the prospect of moving back into your parents home as a permanent adolescent, stranded in a fictional world of cyber-combat and other digital games.  All of us now know somebody like this.

There was an article in today's newspaper that young people are no longer anxious to get their driver's license.  It's not as important to young people anymore, as they connect with each other via social media, instead of the "malt shop" or whatever.  There was a recent article in The Wall Street Journal that young women are finding it more difficult to find men their age, who act their age.

What is the economic cost of losing part of a generation?  What is the economic cost of immaturity?  What is the economic cost of defeatism?  Is there an intangible offset to GDP?

Embracing the Baby Bear

The stock market hit another record high on Tuesday.  The next day, it lost 111 points on the Dow.  Is the rally over?  Of course not!

On average, the market has at least five pullbacks of 5% or more each year.  We are due for one and, frankly, need it to consolidate our gains.

Yesterday's 1% drop partially reflected some weak economic data but mostly reflected bellicose talk of nuclear war from the crazies running North Korea.  (If a nuclear strike actually occurs, the market will likely plummet, which would be a good time to buy more stock, especially defense stocks.)

I am a little worried about the market.  The best performing sectors are health care stocks and consumer staples, which are usually the best performing sectors in a bear market, not a bull market.  And, trading volumes remain suspiciously low.  There is also "Dow Theory" which suggests a bull rally is not sustainable if the Transportation Index is not also rising.  So far, that Index has supported the Theory but has now reversed itself.  All of this makes me expect that a 5-10% pullback is due and appropriate.

With respect to gold, it is definitely in a downward spiral, not because demand has fallen, but because the dollar is strengthening.  Who would ever expect the dollar to strengthen when the Fed is printing vast amounts of money?  The reason is that the Bank of Japan, Bank of England, and European Central Bank are printing money even faster, making us the best-looking horse in a glue factory.  Our Fed looks like the adult at a children's party, compared to the other central banks.

This doesn't change my analysis that we are vulnerable to a "heart attack" or Jim Fixx Moment over the longer term.  But, right now, a baby bear market would not be bad for us.  Besides, aren't baby bears cute?

Avoiding The Light

Readers know my expectation is the U.S. economy will continue to improve:  faster with help from Washington and slower without it.  However, we are increasingly vulnerable to a "Jim Fixx moment," recalling the father of running who suddenly dropped dead while running in his neighborhood, despite having a long body-mass index.

The most likely event that might trigger this heart attack is a derivatives blow-up.  Nobody is certain how big the problem is or, more importantly, who will end up holding-the-bag after the blow-up.  When this happens, it will happen suddenly,

Secondarily, the complex technology systems used to trade can still breakdown.  Remember that awful day  on May 6th, 2010 when the Dow suddenly lost almost a thousand points in twenty minutes, due to computer problems.  While it recovered quickly, what if it didn't?    Does high-speed trading (HST) make this scenario more likely and suddenly?  Of course, it does.

Third, I'm increasingly concerned about the "dark pools," which are those thirty unregulated exchanges run mostly by large banks among its customers.  Suppose a large pension fund wants to sell a million shares of Apple without any prior notification and causing the price to fall.  They contact their local bank who arranges the sale to another customer.  There is nothing illegal about that.  But, isn't that information important to the market?  How about if somebody is building a position to take control of a company, whose stock you own?  It is an unlit market.  The New York Stock Exchange is a lit market, where investors see what other investors are doing.

Here is the problem:  "dark pools" are growing.  In 2009, only 18% of all stock trades were hidden.  Today, it is approaching 40%.  In other words, the portion of stock trading taking place in secrecy and without regulation has doubled in just four years.  Soon, half the trading will be without regulation and in the dark.

Does that mean we should avoid investing in the improving U.S. economy?  No, but it does mean we should have a clearly defined "sell strategy," which clearly identifies events that will trigger a sale.

The next time you are taking a run through your neighborhood, think about developing your sell strategy.