Monday, October 24, 2016

Market Commentary for the week of October 24, 2016

Common sense
It's common wisdom in this era of shifting political and social attitudes that the financial market's post-recession boom has been a blessing for some, non-existent for others.  So it's natural to also ask, “is the recovery ending or just really beginning?"

We accept that our institutions have our best interest as their goal.  But those who are questioning the validity of economic progress in the past 10 years might question whether that reality is pervasive.  For example, a big debate on Wall Street is about the effectiveness of Federal Reserve and other global central banks' monetary policy as it relates to whether or not low interest rates have achieved the desired inspirational effect.  What we know for certain is that monetary policy and low interest rates have definitely had a direct, and causal, impact upon the magnitude and duration of the stock market's recovery bounce.  Few can deny a direct correlation between the S&P (up) and the inverse direction of borrowing costs.

Therefore, it is fair to ask whether the Fed made our economic situation better or worse as a result of their austerity-then-accommodative policies?

Based upon my quantitative algorithmic studies, I can attribute at least 25-30% of the market's recovery rate of return in the past half-decade to low interest rates.  Ironic, since the financial markets had nowhere to go but up immediately following the global credit crisis, anyway.

However, the pervasiveness of low-cost borrowing allowed corporations to use excess capital (whichever had excess capital!!) for share repurchasing and direct internal expenditures rather than investing in employing new personnel, R&D, or external work projects.

Outsized returns in all  stocks exceeded historical post-recession numbers, thus widening the breadth of participation from just a few successful categories to nearly every stock in the database.  However, by making the universe of positive growth stocks bigger, the Fed inadvertently widened the breach between those who did well in the markets and those who pulled out of the market in fear of future capitulation.

Follow the non-leaders
By definition, trends depict long term historical patterns and configurations.  By creating no statistically different signature from one company to any other, the distinction between those companies, those industries, that would ordinarily flourish or perish in a post-recession climate was essentially obliterated by monetary policy.

For investors today who find themselves at the apex of portfolio valuation from the 2008 decline, concern about continued acceleration in earnings and stock performance is uppermost in their minds.  "Should I buy more now, or sell and lock in gains?"   Our advice has been to become more sector specific and less  diversified than simply buying an index fund which parallels the market's potential gain and/or volatility.  Only through careful due diligence and prudent asset allocation can a portfolio's true sustainable alpha be achieved.  We are focusing upon strong thematic trends in water, food, energy, ecology, infrastructure, and biopharmaceutical research as  good places from which to eliminate the exogenous noise of day-to-day, news-driven volatility.

It will very interesting to see how the values in certain businesses either keep pace with improving economic data, or begin to whither under the pressure of selling to Main Street and a very demanding consumer.  Even though there has been progress in the rate of economic growth, globally and domestically, the composite picture is always measured against the backdrop of consumer confidence, consumer spending, and discretionary wealth.  What we have witnessed thus far is a general reluctance on the part of the public rapidly to buy-in to the data, unless they personally feel as if the comparisons relate to their situation.  Thus, better economic data, but poor numbers on consumer buy-in.

The theory that low interest rates and available credit galvanize corporations and the public to spend more money fixing the economy has, at least on this occasion, proven not to be true.

No comments: