Sentiment travels quickly in the hyperkinetic world of the global capital markets. Just a week ago, the talk of the town was all about the Great Rotation. After weeks, months…nay, years! of underperformance, value stocks looked poised to unseat the great megatrend in growth stocks.
Remember one week ago? Facebook tanked as investors found reasons aplenty not to like the company’s earnings report, which suggested that stupendous revenue growth in the mid-40s would turn into not-quite-as-stupendous revenue growth in the mid-20s, and fat profit margins in the mid-40s would become somewhat less obese (though still hefty) profit margins in the low 30s. Facebook’s woes came on the heels of an earlier subdued outlook by Netflix and was followed by more downbeat headlines from Twitter (apparently being the official platform for the communication of US government policy doesn’t add much in the way of monetary value…). Suddenly FAANG nation (and its fellow travelers like Twitter) was in trouble! Rotation to value in three…two…one…
Blessed Be The Fruit
And then there was Apple, and the $1 trillion market capitalization that swiftly dispatched away all that talk of a Great Rotation from growth to value. As the chart below shows, growth (in green) has recovered quite nicely, thank you, in the space of the past three days.
The only thing financial pundits love more than talking about a market rotation is talking about big round numbers, and they don’t get bigger or rounder than $1 trillion. Value rotation, we hardly knew ye!
The Unsolved Mystery of Value Investing
Now, the fact that we have to bide our time for awhile longer before value stocks come back into favor does not do anything to solve the big mystery of what, in the name of all that is good and wholesome, ever happened to value stocks in the first place. After all, the “value effect” is supposed to be one of the fixtures of long term investing. The value effect holds that investing in stocks whose market price is lower than their fundamental value pays off. Over time, you are more likely to perform well by buying and holding out-of-favor names that are mispriced by the market than you are by getting into a hot growth name that everyone else is chasing.
The logic behind the value effect seems impeccably tight. But the numbers tell a different story. Over the last thirty years, the value segment of the Russell 3000 stock index, a broad measure of US stocks, actually underperformed the broader index. Not by much – the Russell 3000 Value returned an average annual 10.38 percent compared to 10.53 percent for the Russell 3000. But still – that’s a 30 year span of time, nearly one third of a century. And the numbers don’t improve. The value index underperformed growth over most time periods since then, with the gap between them increasing. Over the last five years a growth investor outperformed her value counterpart by more than 5 percent on an annual average basis.
The Software That Ate the World
The value conundrum is occupying quite a bit of our research brainpower here at MV Financial and we plan to come out with a more in-depth research piece on the topic some time in the coming weeks. One way of looking at the mystery is supplied by Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist and founder of Netscape (hi, kids! That was a browser we used back in the days when we used to dial into our AOL accounts. See “hissing modems”…). Back in 2011 Andreessen penned an article called “Why Software Is Eating the World.” The premise was that software platforms were encroaching into the central business value propositions of practically every industry sector, with the lion’s share of rewards falling to those companies most adept and developing and deploying technology solutions for their markets.
At the time Andreessen’s article was dismissed by many as so much Valley technobabble, but it has stood the test of time. Just look at what happens on any given day when, say, Amazon threatens to enter the retail pharmaceutical business or buys Whole Foods. Competitive industry dynamics these days do appear to be about little else than the deft execution of hard-to-imitate software platforms.
If Andreessen’s thesis is behind the growth stock megatrend, then investors will not be too happy when the FAANG sharks and their extended court of growth stock pilot fish do run out of upside. The result may be less an orderly reversion to mean while value stocks run for a while, and more a winding down of this historically long bull market. We are not suggesting that this is imminent, but it does bear watching. Meanwhile, detective work on the Case of the Missing Value Effect will continue apace.
They say numbers don’t lie, right? So what to make of the 4.1 percent real growth rate in US gross domestic product (GDP) from the first to the second quarter of the year? We feel quite comfortable in predicting that the narrative of today’s news cycle will be anything but unified. Depending on what news source you turn to for a first take on today’s Bureau of Economic Analysis release, you may be told that this quarterly number is in fact the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, when peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars (hi, kids! ask your parents…). Or, alternatively, that 4.1 percent really isn’t 4.1 percent at all, but a fictitious sugar high delivered on a transitory pile of soybeans, never to be seen again.
As usual, the reality is somewhere between delusional happy talk and delusional apocalypse-now talk. Here’s an actual picture of GDP growth over the full cycle of the economic recovery that began in the middle of 2009. We show both the quarter-to-quarter rate of growth and the somewhat smoother year-on-year growth trend.
Something Old, Something New
The best way, in our opinion, to interpret the current trend in GDP growth is to ascribe much of it to factors that have been underway for some time. Consumer spending is by far the largest single component of GDP, accounting for more than 70 percent of the total, and Americans have continued to not disappoint in their purchasing predilections. Fixed private sector investment – both residential and commercial – also reflects continuing confidence by homeowners and businesses alike. The mix will change in any given quarter – nonresidential construction and intellectual property investment were key drivers this quarter while residential investment declined – but the overall trend has stayed positive. This is the “something old” – a continuation of the modest but steady growth that has characterized recent years.
The “something new” shows up in an usual jump in US exports, which grew by 9.3 percent overall and which was dominated by certain categories of goods. Enter the “soybeans” meme. It appears that other countries have been stockpiling various products from the US which they expect to jump in price on account of the new tariff regime. Those bags and bags of soya beans from Iowa really were a second quarter phenomenon, were mostly related to China, and have mostly stopped with the implementation of the first wave of tariffs imposed by Beijing on US products earlier this month.
Looking beyond the quirks of any given quarter – and as the above chart shows, these numbers do bounce around considerably – the longer term question is how much of this growth is sustainable. The average annual rate of GDP growth since the second quarter of 2009 has been 2.4 percent. Many economists argue that even that number is too high – remember that for a good chunk of this time much of the growth came courtesy of direct monetary intervention by the Federal Reserve, which is no longer in effect. The fiscal stimulus put in place at the end of last year – windfall tax cuts to US businesses – may have the effect of elevating fixed investment above trend levels for a few more quarters, but that has the longer-term implications of significantly higher deficits and thus borrowing costs. This could be a particularly thorny problem if it converges with a sustained period of higher interest rates as the Fed tries to “normalize” borrowing rates.
There has not been much in the way of market reaction to today’s GDP release – partly because the number was largely in line with consensus estimates and thus already baked into stock prices. Investment sentiment around GDP appears largely dominated by the “something old” theme – different quarter, same trends – while ascribing little in the way of impactful news to either transitory short term phenomena like soya bean exports or the longer term borrowing implications of the fiscal stimulus. This way of looking at what is arguably the economy’s lead headline number also assumes that the trade tensions are mostly smoke and mirrors and will not metastasize into an all-out hot war (which view got some support this week with a surprisingly docile outcome of trade talks between the US and the EU).
What has some observers feeling blue, even when most data point to continued growth in the economy and with corporate sales and earnings, is that this recovery cycle is already long by historical standards. We have discussed this in other recent commentaries, usually with the caveat that every cycle is different and that recoveries don’t end because they pass some arbitrary calendar milestone. We do not think we are in for some super-long period of above-trend growth. Neither, however, do we see a compelling case for an imminent winding down of this cycle.
Stock prices rise and fall on account of all sorts of influencing factors on any given day. For the time being, at least, the overarching economic narrative does not give us much cause to be feeling blue.
Something interesting happened earlier this week – well, interesting for those who like to read meaning into round numbers. The number in question is 2, as in 2.0 percent, as in the yield on the 3-month US Treasury bill reached on July 18, the first time this widely used proxy for “cash” breached 2 percent since before the 2008 recession. The practical impact of this round-number event, though, is that it extends a trend underway since April; namely, that the yield on cash is now greater than the dividend yield on large cap stocks. The chart below shows the spread between the S&P 500 dividend yield and the 3-month T-bill over the past 5 years. After a yawning chasm for much of the post-recovery period when interest rates were held close to zero, the Fed’s monetary tightening program begun in late 2015 has now closed and reversed the dividend-cash spread.
Meet the New Spread, Same As the Old Spread
There is nothing unusual about cash returns exceeding the dividend yield; it is usually a feature of a recovery cycle. For example, over the course of the growth cycle from 2003-07 the yield on the 3-month Treasury bill was 3.0 percent, compared to a dividend yield on the S&P 500 of 1.7 percent. As we have often noted in these commentaries, though, this most recent growth cycle has been profoundly different. When short term rates started trending up at the end of 2015 the recovery was already five years old. It’s unheard of for interest rates to stay so far below dividend yields until nine years into the recovery.
But, of course, this was no accident. Rates were kept low in order to stimulate risk appetite after the 2008 financial crisis. Essentially, the Fed induced investors to move into riskier assets by making it as economically unattractive as possible to invest in risk-free securities. The European Central Bank of course went even further – they made investors actually pay – via negative interest rates – for the “privilege” of holding Eurozone credit obligations.
Welcome to the Jungle
Now that investors can actually get something in the way of a return on their cash allocations, however modest, market pundits are raising the chatter volume on whether this signals a potential cyclical drift out of equities into safer investments (similar to the very much related concerns about the yield curve we addressed last week). Another way to put the concern is this: can equities and other assets with higher risk properties still be attractive without the explicit inducement by monetary authorities? We’re back in the market jungle and ready to test the survival skills of common shares in the wild, goes this train of thought.
As with any other observation made without the assistance of a fully functioning crystal ball, the answer to that question is “it depends.” What it depends on, primarily, is the other component of value in a share of common stock beyond dividends: capital appreciation. In the chart above, the capital appreciation variable is the dotted crimson line representing the price appreciation in the S&P 500 over this five year period. While getting close to 2 percent each year from dividends, investors enjoyed substantial capital gains as well.
What the spread reversal between cash and dividends does more than anything else is to put paid to the “TINA” mantra – There Is No Alternative (to investing in stocks and other risk assets). The calculus is different now. An investor with modest risk appetite will need to be convinced that the dotted red line in that chart above has more room to move upwards. The dividend component of total return is no longer free money – there is now an alternative to that with a slightly better yield and less risk. The rest will have to come from capital appreciation.
Now, we have argued in recent commentaries that the growth cycle appears durable, given the continuity in macro growth trends and corporate sales & earnings. The numbers still would appear supportive of further capital appreciation. But we also expect that the change in the TINA equation will have an effect on capital flows at the margins. Whatever money is still on the sidelines may be less inclined to come into the market. At the very least, investors on the sidelines skeptical of how much longer the bull has to run will have a better reason to stay put in cash. If enough of them do so it can become a self-fulfilling trend.
The transition from summer to fall is always an interesting time in markets, as a consensus starts to form around what the driving trends of the fourth quarter will be. There’s enough at play right now to make the stakes particularly high this year.
If you have paid any attention to the daily dose of financial media chatter over the past month or so (and we are of the firm opinion that there are many, many more productive ways to spend one’s time) you have no doubt come into contact with the phrase “flat yield curve.” If the phrase piqued your interest and you listened on, you would have learned that flat yield curves sometimes become inverted yield curves and that these are consistently accurate signals of imminent recession, going back at least to the beginning of the 1980s.
This topic is of particular interest today because the yield curve happens to be relatively flat. As we write this the spread (difference) between the 10-year Treasury yield and the 2-year Treasury yield – a common proxy for the yield curve – is just 0.25 percent. That is much tighter than usual. In fact the last time the yield curve was this flat was in August 2007 – and any financial pundit worth his or her salt will not hesitate to remind you what happened after that. The chart below diagrams the longer-term relationship between 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields going back to 1995.
Before the Fall
In the above chart we focus attention on two previous market cycle turns where a flat or inverted curve was followed by a recession and bear market environment: 2000-02, and 2007-09. It is true that in both these instances a recession followed the flattening of the curve (the red-shaded columns indicate the duration of the equity market drawdown). But it’s also important to pay attention to what happened before things turned south.
Both of these bear market environments were preceded by an extended period of growth during which the yield curve was also relatively flat. These “growth plus flat curve” periods are indicated by the green-shaded columns in the chart. As you can see the late 1990s – from about mid-late 1997 through the 2000 stock market peak – were characterized by very little daylight between the 2- and 10-year yields. The same is true from late 2005 through summer of 2007 (the S&P 500 peaked in October 2007 before starting its long day’s journey into night).
You Can Go Your Own Way
In both of those prior cases, in other words, a flattening yield curve wasn’t a signal of very much at all, and investors who took the cue to jump ship as soon as the spread went horizontal missed out on a considerable amount of equity market growth. In fact, the dynamic of “flat curve plus growth,” far from being unusual, is not unexpected. It has to do with what the respective movements of short term and long term yields tend to tell us about what’s going on in the world.
Short term rates are a much more accurate gauge of monetary policy than yields with more distant maturities. If bond investors anticipate an upcoming round of monetary tightening by the Fed, they will tend to move out of short-term fixed rate securities, sending yields on those securities higher. When does monetary policy normally turn tighter? When growth is heating up, of course – so it should be no surprise that short term rates will start trending up well before the growth cycle actually peaks.
Longer term yields, on the other hand, are much less predictable and tend to go their own way based on a variety of factors. For example, in that 2005-07 period when short term rates were trending up, the 10-year yield stayed relatively flat. Why? Because this period coincided with the height of China’s “supercycle” during which Beijing routinely bought gobs of Treasury bonds with its export earnings, building a massive war chest of dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves.
To Every Cycle Its Own Story
At the same time, many other central banks were building up their FX reserves so as to not repeat the problems they experienced in the various currency crises of the late 1990s. Yes – the late 1990s, when economies from southeast Asia to the former Soviet Union to Latin America ran into liquidity difficulties and injected a massive amount of volatility into world markets. Global investors responded to the volatility by seeking out safe haven assets like – surprise! – longer-dated US Treasury bonds. Which partly explains why the yield curve was so flat from ’97 through the 2000 market peak.
So yes – at some point it is likelier than not that we will see another flat-to-inverted yield curve lead into another recession. Meanwhile, the dynamics driving longer-term bond issues today are not the same as the ones at play in the mid 2000s or the late 1990s. Maybe spreads will widen if a stronger than expected inflationary trend takes root. Maybe the 10-year yield will fall further if US assets are perceived to be the safest port in a global trade war storm. The important point for today, in our opinion, is that there is a resounding absence of data suggesting that this next recession is right around the corner. We believe there is a better chance than not for some more green shading on that chart between now and the next sustained downturn.
The financial news headlines on this, the first Friday of the second half of 2018, seem fitting. Appropriately contradictory, one might say, providing a taste for what may lie ahead in these next six months. First, we have news that Donald Trump’s splendid little trade war is happening, for real now! Tariffs have been slapped on the first $34 billion worth of products imported from China. On the other side of the ledger, an American ship full of soya beans was steaming full-on to reach the Chinese port of Dalian in time to offload its supply before facing the retaliatory tariffs mandated from Beijing. Too bad, so sad, missed the deadline. Apparently the fate of the ship, the Peak Pegasus, was all the rage on Chinese social media. The trade war will be Twitterized.
The second headline today, of course, was another month of bang-up jobs numbers led by 213K worth of payroll gains (and upward revisions for prior months). Even the labor force participation rate, a more structural reading of labor market health, ticked up (more people coming back into the jobs pool is also why the headline unemployment rate nudged up a tad from 3.8 to 4.0 percent). Hourly wages, a closely followed metric as a sign of potential inflation, recorded another modest year-on-year gain of 2.7 percent.
So there it is: the economy continues to carry on in good health, much as before, but the trade war has moved from the theoretical periphery to the actual center. How is this going to play out in asset markets?
Manufacturers Feel the Pain
The products covered by this first round of $34 billion in tariffs are not the ones that tend to show up in Wal-Mart or Best Buy – so the practical impact of the trade war will not yet be fully felt on the US consumer. The products on this first list include mostly manufacturing components like industrial lathes, heating equipment, oil and gas drilling platform parts and harvester-thresher combines. If you look at that list and think “Hmm, I wonder how that affects companies like Caterpillar, John Deere and Boeing” – well, you can see for yourself by looking at the troubled performance of these companies’ shares in the stock market. As of today those components will cost US manufacturers 25 percent more than they did yesterday. That’s a lot of pressure on profit margins, not to mention the added expense of time and money in trying to figure out how to reconfigure supply chains and locate alternative vendor sources.
Consumers Up Next
The question – and probably one of the keys to whether this trade war inflicts real damage on risk asset portfolios – is whether the next slates of tariffs move from theoretical to actual. These are the lists that will affect you and me as consumers. In total, the US has drawn up lists amounting to $500 billion in tariffs for Chinese imports. In 2017 the US imported $505 billion from China – we’re basically talking about the sum total of everything with a “Made in China” label on it. Consumers will feel the pain.
If it comes to pass. The collective wisdom of investors today has not yet bought into the inevitability of an all-out trade war. US stocks are on track to notch decent gains for this first week of the second half. The job numbers seem to be holding the upper hand in terms of investor sentiment. Sell-side equity analysts have not made meaningful downward revisions to their sunny outlook for corporate sales and earnings. Sales for S&P 500 companies are expected to grow at a rate of 7.3 percent this year. That reflects an improved assessment from the 6.5 percent those same analysts were projecting three months ago – before the trade war heated up. The good times, apparently, can continue to roll.
Since we haven’t had a global trade war since the 1920s, we can’t model out just how these tariffs, in part or in full, will impact the global economy. Maybe the positive headline macro numbers, along with healthy corporate sales and profits, can power through this. Perhaps the trade war will turn out to be little more than a tempest in a teapot. We may be about to find out.