Search results matching tags 'Inflation' and 'The Principle of History'

To Stimulate Or Not To Stimulate The US Economy

RichardSchwartz — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:29:00 GMT

ANTI-Stimulus Protest Demonstrations; Say What?

That’s a big global fear surrounding this global economic slump. History shows economic debacles like this breed unrest, anger, frustration among those losing their jobs, etc. and thus protest demonstrations. If one watches www.worldfocus.com or any other news global news show, you’ll see violent protests happening globally. In Eastern Europe as one example. In China too and especially. China’s government’s big fear, knowing it’s own history, is protests which bring down the government there. Making the upturn in global protests there and elsewhere important for all investors to track.

Yesterday’s Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) newspaper had a front page article reporting that anti-stimulus demonstrations have occurred in 35 American cities. Yes, these are small demonstrations so far, 100 or 200 people and organized by interest groups, but maybe they will grow in size after IBD gave them face time, i.e. publicity -- I hadn’t even heard about these protests at all until yesterday -- and also gave them such a nationalistic and catchy name: “Nationwide Tea Parties.” I read where these events are being organized by those groups who sarcastically say we should: “Legalize Capitalism!” Or who believe: “The best government, governs least.” And those who sardonically and exaggeratedly say: “No to socialism!” And are epitomized by one protestor’s sign which read: “Your mortgage is not my problem!”

Obviously US government stimulus spending to try to keep this weakened economy from getting worse is anathema to those who believe in the strict Austrian school of economics. That economic school says things just get screwed up terribly whenever the government gets involved. And who knows, maybe doing nothing, to try to shorten this downturn, was indeed the right move. But as I see it it’s too late now; we’re already committed. I’ve given up opining on what were the right and wrong roads to follow but let me also report there are a lot of other angry people in America today, those that say they are tired of lavish retreats and concerts, tired of private jets, tried of companies paying out huge bonuses with or without government money. Regular readers know I’ve been angry and pounding the table for many years about these excesses. So maybe we do or will have class warfare, that is if these anti-stimulus demonstrations get larger and cause more of a divide among all kinds of angry Americans.

Schwartz View: But as I see it, we’re now committed to this “bail out” path, we got committed a year ago when we bailed out the first company, Bear Stearns or whoever came first. This far along this path I can’t foresee us stopping now. Plus it only makes common sense for any government to try to stimulate the economy when the two other major sources of normal demand, consumer spending and business investment, are in total hunker down mode. The even bigger picture, as I see things from up on the mountaintop looking down at the valley and what’s happening, is that these demonstrations by those who say your problem is not my problem, are the last desperate efforts by those who still believe in the “me first” path America has been on for roughly three decades now. As I see it, the results of the recent US presidential election announced that the majority of Americans want big change in America, a change which returns the America Dream to the average working person once again and returns us to a more level playing field. And that means, even though there is some opposition, that America has now crossed the Rubicon, so to speak. Meaning we’ve just begun a 10-year or so cycle which puts public interest over private interest. History shows we do swing back and forth from longer periods, or about 20 years, of letting capitalism run unchecked and America showing strong economic growth as a result to shorter periods of about 10 years or so where we put the unfortunate and forgotten Americans first, which yes, also means slower economic growth as a result. (Please read Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s THE CYCLES OF AMERICAN HISTORY if you’d like more on this repetitive cycle.) All signs that I can detect today tell me that America is going to level the playing field, get rid of the excesses, the corruption and scamming of the system, in general just the overall greed which always naturally arises from allowing capitalism unchecked to run for too darn long. Again, I’m just observing what I see happening not opining whether it’s right or not. As for investment implications, for now stay hunkered down, practice extreme patience and proper money management while out waiting this Papa Bear market.

To subscribe to my daily letter PRINCIPLES OF THE STOCK MARKET or to receive a week’s worth of FREE letters, please email me at RichardStk@oaol.com.

Good trading, speculating and investing!

Monday Weekly Strategy

RichardSchwartz — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:37:00 GMT

Richard Schwartz's

PRINCIPLES OF THE STOCK MARKET

A learning, teaching, always evolving stock market letter and advisory service

Eighteenth Consecutive Year of Publication; Letter #1; September 18^th, 1990

Post Office Box 1236 · New Paltz, New York 12561 - U.S. A. · (845) 255-6894

E-mail address: RichardStk@aol.com

Subscription · One-Year Morning E-Mail Delivery · $150.00

Monday, December 22^nd, 2008: So here it is, last letter ‘till Monday, January 5^th, as Lucy & I fly off to the white sand, warm blue waters of the Caribbean, maybe on a last hurrah (if the economy keeps sliding). I’m taking Cycles of American History & Rethinking the Great Depression books. Our routine is: Go to the beach, play backgammon, read & go out to dinner. Day after day. Warm our bones & work on new tans.

THE BIG PICTURE

Friday I saw John Bogle, who has been on Wall Street for 50 years and who created the first index fund, the Vanguard 500 Index Fund back in 1975, say investment bankers and bankers generally owe the country a huge apology (which I doubt we ever get). Their imprudent speculations and greed for massive fees from too complex speculations led to today’s financial sector problems, problems which have now fed out to the real economy hurting innocent, hard working, everyday Americans. Mr. Bogle says greed has even spread out to our whole economy, that we’ve morphed into in a “me first” society and it’s something we have to seriously take a look at. Thus capitalism, allowing markets to work unfettered of regulation and based on trust and trusting, has now been “deeply discredited.” Even the underpinnings of capitalism have changed radically. We’re no longer an ownership society whereby individual stockholders used to select and then hold 92% of all common shares; institutions 8%. Now institutions control 75% of shares through huge sums entrusted to them by others and have not invested prudently. Again, because of the incredible fees they got for investing. Mr. Bogle says they sure wouldn’t manage their own monies so recklessly. These institutions were supposed to be wiser than individuals but, again, it’s not their money. Supporting Mr. Bogle’s view is the revelation that 29 of the 30 largest losers in the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme scandal were institutions whereby just one of these fund of fund companies was paid $160 million in 2007 alone for recommending the Madoff “hedge fund.” In other words, where was the fiduciary responsibility, the prudency, the probity expected when we entrust institutions to manage 75% of our investments? Schwartz View: Regular readers know I’ve been distressed and pounding the table about a number of these societal issues for years. About capitalism running amuck, culminating its 30-year trend toward widening the gap between it and its counterpart, democracy, with President Bush’s skewed one way Texas twang policy saying the be all and end all is that “bidness is bidness” and thus stifling regulation. And about society becoming so uncivilized, we ended up booing our own hometown, beloved sports teams! So while no one wants to live through what may come next in the economy, I have to say America has finally woken up, albeit after the nightmare it usually takes to precipitate major change, and that we are now started down a long and arduous path, but one finally pointed in the right direction again. As one example, we’ve even started to SAVE once again; amazing! So, for myself, I guess sort of a contrary indicator in recent years, I’m becoming more optimistic and bullish on our future. Finally! “Go America Go!”

THE ECONOMY

It became apparent that the US economy was suddenly falling-off-a-cliff right after Lehman Brothers became the one firm chosen NOT to be bailed out by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department. (Looked back upon as a colossal mistake in strategy I’ve read.) Lehman’s bankruptcy rippled out far and wide and led directly to losses in some money market funds, a “breaking of the buck,” and thus then to a total loss of confidence. Now, by all accounts, the economy is in total free fall. This sudden screeching halt in US business activity has caused the same in our global trading partners and most everywhere I look is now in corresponding economic free fall. You extrapolate it for yourselves from here. One view I’m pondering is that many times sharp declines lead to the second leg of a V-move, back up, and we’re overdue. Maybe stocks, with their recent unwillingness to keep going lower on bad news, means Mr. Market (the consensus of large investors) sees some end out there to the economic free fall. Still, we’d have to see some economic revival to expect a sustained V snapback in stocks. For now, I see 2009 providing a steady stream of bad news every time we look up. Just like in the second year of the last Papa Bear bear market, back in 1974, a continuing stream of bad news back then ultimately overwhelmed all attempts to rally until the final months of that year. Schwartz View: The consensus I’m hearing is that this sudden, fall-off-the-cliff global economic contraction is NOT going to lead to a repeat of the depression-spawned 1930s starting with its four-year long period of contraction followed by its anemic recovery, a.k.a. the Great Depression. I hate to follow any consensus especially when this one’s been so wrong for so long. But my own history look backs and studies by Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke, an expert on what went wrong in the 1930s, turning a recession into a depression, show that we raised taxes, cut spending and blocked global trade, just the wrong policies. So I sure don’t expect any exact repeat of those failed policies. Leading me to think out of the box and that maybe today’s Fed policy of battling a deflationary depression is also implementing incorrect strategy. How about worrying against runaway inflation spawning from all the money the US and now the world has and is still throwing at this economic slump? Just the problems we worried about in the early 1930s but didn’t occur. You know the old saying, people fight the wrong war, the old war, because that’s what’s still fresh in their minds. Thus, summing up, maybe we can’t expect much creativeness from the Fed pointing in the less obvious direction of battling inflation since they are entrusted with getting us through hard times. They will naturally, after learning certain lessons from the 1930s well, not break much new ground. One reason being that if their policies didn’t work, they would be heavily criticized for experimenting. Thus while everyone pooh-poohs an inflation problem, I still worry about one. Seems like the consensus, which may be correct, among the minority expecting and talking about an inflation problem, doesn’t expect one until 2010 at the earliest. Keeps me thinking about that quote I printed here back on Friday, December 5^th, from Sir John Templeton: “It’s impossible to produce a superior performance unless you do something different from the majority.”

THE STOCK MARKET

Maybe we’ve started off on a new, lasting stock market rally as many now say. Maybe the November 20^th closing low and November 21^st intraday low did end this bear market or at least this phase of it and start us up and on a new mini bull market. But I don’t think we can determine that from these final days of stock market trading this year. This jig jag, saw-tooth modest rally we’ve had in December – the Dow remains down -2.8% this month, but up +13.6% from its closing low on November 20^th – still looks like just a time killer rally to me after stocks fell -6% in September, -14% in October and another -5% in November. So while I’m off on my annual winter beach vacation, I’m leaving my managed portfolios hedged with a slight long bias, still with my modest overall about 20% or less market exposure which I’ve carried since late last year. You remember late last year? At least as a lesson learned for the future, if for no other reason. After the stock market rallied back from its original car wreck in July, in what amounted to a head fake, false move, dead cat bounce and pretty obvious sucker’s rally, and a failed break out to new highs by the Dow and S&P (while the rest of the stock market refused to confirm).

Anyway, last week I ended the letter by noting that psychologically we should rally since bad news couldn’t drive prices down in recent days. Technically we had what could prove to be two months of base building everywhere I looked on the charts (but bases which could easily prove false). Fundamentally we even finally had low enough market valuations, like P/E ratios, to support a rally as well. But how about a catalyst? Well, let me offer up: (1) much lower gasoline prices which keeps our wallets and purses fuller and healthier, and (2) the good feelings anyone watching our president-elect making non-partisan, non-political, non-ideological selections for his cabinet, should feel. There may be a wellspring of good feeling, a sort of honeymoon psychological effect on investors, business, consumers and most all of us as we hope our new president can perform miracles. Schwartz View: Unfortunately no one man is going to remake America overnight. So, while keeping an open mind and watching all unfolding developments, for now I’ll back history which says this “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” has to lead to an extended Papa Bear market, one which lasts at least a couple of years. Not just for one year, where we stand today.

PORTFOLIO STRATEGY

I hate to follow or even agree with some of what I’m hearing about going forward strategy, especially if such is espoused by those who were so wrong all this year. I’m speaking specifically about Bob Doll, now at BlackRock as their “Trillion Dollar” fund manager. I don’t want to pick on anyone but since he’s been leading the charge forward as stock markets collapse and getting all the face time doing such, I guess I have to. I start off very skeptical because my belief is that these big money managers are not going to get on TV and recommend anything before they and their clients get first crack at their thinking, ideas and recommendations and position themselves accordingly. I already wrote awhile back many old stock market books talk extensively about how big money always used to try to sucker the little investors. The age old technical Wall Street term “distribution” implied big guys needed little guys to unload their big positions on to when they foresaw a bear market ahead and thus put on a bullish face. It took much time to unload huge positions these large investors stockpiled so much frenzied excitement about the stock market had to be built up as big money sold. What better way today than Bob Doll coming on CNBC ubiquitously and always saying we are now in a bottoming process. He said that back in March and those who followed him are much the worst after the October panic crash. Anyway, that’s all secondary, although supporting, my main point. My main point is that Mr. Doll now says next year is going to be a good one for those taking on risk, not for those playing it safe. Again sounds good to me, at least at first blush. We all know what goes down the most generally can bounce tremendously when psychology changes. But do we really want to buy really risky investments in just the early part of the second year of a big, bad bear market? I say no. Bear markets of this size and scope historically have taken a lot longer than one year to work through.

Net, net, probably Mr. Doll will be proven correct about taking on risk, if one doesn’t factor in any time period. I’d guess risky asset classes will move fast when this bear market ultimately does end but do I really believe its going to end soon? No. And if we do have a 2009 mini bull market, say because stocks have fallen so much, then I’m not going to count on Bob and other institutional investors to tell me and us exactly when to get back out. No, starting off next year next week, I’d suggest still playing our cards close to the vest. Yes, play modestly for a continuing rally but look at it for now as just a bear market rally.

Happy Holidays & Happy New Year!

Richard

Re-Regulation Begins a Multi-Decade Road

RichardSchwartz — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:39:00 GMT

THE BIG PICTURE

Today’s Big Picture view revolves around the probable coming re-regulation of the financial markets. History shows regulation of markets is similar to a grandfather’s clock pendulum swinging back and forth although not as regular. A brief look back to the start of the 20^th century, shows free markets and a first age of globalization, with the introduction of the telegraph and telephone, steamships and railways, at a peak. Millions even migrated without passports while trade flourished meaning free markets were in charge.

· Governments Take Charge. Then, in August 1914, with World War I, that age ended abruptly. WWI left people disillusioned and looking for something better and many turned to socialism and communism. The Russian Revolution in 1917 drew followers and essentially sought to end capitalism for good, making private property illegal. Socialists and other government controlled economic systems were winning the battle of ideas, governments were in charge, free markets were in retreat. In less than 30 years, one third of humanity, including Eastern Europe, China and the Soviet Union, would be living under socialism or communism. Capitalism looked to be doomed except for in America. The 1920s in America was still a boom time, Americans buying cars, buying illegal gin, buying stock. Radio was the Internet of the 1920s. It was a classic bubble. Finally the 1929 stock market crash started Americans on the way to despair, a complete economic collapse "with no ability to earn, repay, spend, consume." Everything spiraled downward while about half the banks in the US closed. America turned toward government for help and thus re-regulation with President Roosevelt’s numerous new government regulatory agencies. Around the globe, governments gained power … over free markets. In Italy, Spain and Germany fascism took charge. World War II then arrived and even afterwards people all around the globe still blamed capitalism for causing the depression. The whole world kept moving towards more regulated economies. England even went socialistic as Winston Churchill, the great war leader, was beaten by the socialists! Most of the world operated under this sort of government planning process for the next 30 years.

· Free Markets Regain Control. But in the 1970s free markets began a resurgence. Margaret Thatcher came to power in England with free market thoughts as did Ronald Regan here in the US. with his Reganomics. Both cut back on government regulations, giving markets more ascendancy and free markets again starting coming to the forefront. England started privatizing its economy while President Regan cut taxes and let free markets regain control as epitomized by breaking the air controllers strike. Thus capitalism got a free hand which lasted for aboutt 30 years, even through the dot.com boom and bust. But after last year’s incredible debacle with investment banks, money center banks, insurance companies, etc. losing billions after irresponsibly leveraging up their investments 20 or 30 times, it’s apparent to most everyone that, just like in the 1930s, we can’t afford to have any similar financial market collapse spawning from totally free markets to happen again any time soon.

Schwartz View: So after reviewing the history of the 20th century and seeing how over long periods, market regulation swings back and forth, I have to figure we’ve just started a long term swing back on the way to re-regulation. For more on this topic, I recommend you watch Commanding Heights, the Battle for the World Economy, by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw which was turned into a DVD and a PBS prouction, a wonderful esplanation of the battle for economic minds in the 20th century. Filled in some missing pieces for me and should for you all as well.

Two Technicals: 1. Why No Capitulation; 2. How Inflation Returns

RichardSchwartz — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:40:00 GMT

TECHNICAL VIEW. The Principle of History. Two historical technical observations today:

1. Capitulation: Where the Heck is It? CNBC keeps interviewing floor traders and reporting from the New York Stock Exchange that everyone there is anxiously looking for that big bout of capitulation, selling, to end this latest market decline. But their wishes aren’t coming true. Guess they haven’t read my stock market letter as a study of the price action after the Bank Panic of 1907 , the most similar comparison to today’s credit crisis I could find, showed no capitulation back then. The reason and explanation was that since investors were so darn bearish, they shorted any and all rallies and thus stocks never got “quite out of hand” or saw that one day of massive selling or capitulation today’s traders want to see. Schwartz View: Similar to market crashes, we have to get blindsided to get capitulation. Or the problems and pressures have to get extremely severe with no light at the end of the tunnel. Today, we sure aren’t getting blindsided and numerous remedies are being floated and tried left and right, like economic stimulus packages, Fed rate cuts, Treasury announcements, yesterday’s SEC pronouncement about short selling, etc. Again, let me point out, it’s sort of ironic that we all preach free market capitalism when times are good but when times turn bad, we all scream for the government to bail us out.

2. The Return of Inflation. This commodity inflation -- rising prices in metals, oil and now food -- is the first bout of rising inflation we’ve seen since the early 1980s when then Fed chair Paul Volker jacked interest rates up through the roof and led the US into recession but in so doing also broke the back of multi-decade, out of control inflation. As my regular readers know, widely-followed big picture guru Jim Rogers says commodities are going to keep running up in price for approximately the next ten years, that a commodity bull market is in full force. And I don’t disagree. But let me add my alpha to the picture. My studies have shown that many, maybe most times, when any new trend begins it begins with a big burst. Then we get a large pullback in the early states of this new trend (whatever the time frame the new trend is, days, weeks, years, decades). Then after this large pullback, say because there remains many disbelievers who can’t quite believe things have changed, or because these quick gains need to be consolidated, or because the trend is moving too fast and has outrun itself, the new trend becomes more steady and reliable. Check back to the bull market which started in 1982, this pattern applies. Or think a bit about this new bear market. How stocks dropped last year in July and August when the subprime news first broke and then had a big bounce (to slight new highs) before the new down trend reasserted itself. Schwartz View: So it makes sense that inflation and this commodity bull are due for a big correction downward before reasserting themselves for the next few years.

Oil Near a Peak? Yes.

RichardSchwartz — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:56:00 GMT

OIL VIEW. I’ve been reading a lot about oil, the current state and the history of oil as we see prices keep rising and we all wonder where a top is. So below are some interesting tidbits which I’ve unearthed from the Internet (a great modern day development!) for you to ponder, some obvious, some insightful (I hope):

· OPEC has used oil as a weapon against western countries in the past. Schwartz View: A bad precedent. The October 1973 embargo effectively raised prices quickly and sharply to a new plateau (from $3 a barrel in 1972 to $12 a barrel) which lasted for the rest of the 1970s.

· The Iran revolution (getting rid of the Shah) in 1978 and the following war between Iraq and Iran in September 1980 again raised the price of oil quickly, doubling oil prices from $14 to $35 a barrel by 1981. Schwartz View: So both times oil rose sharply in price and stayed there.

· Oil is notoriously price inelastic according to some researchers. Another reports says: “The supply and demand for oil are both inelastic in the short run …” Which is what commodity guru Jim Rogers sees, that it takes many years for oil supplies to increase when demand increases which is his basis for the whole commodity complex to keep rising. Schwartz View: I’ve been waiting a year or so now for “higher prices to resolve higher prices.” Now I understand this is a too simplistic argument and why it hasn’t happened that way just yet. Another reason is because we are much less dependent on oil today. “Energy costs;’ share of GDP has fallen from 8% in 1973 to 2% today.” (From an Internet article written in 2005).

· Over time though, the supply and demand for oil is more elastic. Schwartz View: Thus the past history of oil prices rising sharply, then slowly sliding lower over time as more supply comes on board. Probably the price pattern we’ll follow again although we’ve likely raised the base price level or floor such as transpired in the past.

· Commodity (and China) guru Jim Rogers says his research shows commodity bull markets last roughly 17 years. Schwartz View: I see the price of oil slid from 1981 to November 1998 when it bottomed out about $13 a barrel. Just about when Rogers called a new commodity bull market.

· From the last bear market bottom in oil in 1998, we’ve had the first bull market leg up from the bottom in November 1998 to June 2000 as oil rose from $11 to $35 a barrel. Then after a price correction downward and a breather, we put in a 2^nd bull leg up from November 2001 at $20 to a peak around Hurricane Katrina at about $75. After that blow off peak, prices fell for five months coming back to $50. Since it’s been straight up in a third bull market leg. Schwartz View: Since we’ve now put in the normal three legs up which compose a full bull market we could easily be due for a sharp and severe pullback in oil.. Especially so since I see a guest on CNBC talking up $200 oil, bullish predictions being a normal sign of bulls getting carried away just before a top.

· The US placed price controls on domestically produced oil during the first energy shock in the early 1970s. This caused US consumers to pay less for gasoline than they otherwise would have. Longer term, price controls kept America from reducing our oil consumption in the middle 1970s and thus our dependence on foreign oil producers. Thus when the 2^nd oil shock hit in the late 1970s we were much more negatively impacted by prices jumping sharply. Schwartz View: This is why I advocate keeping oil prices high now, let America take the pain now, so money keeps flowing into developing alternate energy sources. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s!

· History shows higher oil prices in the early 1970s, the late 1970s and then in 1990 after Iraq invaded Kuwait all led to recessions. Schwartz View: Maybe it will be different this time around but we all know predicting “this time it’s different” usually proves disastrously wrong.

· Here’s the rationale behind higher oil prices leading to recession: “Higher oil prices have historically led to recessions because they act as a tax on spending by absorbing consumer dollars that would be spent elsewhere, by reducing corporate profits through increased costs and lower demand, and by causing higher inflation which in turn causes higher interest rates.” Schwartz View: All of which seem to be developing today except, so far, higher interest rates because the Fed has been lowering shot term rates to free up the frozen-up financial system. These lower rates which ultimately should lead to even higher inflation.

· The 1970s were characterized by “stagflation” after sharply higher oil prices raised inflation levels while simultaneously reducing economic growth. Schwartz View: Isn’t the same economic ripple effect happening right now? I’d say yes.

· The 10-year US Treasury bond yield rose from 6% to 15% during the oil shocks in the early and late 1970s. Schwartz View: This time the 10-year, benchmark Treasury bond yield has stayed low because of the credit crunch and the “flight to safety” trade by investors. Doesn’t it seem logical that when the Fed stops lowering rates and/or says the credit markets are back to normal, long term interest rates will once again rise? Does to me. In fact, higher long term rates may be happening now. That’s one big reason why I’m not recommending bonds and haven’t been.

SCHWARTZ SUMMING UP. Actually I could go on and on researching and commenting on oil. And I’m interested in continuing my research so I may add a few more comments/insights in coming days. But for now the history & current spike higher in oil makes me predict that soon we’ll see some type of peak in oil very soon!

1973-1974 Redux

RichardSchwartz — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:09:00 GMT

The Principle of History. Knowing one’s history gives us guidelines and a basis to work from. So yesterday I began to compare the last Papa Bear market we lived through, 1973-1974, which encompassed the first really oil crisis, to today’s ongoing bear market and oil shock. I said I was printing research off the (wonderful!) Internet & get back to you. Well, I’m baaack.

1973-1974 OIL CRISIS COMPARED TO TODAY

Studying the 1972 through 1974 period in more depth yesterday, please let me note that:

There were three separate legs down in the two-year Papa Bear bear market of 1973-1974:
The first leg down was sharp and came in January 1973. From a peak on January 11^th, 1973, the Dow fell -10% over the next 30 trading days. Then kept sawtoothing lower until late August when it completed a seven-month loss of over -18%. This first leg down can be compared to what the Dow has recently gone through, since its peak on October 9^th last year. From Dow 14,164.50 to the Dow low of 11,740.20 the Dow lost -17.12%. Schwartz View: So about comparable in time, seven months versus five months, and extent, -19% to -17% to the first leg down in the Papa Bear market of 1973-1974.
The stock market in 1973 then rallied +15% from its lows over the following two months. That brought us back to within about -6% of its old January 1973 high and peak. Schwartz View: This time around the Dow has rallied +11% from the March 10^th lows to the May 2^nd highs, so for just under two months. And has brought the Dow within -7.8% of its old highs. So a weaker, shorter rally, which may be bad, IF it’s indeed over.
Going forward from that bear market ally high in August 1973, the two-month rally where some investors “were likely lulled into believing that a new leg up was occurring” the market began its second leg down, which brings us up to date and to today.
Looking back again to what happened in 1973, and projecting forward to what unfolds today, the 1973 second leg down began in August and ran until December and the Dow dropped an additional and even more severe -20%. The leadership of that era, the “Nifty Fifty,” resolved its previous divergence, holding up while the smaller cap stocks got hurt during the first leg down, and caught up on the downside as shown by the -20% Dow drop. This drop took roughly three to four months. Schwartz View: Thus I have to project a second and more severe leg down starting now or soon. Probably including the remaining leading energy and commodity sector taking a hit.

Other similarities and/or dissimilarities from the oil shock and crisis back in 1973-1974 to today’s oil shock which I unearthed in my research yesterday are:

1. Rising inflation was a big issue in both periods.

2. The Vietnam War ended during that past bear market, something similar to what I expect to happen during this bear, us getting out of Iraq.

3. The US dollar was under pressure back then even in the early stages of the bear market, in February 1973, it was devalued by 10%. It’s losing value again, now.

4. Oil jumped from $3 a barrel to $5.11 a barrel, beginning with the October 1973 OPEC oil embargo, a quick jump of 70%. We all know oil has soared the last couple of years as well.

5. We had massive layoffs of 142,000 in the auto industry in 1974; yesterday American Airlines announced “large layoffs” ahead.

6. We had Franklin National Bank be declared insolvent in 1974; this year Bear Stearns effectively was declared insolvent by the Fed. Other banks, investment and money center remain under great pressure.

7. BARRON’s Roundtable was unanimously bullish starting off 1973; same thing from Barron’s Roundtable kicking off last year.

8. The US economy from 1972 to 1974 dropped from a growth rate of +7.2% to -2.1%. And the UK economy dropped from +5.1% to -1.1%. This time around both the US and UK economies are also dropping quickly.

9. Stocks priced in gold were priced very low back then. Same low valuation in terms of gold today with gold at 900$+.

10. We had a new Fed chairman, Arthur Burns, arrive in 1970, who encouraged inflation. We have a new Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who is also encouraging inflation today.

SCHWARTZ SUMMING UP. No use looking out too far, looking at the third leg down in 1974 for instance, which came after another always-to-be-expected stock market rally and multi-month trading range. Let’s hope this time around isn’t so bad although I must say things do look pretty bad to me.

The Weak US Dollar & Fixed Incomes

RichardSchwartz — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:34:00 GMT

A friend from up in Albany emailed me the following questions. I thought my answers may help others: ”I think I understand the basics of why the dollar has fallen so fast of late but I know you will know the details. It seems like there is always controversy about the economic future but consensus on reasons for the past. I believe the present dollar drop has to do with the ever growing US debt brought about from spending more than revenue received. The housing bust situation has added to the debt and the world has little confidence in us to turn it around any time soon. What is the best answer? Some seem to feel that a weakened dollar is the answer to our recovery? Did our government do things to help weaken the dollar to help our economy? Who does it help? I can not see it helping me but I guess if my investments in the stock market go up greatly and greater than the increase in the cost of living I will be better off? Our pensions will not go up though. It seems like they are saying with a weaker dollar we will be able to sell more American products and thus pay our debt, more jobs, etc. But who will profit? Will increased profits be shared with the stockholders and the workers? Will the corporate leaders share profits significantly with workers and professional staff and pay more taxes to government or will they take the profits and not share significantly with shareholders, workers, and professional staff but move operations out of US and/or bring in cheaper labor and professionals from other countries to work in US? Will they avoid paying more taxes through loopholes? I know I can not change anything but thought I should try to understand what is happening.” Schwartz Answers: Guess you’re wondering about the dollar and how its weakness affects you. The US Dollar. The greenback. The US dollar has been dropping against other major currencies going back decades with a couple big multiyear counterswing rallies along the way. It rallied from 1980 to 1984 when then Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker broke the back of runaway inflation by raising interest rates through the roof. Then it again rallied from 1996 to the end of the 1990s when President Bill Clinton focused on balancing the budget. But in 2001 when President Bush II cut taxes and the twin deficits (trade and budget) ballooned the buck started a major decline which in February 2008 finally broke major support from 1979, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 2004 and 2005. Yes, this decline has corresponded with us running major budget and trade deficits but that’s nothing new. And it has rallied from time to time in the midst of our budgets getting worse. It rallied for most of 2005 surprising everyone including the richest man in the world Warren Buffet who lost some money. Typical counterswing rallies occur when everyone has bet on one side, in this when everyone got on board the buck dropping. When a trade gets too crowded, it’s a natural phenomenon to counterswing, partially because everyone who wants in is “all in.” After the 2005 rally, the buck then resumed its decline and has been pretty much straight down ever since. And as I said it just recently broke decades old major support. Now some say if the US economic slowdown turns into recession, and then the Us-based recession spreads out globally, the US dollar will strengthen as in past slowdowns, as its been looked at as an investment haven of last resort. Generally though, the rest of the whole world is stuck with tons of US dollars and doesn’t quite know what to do with them. Some countries have stated they are going to diversify their holdings of foreign currency reserves into other currencies like the euro. Other countries with dollars flowing in from exports have started up these so called Sovereign Wealth Funds (pools of dollars) and taken to investing elsewhere other than US Treasuries. Which all points to an US dollar with even less support going forward. The US government does seem to like the strategy of saying they favor a strong dollar but acting otherwise. Obviously, as you mention, a weaker US dollar makes American goods less expensive for foreigners (who get more dollars from their pounds, euros, francs, yen, etc.). So it causes many to visit American cities like New York, Atlanta and Miami and buy the same goods at half price or buy real estate as 2^nd homes, all of which buttresses our firms’ near term profits. And the weak US dollar also makes our exports more competitive so we sell more and that’s helping keeping this economic slowdown, American consumer spending slowing, from morphing into a deep recession. Thus higher than otherwise corporate earnings does help keep a floor under US stock prices so your retirement portfolio, your investments, are higher than they would be. And other countries, notably Japan and the Asian Tigers, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan have followed an economic policy of keeping their currencies down, and that’s helped to drive their exports and make them prosper. So keeping one’s currency down has helped in the past. Now whether it’s a sound strategy for the United States, with the dollar being the world’s reserve currency, is another question. Jim Rogers, the long term investment seer extraordinaire, whose books I’ve advised you to read, says not. I particularly trust his long term views after studying up on his amazing background. Just like you, he’s visited China, by the way. Anyway he says debasing a country’s currency may help short term but in the long term it’s disastrous and he’s publicly trying to get all his investments and assets out of US dollars for the last year or so. He even sold his New York city townhouse and has moved to Asia! And, as to your follow-up concern, of course any increased profits gained from a weak dollar will go into corporate coffers, and may help shareholders by higher stock prices, but certainly will not be shared with workers. Sharing wealth equally was America’s way of operating back in the 1950s and 1960s when unions had some power, regulatory authorities were looked upon as good things performing necessary tasks, America’s big companies had no global competition and we had corporate statesmen who felt their responsibility were to share corporate wealth equitably. That’s no longer the case today, where bottom line profit drives everyone. So forget about that equitable sharing until somehow the country moves back to a better balance between capitalism and democracy. I’m not sure your choice, Hillary, will be able to move us in that direction even though she professes so. She may fervently want to but like most other politicians she is more prepared to battle the other party, fight, fight, fight, rather than get along and compromise. Schwartz View: As to your concern about now having to live on a fixed income, after retiring (thank goodness you have a couple pensions coming in!) there’s a big debate on about what strikes next, deflation or inflation. I mean many are worried about an economic slump turning into a big recession. And then big job losses and a period where prices including the cost of money, interest rates, stay low, but no one has the wherewithal to buy much. Many well-paying American jobs have indeed moved overseas, as you say, and that trend will continue. Business leaders today have to remain focused on the bottom line (or they will lose their jobs) and thus will look for the cheapest labor costs and ways to manufacture. Thus many worry that, similar to the 1930s, we’re in for a period of low employment or at least not enough livable wage jobs. But there is also the other camp which says the global economy is too strong, what with the size of the global economy having mushroomed with millions more people around the world moving now enjoying a bit more wealth, to go into a sustained recession now, that first inflation is going to be the next bogeyman. They say that gas and food prices are not going to come down, give us any relief, for a long time yet to come. I’d put Jim Rogers in that camp. Since he predicts this commodity bull market, commodities going way up in price, is going to last for at least another five to ten years, it could be that rising inflation is the next problem to take center stage, that’s what’s going to really pinch America and Americans. I go back and forth about which next, inflation or deflation. But I do sense myself developing an inflationary mindset recently. Watching Chinese export prices rise, I’ve taken to stockpiling presents, clothes, for next Christmas now. And I keep stockpiling meats at today’s still reasonable prices in the freezer. Obviously higher inflation doesn’t sit well for anyone with a fixed income. So keep up your teaching English as a second language. My best to you and family, Richard

Forget Scapegoating! Look Forward

RichardSchwartz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:40:00 GMT

SCAPEGOAT BLAMING. Boy, am I’m getting tired of the carping! Day after day, article after article. All these writers seem to think there’s something to gain in blaming former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan for the US housing bubble, the credit crisis, and in fact, all our problems. Listen, everyone is human and makes mistakes. So what can I say? Guess that’s the world we live in today. Blame and complain. Call for firing this one and that one. And somehow writers and media people, like Mike & the Mad Dog on sports radio and Sean Hannity on conservative talk radio all think they have the right to sit on judgment over others. Some type of free speech right, I guess. More logically, fostering dissention brings in more viewers, listeners and ratings. Awful! Anyway, thanks for listening. I listened to Dr. Greenspan yesterday on Bloomberg. If I have time I’ll review that videotape tape again today. A couple very interesting points emerged. First, Greenspan is urging a Resolution Trust Corp (RTC) type of organization to help resolve today’s housing glut, similar to how the RTC worked through the late 1980s/early 1990s savings and loan debacle I missed the first part of this concept yesterday, I’d like to hear more. Second, Greenspan talked about where we now stand and what our economic future’s going to be like. Essentially, his sense is that the two decades of disinflation is winding down and would be over if it wasn’t for the credit crisis/recession. This ending to the long downtrend in inflation and thus in interest rates started in late 2006 when China’s disinflationary low wage influence on global goods prices culminated. But this major macroeconomic trend change hasn’t shown up clearly yet. That’s because of the US and global economic downturn. This “slack” period as Greenspan calls the downturn is likely to prevent any sharp inflation spike for now but when this slack period ends, rising inflation will then become the next problem, returning to its past position as our everyday bogeyman, for all of us. Schwartz View: Makes sense to me. When I place a return to rising inflation in the context of historical trends and chart patterns. Any long entrenched trend doesn’t reverse all at once. Thus our long, slow, glide path toward deflation we’ve been in these last 25 years, fits well into my interpretation of the Kondratieff Long Wave, will wind up in the normal way most trends end up reversing. Reversals of long movements in one direction normally end with a first, little spike in the new direction. Such as we’ve been having over the last few years with the spike in commodity prices; oil, gold, industrial metals, soft agricultural commodities, which is part of the larger inflation equation. Next we should have a recession in the trend. In today’s case that would mean a cessation or fall back in commodities prices. Which makes sense if we have do undergo a sustained economic slowdown for the next year or two, the demand for commodities receding somewhat, thus causing commodities to fall back. This also fits with commodity guru Jim Rogers views of the world. That we could/should have big corrections in this long term -- about 18 years dating from the beginning in 1998/1999 -- commodity bull market, upwards of 50% or more. Not necessarily mandated but we shouldn’t be surprised by a big correction. Then, after a pullback, the new long term, macro trend toward higher inflation begins to become apparent to all. That’s how trends like bear markets in stocks have ended historically as well. Go back and look at a chart of the ending of the Papa Bear market in 1974 or the very long term previous Papa Bear market in bonds in 1982. First you get a rally, then a fall back, then the new trend really takes hold. Actually, think about this concept further. This is the same pattern stock traders look for to identify stock market bottoms in shorter term time frames as well. In fact, just think about the recent stock market low in January, the first rally back up, then the secondary low on March 10^th, which Bob Doll of BlackRock points out as an important secondary low and some type of bottom. My larger point? It’s that our portfolios going forward should start to get repositioned toward an investment background of rising inflation, not disinflation. Yes, maybe we have one more burst of disinflation during this economic slowdown/recession as economist Gary Shilling predicts, that would be natural, but afterwards, we morph back to an inflationary world, certainly not the same investment world we’ve seen for the last 25 years. One key point. This new world is not geared toward bond investing. Bonds have had a 25 year bull market but that’s winding up. I would be very wary of bonds going forward.