This Isn’t Back to the Future: Why Today’s Economy is Different Than the ’80s

This Isn’t Back to the Future: Why Today’s Economy is Different Than the ’80s by John Szramiak was originally published on Vintage Value Investing

This article was originally published on VanguardBlog.com.

 

Themes for the next decade: Cannabis, 5G, and EVs

CannabisA lot changes in 10 years, and many changes are expected by the time 2030 rolls around. Some key themes have already emerged, and we expect them to continue to impact investing decisions. At the recent Morningstar conference, several panelists joined a discussion about several major themes for the next decade, including cannabis, 5G and Read More


The Federal Reserve Board met last week and raised interest rates by 25 basis points (0.25 percentage point). The case for a hike was strong:

  • We’re at more or less full employment.
  • Inflation, which has slowly accelerated, hovers near the Fed’s 2% target.

We expect two to three rate hikes by year-end, which would put the federal funds rate at 1.25% to 1.50%, a level consistent with the Fed’s—and Vanguard’s—assessment of the economy’s strength.

Market behavior reminiscent of the ‘80s

 

The more interesting, and puzzling, economic analysis is happening in the stock market. U.S. stocks have been on a tear. The market is priced for long-term economic growth rates of 3%-plus, maybe 4%. (This estimate is based on our calculation of the earnings growth estimates implied by current stock prices.)

But like big hair and acid-washed jeans, those growth rates are an artifact of the ’80s. These days, the labor force is increasing slowly. Productivity growth, which could be turbocharged by a 21st-century Edison or Ford, is modest for now. And we’ve sworn off the growth-boosting but risky leverage that inflicted so much pain during the global financial crisis. The economy’s long-term potential growth rate is about 2%.

Where we were versus where we are

We can see the economic differences between the ’80s and today through the lens of bond yields. (This analysis comes from Vanguard’s Economic and Stock Market Outlook for 2017.)

During the ’80s, the 10-year U.S. Treasury note yielded an average of more than 10%. At the end of 2016, it yielded 2.5%. The following drivers, illustrated in the chart below, explain the change:

  • Lower inflation. In the ’80s, prices rose at an annualized 5% per year. A cart of groceries that cost $100 at the start of the decade cost more than $160 at the end. Today, inflation is barely 2%.
  • Slower productivity and labor-force growth. An aging population means slower labor-force growth. And workers’ hourly output is increasing more slowly—a rate of 1.6% per year in the ’80s, about 1% today. (That’s not bad! Before 1700, Europe experienced no productivity growth. As a result, a farmer born in the 14th century had the same standard of living as his great-great-great-grandson born in the 17th, though the latter had Shakespeare.)
  • A lower term premium. The term premium measures the additional yield paid by longer-term relative to shorter-term bonds. It’s related to inflation risks, which have declined significantly.
  • Greater demand for U.S. bonds. The remaining drivers are increasing global demand for the world’s safest asset—the U.S. Treasury—and unexplained (residual) causes.

The ’80s aren’t coming back

 

Maybe new fiscal policies—tax reform that boosts investment, infrastructure projects that produce economic efficiencies—will nudge growth higher. Uncaged animal spirits, evident in business and consumer confidence surveys, could put near-term growth at 3%. But none of the new administration’s proposals include a flux capacitor that will take us back to the ’80s.

Our asset class forecasts, anchored on a future of 2% growth, assign the highest probabilities to:

  • Global bond market returns of 2.5%–3% over the next decade.
  • Global equity returns of 6%–8% over the next decade.

The U.S. stock market is giddier, suggesting a different economic future. Our advice:

Rebalance to that allocation as necessary. We’re not going back to the ’80s. The calendar and the outlook have changed.

Previous articleSamsung Confident That Galaxy S8 Will Beat Note 7 Pre-orders
Next article9.7-inch New iPad vs. 9.7-inch iPad Pro: Specs Comparison
Ben Graham, the father of value investing, wasn’t born in this century. Nor was he born in the last century. Benjamin Graham – born Benjamin Grossbaum – was born in London, England in 1894. He published the value investing bible Security Analysis in 1934, which was followed by the value investing New Testament The Intelligent Investor in 1949. Warren Buffett, the value investing messiah and Graham’s most famous and successful disciple, was born in 1930 and attended Graham’s classes at Columbia in 1950-51. And the not-so-prodigal son Charlie Munger even has Warren beat by six years – he was born in 1924. I’m not trying to give a history lesson here, but I find these dates very interesting. Value investing is an old strategy. It’s been around for a long time, long before the Capital Asset Pricing Model, long before the Black-Scholes Model, long before CLO’s, long before the founders of today’s hottest high-tech IPOs were even born. And yet people have very short term memories. Once a bull market gets some legs in it, the quest to get “the most money as quickly as possible” causes prices to get bid up. Human nature kicks in and dollar signs start appearing in people’s eyes. New methodologies are touted and fundamental principles are left in the rear view mirror. “Today is always the dawning of a new age. Things are different than they were yesterday. The world is changing and we must adapt.” Yes, all very true statements but the new and “fool-proof” methods and strategies and overleveraging and excess risk-taking only work when the economic environmental conditions allow them to work. Using the latest “fool-proof” investment strategy is like running around a thunderstorm with a lightning rod in your hand: if you’re unharmed after a while then it might seem like you’ve developed a method to avoid getting struck by lightning – but sooner or later you will get hit. And yet value investors are for the most part immune to the thunder and lightning. This isn’t at all to say that value investors never lose money, go bust, or suffer during recessions. However, by sticking to fundamentals and avoiding excessive risk-taking (i.e. dumb decisions), the collective value investor class seems to have much fewer examples of the spectacular crash-and-burn cases that often are found with investors’ who employ different strategies. As a result, value investors have historically outperformed other types of investors over the long term. And there is plenty of empirical evidence to back this up. Check this and this and this and this out. In fact, since 1926 value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of four percentage points annually, according to the authoritative index compiled by finance professors Eugene Fama of the University of Chicago and Kenneth French of Dartmouth College. So, the value investing philosophy has endured for over 80 years and is the most consistently successful strategy that can be applied. And while hot stocks, over-leveraged portfolios, and the newest complicated financial strategies will come and go, making many wishful investors rich very quick and poor even quicker, value investing will quietly continue to help its adherents fatten their wallets. It will always endure and will always remain classically in fashion. In other words, value investing is vintage. Which explains half of this website’s name. As for the value part? The intention of this site is to explain, discuss, ask, learn, teach, and debate those topics and questions that I’ve always been most interested in, and hopefully that you’re most curious about, too. This includes: What is value investing? Value investing strategies Stock picks Company reviews Basic financial concepts Investor profiles Investment ideas Current events Economics Behavioral finance And, ultimately, ways to become a better investor I want to note the importance of the way I use value here. It’s not the simplistic definition of “low P/E” stocks that some financial services lazily use to classify investors, which the word “value” has recently morphed into meaning. To me, value investing equates to the term “Intelligent Investing,” as described by Ben Graham. Intelligent investing involves analyzing a company’s fundamentals and can be characterized by an intense focus on a stock’s price, it’s intrinsic value, and the very important ratio between the two. This is value investing as the term was originally meant to be used decades ago, and is the only way it should be used today. So without much further ado, it’s my very good honor to meet you and you may call me…