Weekly Commentary December 29th, 2014

The Markets

With gas hovering around $2 a gallon in many parts of the country, chances are you’re smiling every time you fill up the tank.

The oil price drop, which is one of the biggest stories of 2014, is a twist on a familiar tale. Rising supply (production in non-OPEC countries, like the United States, increased) and falling demand (in Europe, Japan, and China) caused prices to move lower. In this case, they’ve moved a lot lower. Last summer, the price of crude oil was about $107 a barrel. Last week, it finished below $55 a barrel.

Overall, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), lower oil prices are expected to be good news for the global economy. They’re expected to have economic benefits for countries that import a lot of oil, like China and India. They also are a boon for U.S. consumers who have more money in their pockets when they pay less at the pump.

However, low oil prices aren’t good for everyone. In the United States, oil-producing states like Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and North Dakota may lose jobs and tax revenues. Outside the United States, oil exporters like Russia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela are likely to suffer adverse consequences as a result of falling prices, including domestic unrest, according to MarketWatch.com. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said,

“…For producer countries, lower prices are a negative:  the more dependent on oil revenues they are and the lower their financial reserves, the more adverse the impact on the economy and domestic demand. Russia, along with other oil-dependent but cash-constrained economies, will not only produce less but is likely to consume less next year.”

The supply and demand equation isn’t likely to change soon. The IEA forecasts global demand growth will be relatively weak during 2015. Meanwhile, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has done nothing to reduce supply, largely because of Saudi Arabia which is the second largest oil producer in the world. Saudi has reserves that make it better able to absorb the oil price shock than other oil exporters. It also has political motivations to keep oil prices low. These include punishing Iran and Russia for supporting Bashar Assad in the Syrian Civil War, according to the International Business Times.

If you want to know where oil prices may go, keep an eye on Saudi Arabia.

It’s not the 1 percent, it’s the 0.1 percent. They say history repeats itself. That seems to jibe with the findings of a brand new paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics.

“Wealth concentration has followed a U-shaped evolution over the last 100 years: It was high in the beginning of the twentieth century, fell from 1929 to 1978, and has continuously increased since then. The rise of wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1% wealth share, from 7% in 1979 to 22% in 2012—a level almost as high as in 1929… The increase in wealth concentration is due to the surge of top incomes combined with an increase in saving rate inequality.”

The pair found that the average real growth rate of wealth for the 160,000 families that comprise the top 0.1 percent was 1.9 percent from 1986 to 2012. As it turns out, income inequality has a snowballing effect on wealth distribution. The wealthiest people earn top incomes and save at high rates, which helps concentrate greater wealth in the hands of a few. It’s interesting to note that top wealth-holders are younger today than they were in the 1960s.

In contrast, the riches of the bottom 90 percent did not grow at all from 1986 to 2012. Historically, the share of wealth divvied up among this group grew from 20 percent in the 1920s to 35 percent in the 1980s. However, by 2012, it had fallen to 23 percent. Pension wealth grew during the period, but not enough to offset the rapid growth of mortgage, consumer credit, and student loan debt.

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

"History repeats itself, but the special call of an art which has passed away is never reproduced. It is as utterly gone out of the world as the song of a destroyed wild bird.

--Joseph Conrad, Polish author

Effects of Lower Oil Prices

Oil prices may be turning into the Grinch of this holiday season. Oil has dropped by more than 40% in just the past three months and contributed to volatile stock markets. I do not believe the sharp drop in oil prices is a sign of significant deterioration in the U.S. or global economy. The stunning collapse does have wide-ranging impacts on the economy and markets, but I believe the risks associated with low oil prices can be manageable and that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Lower oil prices benefit the U.S. economy in a number of ways. By saving U.S. consumers tens of billions of dollars at the gas pump and in home energy bills, it is estimated that the $50-plus drop in the price of oil since June 2014 boosts U.S. gross domestic product by roughly 0.5%. That is significant, but it is important to keep in mind that U.S. consumer spending totals $12 trillion per year, and that consumers spend an average of just 4% of their incomes on energy. Still, this is a benefit to consumers, especially for those at lower income levels who spend a bigger portion of their incomes on energy.

The U.S. manufacturing sector is also a beneficiary of lower energy costs. Although not nearly as energy intensive as they used to be, industrial companies benefit from lower oil prices via lower transportation and production costs. Just a penny drop in fuel prices can save tens of millions of dollars for an airline. And lower oil and other commodity prices mean lower raw material costs.

These are all good things, but there are offsetting factors. Lower energy prices will slow—but not stop—the U.S. energy renaissance. Less U.S. energy production may mean slightly fewer energy jobs (energy jobs are about 2% of total U.S. jobs) and less business investment for future projects or expansion. The oil and gas industry drives a significant portion of business investment, so services, equipment, and infrastructure companies that service the oil producers will feel some impact.

Sharply lower oil has already impacted financial markets. The roughly 20% drop in the S&P 500 energy sector, which composes 8.3% of the S&P 500, may continue to drive increased volatility for the broad stock market indexes. The fixed income markets are also impacted, as energy composes about 15% of the high-yield bond benchmark, the Barclays High Yield Bond Index. Lower oil prices are likely to crimp profitability and may impact the ability of weaker companies to meet their debt obligations. However, it is expected that much of this negative impact is factored into market prices, and widespread defaults across the sector are not expected, should oil prices stabilize somewhere near current prices.

Most importantly, the U.S. economy is doing quite well and I think it may get a bit better in 2015, as I will highlight in our Economic Outlook 2015: In Transit. I do not believe oil’s sharp decline should be interpreted as a sign that an economic downturn is forthcoming. It is very difficult to predict where oil prices are going from here, but the oil market has likely overreacted to supply pressures and should begin to stabilize over the next several months, as lower prices help buoy demand and discourage some of the higher cost production. Although the severity of the drop in oil prices has been alarming and brings some risk to markets, at this point, in terms of what it means for the economy, I believe the positives outweigh the negatives.

Weekly Commentary December 22nd, 2014

The Markets

Geopolitics and monetary policy and deflation! Oh my!

It was a wild, wild week. First, the Russian central bank announced a massive rate hike and the country’s main deposit rate rose from 10.5 percent to 17 percent. The move was the largest single increase in Russian rates “since 1998, when Russian rates soared past 100 percent and the government defaulted on debt,” according to Bloomberg.com.

The central bank was desperately trying to shore up the ruble which was suffering from lower oil prices and Western sanctions imposed after Russian annexed Crimea. The rate hike wasn’t immediately effective and the ruble sank to a record low. The currency has lost 52 percent of its value during 2014 to date, and the outlook for the future of the country’s economy isn’t bright. If oil averages $60 a barrel, Russia’s gross domestic product – the value of all goods and services produced in the country – might fall by 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent in 2015.

Events in Russia put investors in a selling mood, and stock markets around the world moved lower early in the week. Barron’s commented, “From all appearances, investors were selling stocks while they were doing their holiday shopping.”

The investor stampede was headed off by a bit of whooping and hollering from the Federal Reserve. After the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, the Fed announced its policies remained unchanged:

“…Based on its current assessment, the Committee judges that it can be patient in beginning to normalize the stance of monetary policy. The Committee sees this guidance as consistent with its previous statement that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate for a considerable time following the end of its asset purchase program in October, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee's 2 percent longer-run goal, and provided that longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored.”

The Fed’s decision was enough to calm markets, many of which showed attractive gains by week’s end.

as people get richer, do investment returns get better? No, they don’t. Research shows there is a negative correlation between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita – a measure of how wealthy people in a country are becoming – and investment returns.

In other words, the countries with the fastest growing economies don’t always produce the highest investment returns and vice versa. For example, between 1900 and 2013, South Africa rewarded investors with long-term stock market returns of about 7.4 percent while its per capita GDP growth was 1.1 percent. At the opposite end of the spectrum was Ireland, where markets returned 2.8 percent while per capita GDP growth was 4.1 percent. The Economist described the research findings:

“The quintile of countries with the highest growth rate over the previous five years produced average returns over the following year of 6 percent; those in the slowest-growing quintile produced returns of 12 percent... Why might this be? One likely explanation is that growth countries are like growth stocks; their potential is recognized and the price of their equities is bid up to stratospheric levels. The second is that a stock market does not precisely represent a country's economy – it excludes unquoted companies and includes the foreign subsidiaries of domestic businesses. The third factor may be that growth is siphoned off by insiders – executives and the like – at the expense of shareholders.”

Here is another interesting economic tidbit. While past economic growth does not predict future equity market performance, changes in stock prices do correlate to future economic growth. That’s because expectations play an important role in markets. The expectation of poor future economic performance may cause a country’s share values to fall, and vice versa. A research report from Schroders said, “If expectations are key, a poor economic outlook will already be priced in, and investors’ returns will depend instead upon whether market expectations are overly optimistic or pessimistic with regards to future GDP growth.”

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

--Albert Einstein, Theoretical physicist

Weekly Commentary December 15th, 2014

The Markets

Ouch!

It was no fun to be an investor last week. The week prior, a commentary in The Wall Street Journal’s blog, MoneyBeat, offered this insight:

“Falling oil prices are thought to be good for stocks because they stimulate consumer spending and hold down inflation. The lower costs support economic growth, boost corporate earnings, and lessen pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. The stock market loves that mix.”

That was not the case last week. A selling spree, sparked in part by concerns related to energy, led to virtually every major world stock index (every one that Barron’s follows, anyway) moving lower. The single exception was the Shanghai Composite and that was flat.

It seems the International Energy Agency’s prediction that demand for energy would grow more slowly in 2015, combined with the fact supply of some resources has been growing, addled investors and they sold everything but the kitchen sink. Even industries that may be helped by lower energy costs – consumer goods, consumer services, health care, and others – lost value. In the United States, stock markets delivered their worst performance in more than three years, according to Barron’s.

Have investors lost sight of the fact the United States has a consumption-driven economy?

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reported personal consumption – how much Americans are spending on goods and services – was 70 percent of gross domestic product (the value of all goods and services produced) in the United States during the third quarter of 2014. Lower energy prices tend to put more money in the pockets of consumers so they can spend more and that can help the economy grow. In fact, U.S. News reported, “…approximately every penny decline in the price of a gallon of gasoline translates to about $1 billion in additional disposable income for American households.”

It’s interesting to note consumers – a group that overlaps with investors in a Venn diagram – are more confident than they have been in almost eight years, according to data released by the University of Michigan and cited by Barron’s.

what does the future hold? The good news is most analysts expect economic growth in the United States to continue. The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Federal Reserve, and the International Monetary Fund all have forecast gross domestic product growth in the United States at 2.5 to 3.0 percent for 2015. That’s not quite as good as the 7 percent growth forecast for China or the 6.5 percent growth estimated for India, but it’s decent for a developed nation with a mature economy.

There are factors that could hurt the economic outlook in the United States. Economists participating in The Wall Street Journal’s Economic Forecasting Survey said a negative global event was the biggest threat to U.S. economic growth followed by slower global growth. Three of the risks The Economist believes could keep companies from operating at target profitability during 2015 include:

·         Deflation in the Eurozone: “A Japanese-style stagnation in the euro zone would have profoundly negative implications for global demand, especially at a time when growth in the emerging markets is also softening.”

·         Spillover from Syria’s Civil War: “…The prospect of [ISIS] diverting its energies from Iraq and into Syria and its neighbors (such as Lebanon and Jordan) could prompt an uptick in oil's political risk premium once more.”

·         Escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict: “…The recently imposed trade restrictions have not only plunged Russia into recession, but also contributed to sinking industrial output in Germany… further sanctions could see Russia cutting off natural gas sales to Ukraine or the European Union (as is currently already reportedly occurring with supplies to Poland)… [these acts] would no doubt have a deleterious impact on the [Euro] region's economic recovery.”

There are also factors that could improve the outlook. The Wall Street Journal’s survey found economists believe tightening labor markets, higher wages, better consumer spending, and low energy prices could support U.S. economic growth during 2015.

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime.

--Babe Ruth, American baseball player

Weekly Commentary December 8th, 2014

The Markets

In the United States, it was more of the same ole, same ole…

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and Standard & Poor’s 500 closed at record highs for the 34^th time and 49^th time this year, respectively. The impetus last week was a jobs report that far exceeded expectations. For the 10^th consecutive month, more than 200,000 jobs have been created. That’s the longest string of improvements since 1994, according to Reuters. Not only did U.S. employers hire the most new workers in three years, wages ticked higher, too. An expert cited by Barron’s said the underlying report data was promising:

“The average workweek was 34.6 hours, up from 34.5, and where it was before the 2008 crisis. That level acts as an effective ceiling to additional hours and suggests employers will have to increase hiring, he says – hence the pop in bond yields. The 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield jumped to 2.31 percent from 2.26 percent on Friday. (Bond prices move inversely to yields.)”

Analysts told CNBC.com the strong jobs report might mean the Federal Reserve will begin to raise the Fed funds rates by mid-2015.

The Stoxx Europe Index closed at a relatively high level, even though things weren’t so rosy economically in the Eurozone. Inflation continued to fall and is now close to zero. The last time inflation was at 2 percent, which is the level targeted by the European Central Bank (ECB), was two years ago, according to The New York Times.

The ECB continues to talk a big game without taking any action, according to Barron’s. Last week, President Mario Draghi said the ECB plans to assess the success of its current stimulus programs as well as the effects of lower energy prices early in 2015. However, he offered no specific monetary easing measures or a timeline for action. It was the same message he delivered in October and November of 2014. Experts cited by The New York Times indicated the ECB could lose credibility if it fails to act early next year.

pondering the effects of long working hours. In 1960, about one-half of the jobs in the United States were at least mildly physically strenuous. Gosh, how things have changed. Today, we’re a lot more sedentary. Just 20 percent of jobs are at all strenuous and has produced the wrong type of growth, according to Joelle Abramowitz, an economist at the U.S. Census Bureau and author of a paper entitled, The connection between working hours and body mass index in the U.S.: a time use analysis.

Abramowitz found 70 percent or more of people who work 40 or more hours a week are overweight. All those extra hours people put in trying to impress the boss, or wining and dining clients, don’t pay off when it comes to maintaining a healthy weight. For every 10 hours worked – over and above the weekly 40 – at a non-strenuous job, men gain about 1.4 pounds and women gain about 2.5 pounds. The Economist theorized longer work hours might translate into less exercise time, more take-out meals, and fewer hours of sleep. All of these have the potential to affect weight.

In a separate article, The Economist pointed out there has been a significant shift in the leisure time of the rich and the poor. One expert cited said, “In the 19th century you could tell how poor somebody was by how long they worked.” That has changed over time. In 1965, college-educated men, who tended to earn more than men without college degrees, had more leisure time than men with only high school diplomas. By 2005 the college-educated enjoyed eight hours less leisure time each week than the high school grads.

It’s interesting to note less than 60 percent of Americans who work 20 or fewer hours a week are overweight.

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens, nature, and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be.”

--Anne Frank, Writer

Weekly Commentary December 1st, 2014

The Markets

If investors around the world were voting on their favorite stock market, there is little doubt U.S. markets would finish near the top. Barron’s explained, “For the past three years, Wall Street has been trouncing the world’s other markets, inducing investors to pile in and bail on other assets.”

So, how popular are U.S. markets? The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500) has not moved lower for four consecutive days during 2014, according to experts cited by Barron’s. That breaks S&P 500’s previous record for longest period in a calendar year without four down days in a row which happened in 1997. The streak ended in late August of that year.

In September, more than $164 billion were invested in the United States by investors at home and abroad. The reason investors are attracted to U.S. markets is no secret. Last week’s economic data may have been mixed, but it didn’t change the fact U.S. economic growth has been relatively strong. Third quarter’s gross domestic product – the value of all goods and services produced in the United States – was revised higher last week from 3.5 percent to 3.9 percent. Both readings were above the consensus estimate of 3.3 percent. That’s pretty strong growth compared to some other countries:

“While U.S. gains have been modest compared with previous expansions, domestic growth is outpacing other advanced economies. Japan’s economy slipped into a recession in the third quarter and the eurozone’s growth barely stayed positive. The rate of growth in emerging markets from China to Brazil is also slowing,” reported The Wall Street Journal.

Although U.S. economic growth during the middle quarters of 2014 was the fastest in a decade, The Wall Street Journal suggested the improvement might be a modest acceleration rather than a major breakout. They cautioned U.S. exports and military spending made attractive contributions to third quarter growth, but that could change if there is a global slowdown or the government cuts military budgets.

What return-on-investment (ROI) does a liberal arts degree deliver? There has been a lot of hullabaloo lately about whether a bachelor’s in English, or any other liberal arts degree, is worth earning. Forbes explained it like this:

“Humanities degrees have received a bad rap recently, even from President Obama. Many people, including top policy makers, routinely push policies to encourage more students to major in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Some governors have even suggested that state subsidies for public universities should be focused on STEM disciplines, with less money going to “less useful” degrees such as the humanities. Yet, in contravention to this perceived truth, the data show that humanities degrees are still worth a great deal.”

How much are they worth? While working on a project to estimate the economic impact of his university, Professor Jeffrey Dorfman discovered bachelor’s degrees in art, drama, English, French, history, philosophy, and political science have ROI of 300 to 700 percent for students (or parents) who spent about $80,000 on tuition, room and board, and other education-related expenses. Art majors had the lowest ROI and philosophy majors had the highest.

Make no mistake. There are bachelor’s degrees with higher ROI. The top-paying majors include engineering, mathematics, physics, government, economics, international relations, geology, technology, and chemistry, according to Payscale.com. Classics majors, who earn even more than philosophy majors, came in at number 50 out of 130 majors listed by earnings potential.

Forbes offered some simple guidelines for students who are considering graduate school and want to evaluate whether the investment will pay off. Some suggestions for students are:

·         Assume every dollar of debt will cost two dollars by the time it has been paid back.

·         Estimate the cost impact of years in grad school on potential retirement savings.

·         If undergraduate debt and grad school debt combined are higher than a conservative estimate of first-year salary, then the cost of education is too high.

·         If debt is less than first-year salary, calculate lifetime earnings with and without grad school.

Most importantly, Forbes cautioned, it’s important to remember that all projections could be wrong. A student may not find a job right away or the job found could pay far more than expected. Industries may become obsolete. Economies may falter. It’s difficult to account for all of the variables that may affect income over a lifetime.

Weekly Focus – Think About It

If you recently spent some time circling a mall parking lot, looking for a place to park, you may want to consider an approach recommended to CNBC.com by former math teacher Joseph Pagano. “Rather than circle the lot, idle in an aisle where you can see 10 spaces ahead of you on either side (20 total). Given the average holiday shopping trip duration of 77 minutes, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, one of those 20 spots should open up in 3.85 minutes or less of waiting.”

Weekly Commentary November 24th, 2014

The Markets

Pioneer. Trendsetter. Trailblazer. Whatever term you decide to use, there’s no debate about the fact central banks around the world are taking a page or two from the U.S. Federal Reserve’s playbook. The Fed may have ended quantitative easing (QE) – its program of buying government bonds to keep interest rates low and increase money supply – in October, but that doesn’t mean QE hasn’t become popular elsewhere. Barron’s reported:

“…virtually every other major central bank is maintaining or stepping up its pace of money printing – even where the success in spurring growth is questionable. On October 31, Japanese authorities doubled down on asset purchases by the Bank of Japan, and the nation’s pension fund, to spur flagging growth… In a surprise move on Friday, China cut interest rates for the first time in two years in an effort to spur slowing growth… That was followed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s signal the ECB would expand its stimulus plan, leading observers to expect large-scale, Fed-style purchases of government debt.”

Although some Americans remain skeptical about the health of the U.S. economy, growth in the United States stands in sharp contrast to growth elsewhere. The U.S. Department of Commerce reported real gross domestic product (GDP) – the value of goods and services produced in the United States – increased by 3.5 percent during the third quarter of 2014 after growing by 4.6 percent in the second quarter. For the same period, the Eurozone’s GDP grew by 0.6 percent, which is well below its 2 percent pre-crisis growth rate, and Japan’s GDP declined by 1.6 percent during the third quarter after a 7.3 percent drop in the second quarter.

While Japan has been mired in economic stagnation for some time, it’s a relatively new experience for the Eurozone where unemployment hovers around 11.3 percent – a record high. Aggression in Ukraine is complicating matters in Europe. An expert cited by The New York Times explained, “We are at most one or two rounds of sanctions and countersanctions away from pushing Russia into a deep recession, and Europe into a recession.”

While concerns remain about the health of the global economy, markets generally were pleased about central banks’ easy money policies and most global stock markets finished the week higher.

looking for some money for college? Then you may want to stop limiting the time your children spend playing video games, or you may want to focus their efforts. Robert Morris University (RMU) in Chicago, Illinois, has a new scholarship program – $500,000 for 30 scholarships that will go to League of Legends (LOL) players. The chosen few receive up to 50 percent of tuition and 50 percent of room and board.

Where do the Robert Morris Eagles find candidates? As it turns out, more than 750 schools in the United States and Canada participate in the League of Legends High School Starleague. At the collegiate level, the LOL league boasts more than 100 colleges and universities, including Carleton, Texas A&M, George Washington, University of Minnesota, Northwestern, University of Michigan, and Harvard. E-athletes participating in the college Starleague vie for $100,000 in scholarship money offered by the company that publishes League of Legends.

According to WNYC’s New Tech City, LOL is a complex and difficult-to-master game. Players choose one of more than 120 characters, each with various magical powers that must be memorized. “Teams of five take on other teams of five and basically try to destroy each other. It’s called a ‘multiplayer online battle arena game’ or MOBA for short.”

So, what’s in it for the school? E-sports are not covered by the NCAA, “so the school's team can compete for cash prizes and, if it wins, the school keeps the take.” You may recall, from a late-July commentary, the League of Legends (LOL) championship is an international video game competition with $1 million in prize money.

If you’re amazed there are scholarships for video game play, you’re not alone. One of the Robert Morris Eagles’ players told NPR, “I told my mom about [the RMU scholarship]. She didn't believe me. She's like, you're crazy and there's no way… She thought I was like, making it up 'cause she personally doesn't even like me playing the game, but when she realized I was going to get a scholarship for it, she accepted it, you know? She tells all of her friends.”

Parental support is probably pretty important. E-athletes at RMU practice five hours a day in their ‘arena,’ which is a room decked out with sponsored gear. They play tournaments on weekends. Critics worry that encouraging intensive play is a poor idea when countries, like Korea (where the game is exceptionally popular), have begun screening children for gaming and Internet addiction.

In mid-November, the RMU Eagles were undefeated in LOL collegiate play.

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“Empathy is really the opposite of spiritual meanness. It's the capacity to understand that every war is both won and lost. And that someone else's pain is as meaningful as your own.”

--Barbara Kingsolver, American novelist

Weekly Commentary November 17th, 2014

The Markets

“Is all this stock market optimism a red flag?”

Contrarians – investors who bet against prevailing market trends – were probably nodding along as they read that headline in The Wall Street Journal back on January 18, 2013. The Journal cited the American Association of Individual Investor’s (AAII’s) Sentiment Survey, which showed about 46 percent of participants were feeling bullish. As it turned out, the bulls were right. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose from about 1486 to about 2040 through the end of last week.

You may recall, two weeks ago, the AAII Sentiment Survey showed investor pessimism at a nine-year low with just 15 percent of participants growling like bears. Well, last week, pessimism rebounded and optimism moved higher, too. The survey results were:

·         Bullish:  57.9 percent, up 5.2 percentage points from the prior week

·         Neutral: 22.8 percent, down 9.5 percentage points from the prior week

·         Bearish: 19.3 percent, up 4.3 percentage points from the prior week

The historic average for the survey is bullish 39.0 percent, neutral 30.5 percent, and bearish 30.5 percent.

Americans are feeling pretty confident about the stock market’s potential and that’s not always a positive sign. Expectations of Returns and Expected Returns, a paper published by Robin Greenwood and Andrei Shleifer of Harvard University, compared investors’ expectations for returns to what financial economists call expected returns (which are calculated using dividends, consumption, and market valuations). They crunched numbers for data collected between 1963 and 2011 and found expectations for returns and expected returns tend to be negatively correlated. “…Both expectations of returns and [financial economists’ expected returns] predict future stock market returns, but with opposite signs. When [financial economists’ expected returns] are high, market returns are on average high; when [investors’] expectations of returns are high, market returns are on average low.”

So, since investor expectations are high, will U.S. stock markets returns be low? There is no way to know. Whether you’re a bull or a bear, in times like these, it’s good to have a well-diversified portfolio.

'THE NEW HIRE' is the name of a September survey published by PwC. It’s not about how to make newly-hired people more comfortable and productive. It’s about how the R generation – the latest iteration of industrial robots – is transforming manufacturing. More than one-half of the 120 manufacturing firms surveyed already have adopted robotics technologies. Auto manufacturers employ robots, as do food; consumer goods; life sciences, pharmaceutical, and biomedical; and metals companies.

PwC predicts the shift to robots will create new jobs for engineers specializing in robots and robotics operating systems. It also is likely to result in the displacement of a fair number of human workers. Currently there are about 1.5 million ‘intelligent industrial work assistants’ laboring around the world. About 230,000 are employed in the United States. According to The New Hire report:

“Industrial robots are on the verge of revolutionizing manufacturing. As they become smarter, faster and cheaper, they’re being called upon to do more – well beyond traditional repetitive, onerous, or even dangerous tasks such as welding and materials handling. They’re taking on more “human” capabilities and traits such as sensing, dexterity, memory, trainability, and object recognition. As a result, they’re taking on more jobs – such as picking and packaging, testing or inspecting products, or assembling minute electronics.”

That may be a little optimistic. Last month, Popular Mechanics reported engineers have been working on mechanical first-responders, like bomb-defusing and investigator robots, to help with threats like Ebola and the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. The magazine found robots competing in the DARPA Robotics Challenge were more like toddlers and less like capable adults. “For a typical task in the event, turning a valve, a team of several people required an hour or more to prep the robot, and that same team had to stand at the ready to catch their bot when it stumbled (which happened often).”

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.”

--William Shakespeare, English playwright and poet

Weekly Commentary November 10th, 2014

The Markets

Is it a melt-up?

You’re familiar with the word melt. Ice cream melts. Snow melts. You may have seen someone melt down (or have done it yourself). Right now, markets may be experiencing a melt-up, according to Barron’s. Melt-up is a counterintuitive term which describes a sharp, emotion-driven improvement in market performance. Last June, The Wall Street Journal blog described the melt-up phenomenon like this:

“Money managers and analysts are beginning to talk about an idea that dates from the roaring ’90s: a rapid stock gain known as a melt-up. In the late ’90s, people thought a melt-up, or a sudden double-digit percentage rise, was a fine thing. Set off by some exciting event, melt-ups feed on their own gains as people rush to avoid missing out. In late 1999 and early 2000, the Nasdaq Composite Index surged to 5000 from 3000 amid the Internet frenzy. It then collapsed. Melt-ups, investors learned, can lead to meltdowns.”

Markets did move higher last week. In fact, several major U.S. indices finished at record highs on the same day. That’s a rare occurrence and one that hasn’t happened since 1998. What was behind the move? Barron’s reported investors were encouraged by mid-term election results, strong third-quarter earnings, and the European Central Bank’s promise to spend $1.25 trillion on quantitative easing.

Investor optimism also gained ground. Last week’s American Association of Individual Investor’s (AAII’s) Sentiment Survey found a majority of investors were feeling bullish. Almost 53 percent believed stock prices would increase during the next six months. The bears were in retreat with pessimism about market performance falling to a nine-year low. “At current levels, optimism is unusually high and pessimism is unusually low. Historically, such occurrences have been followed by lower-than-average levels of market gains,” reported the AAII’s blog.

So, is it a melt-up? It’s difficult to know. What’s really important is this: Melt-ups are buy first, think later situations which sometimes lead to melt downs, which are sell first, think later situations. Needless to say, it’s always better to think first.

Let’s hear it for family businesses! Family-owned and family-controlled businesses are a pretty important part of the global economy. McKinsey & Company recently noted:

“In many ways, family businesses are stronger, more vital, and more important than they have ever been. Various estimates peg their share of global GDP [gross domestic product] at between 70 and 90 percent. While many family businesses are private, about a third of the Fortune Global 500 companies are founder or family controlled, as are 40 percent of the major listed companies in Europe. Family businesses are especially important in emerging markets accounting for about 60 percent of private-sector companies with revenues of $1 billion or more.”

According to The Economist, the largest family firms in the world span industries ranging from retail to automobiles to electronics to pharmaceuticals. The top 10 include four companies in the United States, along with firms based in Switzerland/United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan.

One of the most important challenges for family firms is succession. McKinsey & Company reported many businesses falter as they transition from the founder to the next generation, and most perish before the third generation can take the reins. Successful succession requires founders to look ahead, formulate a vision, and plan to that vision. In general, family-owned businesses have three basic options. The founder can:

·       Give the business away and start a foundation.

·       Sell the business and invest or divide the proceeds.

·       Keep the business and pass it on to the next generation.

McKinsey & Company predicts family companies are likely to become even more influential over time, especially in emerging markets.

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“Total spending by political parties in the British general election was £31.5m ($49.9m). Total spending by outside groups was £2.8m ($4.4m). So all in all: $54.3m. With 45.6m registered voters in Britain, that comes out at $1.19 per voter… That is less than the seventh most-costly Senate race (Arkansas), which cost $56.3m, or $26.47 per Arkansas voter. So the seventh costliest Senate race cost more than the entire 2010 general election in Britain.”

--The Economist

November Election Results and the Stock Market

The months of polls, punditry, and posturing are finally over. After months of uncertainty and waiting, the midterm elections are done, and there is a resolution.

As expected, the Republican Party regained control of the U.S. Senate and added to its majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although a few Senate races have yet to be decided, the Republicans control at least 52 seats—and  could control as many as 54. The important numbers in the Senate are 51, 60, and 67. The Republicans are over 51, which gives them a simple majority, but they are still short of the filibuster-proof 60, and far short of the 67 needed to override a veto, making sweeping legislative change unlikely.

Republicans made major gains, and the House has not been so dominated by one party since 1946. This is an interesting development, but does it mean that significant changes are on the horizon? Does change in the Congress mean change for you? Not really. The business environment might be slightly friendlier after the midterms, but I do not expect significant changes. 

The next key date in Washington, D.C. comes in mid-December 2014, when the continuing resolution to fund the government expires. The subsequent key date will be mid-March 2015, when the U.S. Treasury will hit the debt ceiling once again. At the margin, the Republicans’ control of Congress raises the risk they will demand concessions for passing a funding resolution for next year, or for raising the debt limit. However, given the backlash following last year’s government shutdown, as well as initial comments from likely Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it is likely that Congress will avoid such a standoff.

Although major changes from the new Congress are not expected, we are watching possible movement on several key legislative issues. Republican control of the Senate and House could have positive implications for energy and financial services companies by easing the regulatory landscape. For the energy sector, Republicans may be able to speed up permits for oil and gas exploration and gain approval for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, providing a potential boost to energy and industrial sector growth. Regulatory pressures on banks, including capital requirements, may be eased. Tax reform is possible, although more likely to happen at the corporate level than an individual level. And although Republicans will not be able to repeal the Affordable Care Act, changes to the law are likely, including the probable elimination of the medical device tax.

Clearly, elections have implications for policy and the direction of the country. Ultimately, however, we believe stock market performance will depend more heavily on economic growth, corporate earnings, and valuations in the months ahead. In the end, these factors will weigh more heavily on the direction of stock prices than modest legislative changes. We continue to believe these factors may support further stock market gains. 

Stay tuned for our upcoming Outlook 2015 event, for a closer look at policy considerations and the forecast on the economy, stock market, and bond market for investors next year.

Weekly Commentary November 3th, 2014

The Markets

Are central banks throwing a progressive party?

You know, the kind of party where folks travel from house to house feasting and drinking and enjoying the proffered hospitality. For years pundits have speculated about what will happen to the U.S. stock market party when the spiked punch bowl of quantitative easing is gone. Last week, they got an unexpected answer: Come on over to Japan’s house.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Federal Reserve announced October marked the end of its third round of quantitative easing (QE). Since late 2008, the Fed has purchased trillions of dollars of government and mortgage-backed bonds in an effort to spur economic growth (by increasing liquidity and lending) and head off deflation. In October, The New York Times reported, “The good news is that economy has been growing remarkably steadily since the middle of 2009… Still, the pace of growth has been perpetually disappointing for anyone expecting or betting on a return to the pre-crisis trend.”

Not long after the Fed announced QE closing time, Japan’s central bank, Bank of Japan (BOJ), startled stock markets with a Godzilla-sized surprise – it was expanding an already significant quantitative easing program. As if that weren’t enough, the President of Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund (the world’s largest pension fund) said the fund’s assets were being reallocated. Instead of having 60 percent invested in bonds, it would keep 35 percent in bonds and move the balance to stocks. The news electrified stock markets. Barron’s reported:

“Stocks soared around the globe while the yen plunged against the dollar and the euro. Extending the previous week’s surge, the major U.S. equity gauges ended at records on Friday, while stocks in Tokyo jumped more than 7 percent on the week to the highest level since November 2007. Not to be left out, European stocks gained 3 percent, their best weekly showing since last December.”

Barron’s also pointed out the real effect of a falling yen was to export deflation to Japan’s trade partners. The drop in the value of the yen on Friday translated into a $1,500 price cut on a $60,000 Lexus or Acura, increasing competition for luxury German automobiles.

So, what’s the next stop for revelers at the central bank fête? The New York Times speculates it may be the Eurozone.

 

 

Why are people worrying about deflation? Deflation is a general decline in prices. For anyone who has been struggling to make ends meet that may not sound all bad. In fact, it’s not always bad. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, between 1876 and 1879, prices in the United States fell by about 5 percent per year, on average, while the economy grew at a 7.6 percent clip.

Of course, deflation is not always good either. Financial crises in the United States during 1890, 1893, 1907, and the early 1930s were followed by periods of lower economic growth and deflation. The Economist described the harmful effects of deflation like this:

 

“It is a pernicious threat, all the more so because, at its onset, it seems almost benign… The belief that money made tomorrow will be worth less than money today stymies investment; the belief that goods bought tomorrow will be cheaper than goods bought today chokes consumption… Wages, incomes, and tax revenue all stall, undermining the ability of households, businesses, and governments to pay their debts – debts which, in real terms, will grow more burdensome under deflation.”

 

Deflation is a greater threat in Europe than in the United States. The European Central Bank’s most recent bulletin distinguished between deflation (a significant and persistent decline in prices that becomes entrenched in expectations) and disinflation (a process of decelerating inflation that may lead to negative inflation rates but is a temporary state of affairs). Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden, and Israel experienced negative inflation in September, according to The Economist. It reported, “The IMF [International Monetary Fund] recently put the odds of deflation in the euro zone – defined as two quarters of falling prices in a 12-month span – at 30 percent in the coming year.”

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

 

“And so it began: a growing realization that the vampire genre is positively swollen with economic questions. And the zombie genre? Maybe more so. Economic issues take center stage in many undead narratives – and when they don’t, they’re still lurking in the shadows.”

--Economics of the Undead, A collection of essays

 

Weekly Commentary October 27th, 2014

The Markets

After a week that left investors wondering what’s next – much like fishermen on a lake as the wind kicks up and the water gets choppy – the wind settled and the fish started biting. U.S. stock markets posted their best weekly returns in almost two years last week. When all was said and done, investors were $900 billion richer on paper, according to experts cited by Barron’s.

One of the most interesting things about the week was that little changed. The Eurozone’s precarious economic state did not stabilize. The Middle East remained in an uproar. The Russia-Ukraine conflict persisted, complete with sanctions. Ebola continued to be a threat, although vaccines are in the works. The pace of growth in China did not accelerate. In fact, a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggested:

“There are substantial reasons that China and India may grow much less rapidly than is currently anticipated. Most importantly, history teaches that abnormally rapid growth is rarely persistent, even though economic forecasts invariably extrapolate recent growth. Indeed, regression to the mean is the empirically most salient feature of economic growth.”

Some things related to China changed last week, though. It launched a new infrastructure bank along with 20 other countries, including India. The bank is intended to complement or rival the World Bank, depending on whose rhetoric you believe.

So, why did markets bounce? Barron’s said it had a lot to do with the Federal Reserve. As monetary policy has become less easy and volatility has picked up, “turbulence was in the direction of deflation, with commodities – especially crude oil – sliding and government bond yields plunging further around the globe.” Enter St. Louis Fed President James Bullard who suggested quantitative easing could be extended, if economic data supported it.

In other words, weak inflation numbers could shape Fed policy and delay interest rate increases. That was the story the numbers on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange told, anyway. The probability of the Fed raising rates by September 2015 declined sharply last week, moving from 81 percent to 42 percent. The market’s strong positive response has been dubbed the ‘Bullard Bounce.’

fourth place! When it comes to financial literacy, the International Financial Literacy Barometer indicates the United States ranks fourth out of 28 countries. If you’re thinking those sophisticated Europeans must have an edge on us, you’re wrong. The top five countries were Brazil, Mexico, Australia, United States, and Canada.

The rankings were determined by the answers to five questions:

1.    Do you have and follow a household budget? The best budgeters were in Brazil, Japan, Australia, South Africa, and Canada. The United States placed sixth.

2.    How many months worth of savings do you have set aside for an emergency? The best savers were in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Canada. The United States placed seventh.

3.    How often do you talk to your children ages 5-17 about money management issues? Parents who talked most frequently about money with their children were in Mexico, Brazil, Serbia, Bosnia, and Lebanon. The United States placed sixth.

4.    To what extent would you say teenagers and young adults in your country understand money management basics and are adequately prepared to manage their own money? More adults in Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Colombia, and Mexico believed kids understood financial basics than in other countries. The United States placed 27^th.

5.    At what age do you think governments should require schools to teach financial literacy to children so they can better understand money management issues? People in Brazil, Morocco, Thailand, Belarus, and Egypt wanted to talk with kids about money at the earliest ages. Americans said the government should require children to learn about money at about age 12. That put us in 21^st place.

It’s remarkable we placed fourth when our ranking on individual questions was lower in every instance. Our final ranking was higher, in part, because the first three questions were weighted more heavily than the latter two.

If you’re interested in educating your children about money, a good place to start (with younger children) may be with the Tooth Fairy. In 2014, the Tooth Fairy left 8 percent less, on average, under kids’ pillows than in 2013. American children received about $3.40 per tooth. Ask your children why that might be? Are kids losing more teeth so the Fairy is paying less? Did the Fairy budget badly? Are some teeth worth more than others (cavities versus no cavities)? It’s always easier to learn when you’re interested in the subject!

 

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter.”

--Mark Twain, American author