Skip to main content

Markets are topping -- Should I care?

Well, personally I have had the opinion that the markets were near their peak about 4 years ago! Got that wrong!  However, now the consensus is that the markets are near their peak (there's always a consensus that support your views/opinions).

How did we get to such high levels -- today earnings as a percentage of GDP are at a historical high (12% of GDP).  Companies are sitting on mountains of cash (granted most of that cash is offshore and will not be repatriated for tax reasons.  Companies continue to do well, and yet all earnings are directed to either dividends or stock buybacks.  Paying dividend is rational (some would disagree) and in many low growth sector essential.  But stock buybacks are another story: either funded by free cash -- or via more debt (debt is always cheaper than equity -- and has been incredibly cheap recently).  The CEO's decision to buyback his company's share are driven by a number of factors:


  1. Increase earnings per share (smaller number sharing the income pie)
  2. Increase the price of shares (as a management goal -- think CEO compensation)
  3. Better allocation of capital:  That's the worrying one!
In general, companies are well aware of the impact of share buybacks on executive compensation.  Maybe 10/20 years ago the wool could be pulled, but in reality the decision by management is often driven by an inability to find attractive investment opportunities -- and aside from keeping cash for acquisition (and making the company attractive to raiders).  the reason to buyback shares is driven by short term goals (not abnormal for  companies that change CEO every 4 years).  The reason that CEO prefer buybacks is that they cannot find (or fathom) attractive investment opportunities.  This has been a growing trend over the past few years.

This inability to find productive use for their capital, is telling with regards to future economic growth.  The engine of growth (job and GDP) is entirely driven by the growth of companies.
When these prefer returning capital to its shareholders it is an indication of a deep malaise.

This is a reason I work almost entirely with private companies.  They too have their blind spots (trust me it can be harsh too), but their investment horizon is very different.  In conversations, it is clear that a return horizon is not 36/48 months, but 72/96 months.  They understand that they are building a business for the long term.  What I mean is that they will invest with a view to making a long term return that may take some time to generate profits.  Historically they have been more conservative (although listed companies are simply not investing -- and have not for several years), but this is no longer the case.  They are conserving cash now, looking for opportunities the next time there's a correction.

As I recently explained you should only care about correction if you need to money tomorrow.  Those who stayed calm after 2008 now look at their portfolio as unchanged (with some exceptions -- looking at you Blackberry).  But it remains that calm is the best option.  Obviously some sectors suffered permanently -- Citibank was trading at $540 per share in 2007,  it trades around $50 today! That's been a permanent impairment.  But GE that was trading around $35 is now around $28 -- and you got lots of dividends.  If you bought the DOW in 2007 at 13,000 its now at 17,000.  Not a bad trade a 30% increase is 7 years!

If you need the cash in 20 years there is no reason to take a short term view of the market.  Your broker (whoever he may be) is right.  You may want to get out of certain sectors, but as a whole the market has been a good (if not great) investment.  Income has not risen, but earnings from capital is doing well!

No position in Citibank, GE, Blackberry or DOW



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what people get wrong about tariffs

 The issue is simple. What percentage of the economy is dependent on tariff goods? The truth, is that the US economy is far more closed than people understand. People genuinely believe that all manufacturing has ceased to exist in the United States all given to China on the altar of woke policy the truth can be further from That statement. Only about 15% of US GDP is related to foreign trade. Of that amount, slightly more than half is from Canada in Mexico. And half of that is energy. What that means, is that about 7% of US GDP is tariff dependent. The proof in the pudding, is how little money tariff generates. People think that 30 or 50 billion is a lot it’s not in an economy that has $3 trillion. The impact on the US economy will be less visible but not absent. Inflation hasn’t occurred yet first because tests have hardly started to bite, but more importantly it’s such a small percent of the economy. Now certain things are critical. The rare earth metals from China were critical....
Post a Comment
Read more

The end of Tesla?

 it takes a special kind of idiot, to think that he can antagonize his entire customer base, and think that it will not impact his business. When Elon Musk went to work for Donald Trump, and created the doge department, he antagonized every liberal, and these people represent 90% of his client base.That’s not a brilliant move. Now Elon Musk is worth hundreds of billions of dollar, so he shouldn’t care a great deal, however, he needs to care because of several other issues. The cyber truck has been a disaster, most have had to be recalled because of defective glue, it’s not a truck, it’s not a car, it’s noisy, relatively uncomfortable, but great as a development platform. What Tesla has learned in making car manufacturing more seamless is truly amazing. The problem was that Elon Musk was so pissed with the Democrats, and with Joe Biden, in particular because of some slight, which were just plain stupid too. By the way, that he decided to support with hundreds of millions of dollar, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Demographics

 I am preparing a kind of family tree for our children so that they know where they came from.  In my family I am the only survivor, although my brother and sister died recently they were both in their seventies (a story I told already).    It was a fun process, but it provided more than that.  First, I married relatively young I was 26 when I married and nearly 30 when our first child was born.   I was looking at my ancestors.  On my mother's side, she had 6 siblings, Four died before the age of 30, two in war, and two from illnesses.  Only she and a single sister survived.   The two boys had a child each but they died in WWII, and the other sister died as an infant.   what is interesting is that every one of my mother's siblings had children in their early 20s.   I know that my mom was hardly 20 when my brother was born.    What is remarkable is that among our friends, we are the only ones to have fou...
Post a Comment
Read more