Folks, we're in a recession right now. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, this may not be a recession according to the dictionary definition of the word; still, if you ask the question from a common sense perspective, the answer is painfully clear. During a recession, unemployment generally rises, production slows, spending declines — in short, the happy times slow down and the bad times gain steam.
Through our investing, we can combat the recession, achieve growth, and keep our heads above water (or fly high). To help us in that endeavor, we must understand the effects of the recession so that we pick the opportunities out of the blood on the streets.
A recession (or worse, a depression) are periods during which the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a nation declines for a sustained period (at least two quarters). The formula to calculate GDP is fairly simple:
| Consumer Spending |
| + Gross Capital Investment (e.g., purchasing machinery, building a factory) |
| + Trade Surplus (Deficit) |
| + Government Spending (excluding social security payments, tax rebates, etc.) |
| Gross Domestic Product |
Let's take a rational approach to each to see if things will get worse or if we've hit the bottom.
We know that consumer spending has slowed. We know that it is highly likely to continue slowing, especially as inflation rises and prices get out of control. On CNBC the other night, one interviewee said something to this effect: The consumer may not understand the rate cut entirely, but he sees it as a sign that things are getting better and he's going to feel better about spending.
Bull.
The reality is that the consumer doesn't even know the rates were cut. The small minority of us that watch the markets and control our own investing (and have a passion for it) know exactly where the fed rate is and that there have been numerous cuts. Regular Joe American doesn't give a damn. He's spending more than he's saving; his credit card interest rates have not budged (or have risen); prices both at and away from the pump are on the rise; he's earning spit on his savings account.
Do you think Regular Joe American cares about the rate cut?
The psychological effect of a rate cut (outside of Wall Street) is nothing compared to the psychological effect of the news. Foreclosures. Rising gas prices. Inflation.
My paycheck isn't cutting it anymore. I really have to tighten my belt. The Fed cut rates again? Great! So why am I paying $4 at the pump? Why can't I refinance right now? I'm barely keeping my head above water.
From a rational perspective, consumer spending is likely to slow some more. Keep in mind: The doom and gloom in the economy has only been in the news for a few months. As that continues to settle in, consumer spending will likely slow more.
(Not sure? Ask any "regular" person that is not in tune with Wall Street.)
When we export more than we import, we add to our GDP. When we import more than we export, we run at a negative. It's much like personal spending — spend more than you make, and you go into debt. Do it for too long, and you'll eventually have to downsize. Personally that's called "bankruptcy"; in the economy, that's known as a recession.
It's painfully simple.
We're not talking about Regular Joe socking $50 a month into his IRA. Gross Capital Investment is investment in goods that are not consumed, but used for future production. As business investors, we generally understand this as "Capital Expenditures" — investments in plants, property, and equipment that can be used for future production.
The more we import and the less we export, the more we can expect Investment to fall. If consumer spending keeps slowing, there won't be a need for as much production. (Yes, it's a slippery slope.) If our exports are strong, Investment can hold up because we can continue to make those Investments and ship the goods overseas.
Government Spending is a combination of Consumer Spending and Investment, only it's done by the government. If the government is making capital investments or spending money on consumables, that's generally good for the numbers. Why? In an economy like the US, the government is usually spending that money with US companies that will, in turn, make more Investments and create jobs, thereby increasing wages and allowing Consumer Spending to go up.
(Getting the feeling they're all tied together? You are absolutely right!)
The solution is well beyond the scope of this discussion; still, you should take away one simple lesson: Get ready to feel some pain.
There is no "one" solution. The stars have to align right — a balance must be made between all of the above. With inflation on the rise (and I expect it to continue for a while, and then stay high for a while), there is money to be made in certain opportunities. Here's a short list — a starting point:
(Note: For 3, 4, and 5 — that's why Wal-Mart looked so attractive in August of 2007. So long as it is perceived as or remains the place to go for the best price on 3, 4, and 5, it will dominate.)
By now you know that I'm not a bear or a bull, but a realist. I'm not saying we've hit the bottom; I'm not saying we haven't. What I am saying is this: We are presently on a course that will lead us to higher inflation. There will be opportunities along the way, just as there were during and after every recession and depression.
And now you have an idea of where to look.
Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!
Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.
| Excel 2007 | | | Excel 2003 |
| (ZIP, 168kb) | (ZIP, 138kb) |
Sun @ 11:09AM | View comment
Eric T said,
Instead of inventory turnover, I use the cash conversion cycle, or CCC.It is more accurate for companies that manufacture and...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sun @ 5:48AM | View comment
Diversification said,
well it all depends on the correlation between the stocks you have choosen many big mutual funds are having the...
The Dangers Of Overdiversification
Sun @ 4:46AM | View comment
sandesh trivedi said,
Very well explained joe. i believe one must also take into account the nature of the product being manufactured while...
Understanding the True Profit Margin
Sat @ 10:19AM | View comment
Ron said,
Hi Joe,Is there a rule of thumb of percentage of net shares sold by insiders where we should start to...
When To Watch Out For Insider Selling
Sat @ 10:18AM | View comment
jan said,
joe, any thoughts on jackson hewitt? what were the risks that played out in your mind when you decided...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Fri @ 3:20PM | View comment
Joe Ponzio said,
If you don't have the CRB Commodities Index book and software (issued each year for a few hundred bucks), your...
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Jmoney
Mar 19th, 2008
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Glenn
Mar 19th, 2008
13 comments
Can you give us your thoughts on the following:
1. How do precious metals (Gold, Silver, etc) fit into your recession picture and whether we should be considering either direct investment into bullion or other holding options (ETF's, etc).
2. With recession gripping the economy, inflation on the rise, the US dollar falling, should we be considering investments into foreign currencies or stick with strong US based companies?
Glenn
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Rene
Mar 19th, 2008
All these actions would create jobs now and make us more competitive in the future. If I had any faith in our government, I'd be investing in infrastructure companies and alt energy. So far the only American company I feel comfortable with is AMAT. After that it's all Brazil and Mexico for me although I have had an eye on a couple of American R.E.I.T.s. and a few companies like Pfizer and Corning and Bank of America.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Steve
Mar 19th, 2008
"Wall Street is the only place that people ride to work in a Rolls Royce to get advice from those who take the subway."
Why doesn't an investment adviser need a job in the first place? They should be able to make enough money on their own "good" recommendations.
Startup capital shouldn't be the problem, I believe Buffett started with $100,000 borrowed from family, friends, and investors.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Mar 19th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Glenn: (1) I've never been a fan of precious metals simply because they don't do anything. They are merely price driven. (This wasn't the case when our currency was backed by a gold standard, at which time gold was a great hedge against inflation.) Is there money to be made there? Maybe, but I don't know how to judge if gold at $1,000 is a steal or overpriced.
(2) I think pure currency plays are best over a multiple-year timeframe. That said, I'd look for great businesses that are somewhat shielded from inflation - either because they have pricing power, they have an inflation-shielded customer, or they do a significant amount of business outside of the US.
Rene: Open up our internal pipelines, force auto makers to bring back the electric car by 2010, and cut oil consumption/reliance by 80%. (It's a thought.)
Steve: When I used to give seminars at a local (major) company, I used to always say,
Don't tell the other advisers, but you don't need us. What we do is not brain surgery. People hire us because they don't have the time or desire to read hundreds of annual reports, analyze businesses, scour the news, etc. If you can or want to do it on your own, you should.
Unfortunately, there are a ton of investment "advisers" that don't know the first thing about investing - they're salespeople. You can thank Wall Street for that. Doing the right thing rarely pays as much as doing the profitable thing.That said, there are a number of investment advisers or financial planners that do provide a valuable service by offering help and guidance with tax and estate planning, insurance planning, budgeting, investing, etc. It's hard to sift through the good and the bad, but the good are out there.
Buffett was, for all intents and purposes, an "investment adviser" to a number of clients - his partnerships. Each of his investors could have gone at in on their own, but they felt that the 16% to 20% of their gains were worth the "advice" Buffett gave them (indirectly, through the discretionary investment management).
(As an aside, he started with $100,000, but continued to raise money until the last months of his partnerships.)
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Howard
Mar 19th, 2008
18 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Glenn
Mar 19th, 2008
13 comments
I totally agree with your statement regarding the valuation of gold. Every time I have a look at it I come away with the same sentiments ie. at $1000/oz I don't have any way to judge/measure/determine if it is going to $1500 or $500. For conversation sake, let us assume that we buy at $1000/oz. Across the table (or pond in this case) sits the Chinese government that has no better way to judge/measure/determine the price direction than I do, although their actions may influence the price somewhat. If they happen to dump a huge amount of gold onto the market at $1000/oz (believing future prices to be lower) it may be a signal to other gold investors to do the same (remembering nobody has a crystal ball regarding the price that an oz will bring tomorrow). Workouts and arbitrage appear to be somewhat less speculative.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Garrett
Mar 19th, 2008
4 comments
I don't know whether you or your readers have given any thought to what "Austrian Economics" (where the fiat money supply is key) has to say on the question of whether we are headed for "inflation" or not. (Per at least one commentator with a background in Austrian Economics -- Gary North -- the Federal Reserve is has been reducing the money supply since August 2007; a reduction that is deflationary not inflationary.)
If you're curious, check out this article (which makes a lot of sense to me):
http://www.lewrockwell.co...
Cheers.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Sujie
Mar 19th, 2008
1 comment
This is really a great blog, thanks for sharing all your knowledge with us. I have a general question in regards to the sectors you recommended to look at in times of recession ie: basic needs. Whilst it's true that these sectors will do well in times of recession, wouldn't most institutional investors switch into the sector precisely because of the reasons you mentioned and thus push the price of sector up? Wouldn't you have more chance of finding value in the solid companies in the discretionary goods sector.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Mar 19th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Glenn: I agree - workouts allow us to invest with much more information and a clearly defined entry and exit point.
Garrett: Interesting article, with two caveats: (1) what is the long-term effect of people investing in treasuries at 2.2% while inflation hangs at 3%, and (2) our problems may not be in full force yet (if they come) so they won't reflect in a short-term chart.
The answer to (1) is simple: A sustained negative savings rate and deeper credit problems, which will ultimately lead to...inflation.
As for (2), the chart seems to show that the monetary base has remained slightly steady. You know the saying: Past performance is not indicative of future results. The problems we face in the future (if they materialize) may not show up in a monetary base chart for some time.
Sujie: You are right. That's why it is so important to value businesses and try to buy at substantial discounts. I'm not talking about a blind asset allocation shift; rather, look for opportunities in these areas and other "recession-proof" places.
Don't worry about what the institutions are doing. If nothing else, Buffett has shown that the institutions have missed billions of dollars of opportunities over the years - opportunities he found by turning over rocks in every market.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Mike
Mar 19th, 2008
3 comments
What makes you think, "regular Joe American doesn't give a damn,"?
I know a lot of people who care and understand about rate changes - not very many of them know a lot about investing.
What evidence is there to prove otherwise?
Also about the trade deficit:
If a doctor spends more money paying for food at a restaurant then he does caring for the owner he technically has a 'deficit' with that restaurant. He doesn't owe them any money - he already paid it he just pays them more than they pay him.
Does this mean he will go bankrupt? Of course not, his other income most likely more than makes up for this defecit.
In the same way trade deficits with China and other countries are partially offset by trade surplusses with Australia.
Each country specializes in certain ares, in China labor is cheaper, and if American companies use that cheaper labor to price American products lower, US consumers are better off at the end, because they have more money left over after buying products.
Also, If the trade deficit is going to kill the American economy, why would say Montana's economy not be killed if it had a massive trade deficit with California? The same principle applies; if Montana imports more prodicts from California than it exports to it.
Finally, trade deficits can not stay negative forever: because US dollars are used to pay - regardless of when it is converted US comapnies sell their products for dollars in the US - for products or services outside of the country, those dollars must eventually come back into the US economy - they don't just disapear.
The 'falling economy' can be fixed with one solution: the Fair Tax <fairtax.org>
The Fair Tax eliminates all income, estate, capital gains, etc. taxes and replaces them with one sales tax.
Currently, an average of 22% of the price embedded in all goods and services comes from taxes different companies had to pay in the making of the product. Under the Fair Tax all of the embedded taxes will be stopped and a 23% sales tax added.
Prices may be artificially high for a while, but eventually competitive pressures will cause the price to fall back to around the current price - in other words all Americans will stop having to pay taxes by default and take home ALL the money they make and can choose when to pay taxes.
Studies have shown this method would also produce the same amount of tax revenue.
Without taxes Businesses could stop worrying about how taxes will affect their income and spend more time innovating and creating products that produce more revenue and allow them to hire more individuals.
Wealthy Americans could stop putting all their money into non-taxable accounts that doesn't allow their money to work and invest them in businesses which also improves the economy.
Finally, a monthly stipend is sent to all Americans to cover basic needs, so the poor would be positively affected as well.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Noah
Mar 20th, 2008
5 comments
Thanks again for the post. Always a joy!
I'm bit surprised that you seem to have a particular view on inflation. It's not so much that your view is one way or the other, it's just that you seem to have a pretty strong one. I think a sound case can be made for both views. An overly simplified outline of these often entail the following points:
On the inflationary front, you have high commodity prices, driven by:
1) low U.S. interest rates,
2) a weakening dollar (which, notably, is pegged to the Yuan and to many currencies of oil exporting countries),
3) strong demand from emerging markets, and
4) continued high utilization rates
Deflationistas and those who feel inflation is not an issue point to:
1) a similar housing and credit boom in Japan in the 1980's that's led to a decade and a half of below trend growth and declining prices,
2) a contained money supply - at least according to the crude data that is available - and
3) the tendency for commodity prices to decrease and utilization levels to drop as growth slows and demand slackens
I don't quite buy the Japan parallel and have a tilt towards the inflationary view, with inflation being sticky at its current elevated levels for the next year or two. After that, the risk is very much to the upside, particularly if interest rates stay this low (because the Fed's balance sheet will likely be completely sterilized by then).
Having said that, I feel that any macro call like this is marginally better than a coin flip at best. The real value comes - as you've alluded to - in understanding the risks that inflation can impose on an investment. Playing out these sorts of scenarios can help an investor find companies that have real pricing power.
Which brings me to a question that plays off of Sujie's post.
I've recently made an investment in a beat up Swiss consumer discretionary company whose products cater to the extremely affluent. This company has a number of wonderful characteristics that I won't get into at this point (given the already lengthy character of this post), but, from an inflationarily (sic) defensive perspective, <i>have you ever looked into the pricing power of ultra luxury goods during periods of economic weakness?</i>
And again, thanks for framing enjoyable discussions in a slick forum.
Take care,
Noah
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
edward
Mar 20th, 2008
9 comments
Lastly, with regards to Coach and Joe feel free to comment on this. I think they are just too tough to figure out as with most fashion retailers that have been overly popular. Can you tell me with confidence that the public will be buying Coach purses etc. 5 years from now as they were the past while? I think you really have to figure out normalized earnings and that is tough with fashion retailers....they should be thrown in the too tough to figure out pile. i.e. The Gap
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dan
Mar 20th, 2008
36 comments
Your $400/barrel and alt-energy infrastructure build scenario sounds exactly like what Eric Janszen (iTulip.com) is pushing for, as outlined in his Harper's interview.
http://www.harpers.org/ar...
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Mike
Mar 20th, 2008
3 comments
Warren Buffett isn't an economist he's simply a democrat in an election year.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
BlahBlah
Mar 20th, 2008
Does it really matter? Not to me...
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dave
Mar 22nd, 2008
14 comments
Next time you hear oil being blamed for the inflation ask yourself one question -- if oil is inflationary why hasn't the price of gold gotten weaker against oil? Oil is rising due to inflationary monetary and fiscal policies. Inflation: government printing money and expanding credit. Also, when the greedy oil companies are blamed by our politicians then ask yourself this question: big oil gets 10% from a barrel of oil, the government takes 17% from a barrel. Who is calling whom greedy? (Thanks to Thomas Sowell for that rhetorical question)
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Rene
Mar 22nd, 2008
Thanks for the link, that guy is right on. I've been cheering for high oil prices for a while now, since Americans seem to act only when extreme pain is inflicted. We need to get off this oil addiction, it's obvious the price will continue to go up, it ruins the environment and most important of all, it finances tyrants and terrorists. There is no single silver bullet, but all the alt energy techs should be thrown money at and forget the "market forces" crap, some things supersede ideological "purity".
Check out this guy:
http://energyvictory.net/...
Biodiesel, solar, wind, thermal, wave, nuclear, whatever, do it all. And Janszen is right on about needing to take this economy off the financial services dependence. John Boggle has been saying that for years. Of course, nobody listens.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Roger
Mar 24th, 2008
1 comment
It is about Modigliani and Miller's Propositions in financial economics and said that you can value a company by dcf or earnings and it is pretty much the same.
Can someone help clarify this for me?
Thank you,
Roger
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Mar 10th, 2010