|
A commentator characterized the year 2003 as an investors' "flight to garbage." Indeed,
some assets perceived to be of lower quality, such as Ecuadorian and Brazilian
debts, Argentinean and Venezuelan stocks, as well as money-losing high-tech
companies, enjoyed huge price gains in 2003.
In fact, 2003 will enter the financial history books as the year in which
all asset classes - including equities in developed as well as emerging markets,
government as well as any kind of corporate bonds, industrial commodities,
precious metals, real estate, and art - increased in value.
That is, of course, with the exception of the U.S. dollar, which slumped not
only against gold (mentioned here as a currency, whose supply cannot be increased
ad infinitum by some intellectually dishonest central bankers), the euro, and
the currencies of the resource-based developed economies of Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada, but also against the currencies of more "controversial" economies
such as Brazil and South Africa.
As a result of the slumping U.S. dollar, the performance of U.S. equities
in 2003 was nowhere near as "fantastic" as the media have suggested. It is
true that, in U.S. dollar terms, the Dow Jones Industrial and the S&P 500 rose
in 2003 by 25% and 26%, respectively; but in Euro terms, these gains were just
4% and 5%. Admittedly, the Nasdaq, and especially the Philadelphia Semiconductor
Index (SOX), did better, rising by 50% and 76%, respectively, in terms of the
U.S. dollar and by 25% and 46%, respectively, in Euro terms, but this was hardly
a match for the emerging market gains (in U.S. dollars) of 138% in Thailand,
131% in Brazil, 119% in Venezuela, and 104% in Argentina.
Moreover, if we look at the performance of the Nasdaq since the Euro bottomed
out in October 2000 at 82.27, the recent rise appears to be more muted in a
longer-term context than the bullish camp is trying to convey to the "dollar
weakness unconscious" investment community.
When asked about the performance of President Bush over 2003, the elderly
but jovial Jewish taxi driver who took me to John F. Kennedy Airport in New
York following the yearly Barron's roundtable exclaimed enthusiastically that
Bush was the "greatest American president ever."
Taken somewhat aback by this firm and unshakable support for the present U.S.
government, and at the same time concerned that I might be offloaded somewhere
in an alley on my way to the airport if I said anything wrong, I hesitantly,
and as diplomatically as possible, asked my driver, who proved to be smart
and honest, why he felt so positive about Mr. Bush's administration. "Bush
doesn't take any BS from anyone in the world," he replied. "And look at the
stock market... it's up!"
Fearing a confrontation, and concerned about missing my flight, I remarked
in a conciliatory way that the dollar had declined in value, concurrently with
the stock market's rise, thereby largely neutralizing - currency adjusted -
any stock market gain. But this stock market gain/dollar weakness issue didn't
seem to strike a chord with my driver, whose only concern seemed to be to enjoy
additional price gains on his home and his stock portfolio in U.S. dollar terms.
After checking in at the airport, I reflected further on my driver's views,
which I initially considered to be rather naive. But then it struck me that
the entire global investment community has been seduced by strong economic
indicators (published by governments, we must remember, which have a political
agenda) and easy monetary policies into believing that all asset classes will
continue to appreciate in 2004.
The commodity bulls believe that we are at the beginning of a long-term secular
bull market for raw materials and precious metals, while the stock bulls believe
that the rise since October 2002 is the first leg in a multi-year stock bull
market. Home buyers believe that the housing industry will continue to thrive
and expand and never again be a cyclical industry in the way it has always
been, and at the same time the "deflationists" remain convinced that deflation
will lead to a resumption of the bond bull market. So, wherever you go and
to whomever you speak, everybody around the world is very optimistic about
some asset class or some kind of "very special situation."
In addition, every investor you speak with is convinced that he is savvier
and smarter than the public, and that he will know, just minutes before it
turns down, when to get out of his favorite market, stock or commodity! In
other words, every investor seems to be suffering from the massive delusion
that he is an above-average investor who will be able to "beat the crowd."
Yet it should be clear to any rational thinker that commodities, and especially
the precious metals, cannot forever rise in price while at the same time interest
rates decline and bonds continue to appreciate. At some point, continuously
rising commodity prices must lead to higher inflation rates and depress bond
- and probably also equity - prices. Conversely, bond prices can only continue
to rise if global economic growth disappoints and deflationary forces reassert
themselves.
The year 2003 was unusual in as far as all asset classes rose in price - that
is, with the exception of the U.S. dollar. In 2004, we expect asset markets
again to show diverging performances, as has always been the case in the past,
because every major up-trend in one asset class was also simultaneously accompanied
by a major bear market in another asset class. Take the 1970s: commodity prices
including precious metals and oil rose more than 20-fold in price, but bonds
and the US dollar collapsed and equities performed miserably. Or look at the
1980s. Japanese stocks went through the roof, but commodities collapsed. Finally,
in the 1990s, we had huge bull markets in the stock markets of the western
industrialized countries, but devastating bear markets in Japan and, after
1997, in Asia. I wish to emphasize that the simultaneous occurrence of bear
markets in one asset class while another one is in a steep up-trend, is a very
important insight into the long term behavior of investment markets. A "Win
Win" type of environment such as we had in 2003, when every investment market
moved up is exceptional and totally a-typical.
So, what kind of investment markets should we expect in 2004? In my opinion,
the surprise of 2004 could be renewed economic weakness in the US and a weakening
of the torrid industrial production and investment growth in China, which would
be temporarily negative for commodity prices and likely also for extended stock
markets (developed and, especially, emerging markets) and sectors, which in
2003 performed superbly, such as US home builders and semiconductors. On weakness,
I would, however, accumulate oil and oil servicing stocks, as the fundamentals
of the oil market look very promising. My friend, Barry Bannister of Legg Mason
in Baltimore has produced the following figure, which shows how oil demand
increases as countries industrialize.
As can be seen oil demand per capita rose during Japan and Korea's phases
of industrialization from 1 barrel per capita to 17 barrels per capita. And,
while I do not expect the same to necessarily happen in China, oil consumption,
not only in China, but throughout the emerging economies of Asia is likely
to double from 20 million barrels per day, today, to around 35 to 50 million
barrels over the next six to 10 years. That such an increase in demand on a
total current global crude oil production of daily 78 million barrels will
drive prices in the long-term higher should be clear. I would also add, that
the necessity of China to secure reliable oil supplies, which cannot be interrupted
by the US, will add to international geopolitical tensions, and could put some
day pressure on equity markets. Don't forget that one of the main reasons the
Japanese entered the Second World War was the drive to secure its supplies
of oil and other resources.
Lastly, the U.S. dollar has become very oversold and sentiment is as negative
about the U.S. dollar as it is positive about the U.S. stock market. Time for
a contrarian to take the other side of the trade - that is, long U.S. dollars
and short the U.S. stock market???
|