Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 10, 2002 / 26 Teves, 5762

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

What goes down...

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com --
DURING a particularly long drench, someone asked Mark Twain whether he thought it would ever stop raining. "Always has," he replied.

The same with the stock market. It rains, but the sun comes out again. Stocks fall, but they always recover to a higher level.

Still, it could keep raining for decades, and no one knows for certain what's ahead for the stock market in the next year. But we can make an educated guess, just like Mark Twain, by examining history. The past may be an imperfect guide to the future, but it provides the best source material we'll ever find.

For 2002, the relevant message from history is that it is extremely rare for stocks to perform poorly for long periods. And it's no secret that stocks have been lousy lately. All of the major market averages have dropped for each of the past two years. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, the benchmark used by most money managers, declined 9 percent in 2000 and 12 percent last year (all these figures account for dividends); the tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index fell 39 percent in 2000 and 21 percent in 2001; the Lipper international mutual fund index dropped 15 percent in 2000 and 20 percent in 2001; and the Dow Jones industrial average, which includes 30 large, stable companies, fell 5 percent in both 2000 and 2001.

It is reasonable to conclude that, if the market follows its established behavior, it should rise substantially in 2002.

I am not a believer in numerology, but the trend is powerful. Almost always, when the S&P falls during a calendar year, it bounces back the year after. From 1941 to 1999, the S&P fell in 12 years, and in 11 of those cases the S&P rose in the following year -- by an average of 24 percent.

The single exception to this rule (until last year, that is) occurred in 1973 and 1974, when the 500 large-company U.S. stocks that make up the S&P suffered back-to-back losses during a terrible time that featured a war in the Middle East, the resignation of a president, and an economy that suffered simultaneous recession and inflation. Stocks lost 37 percent of their value. But over the following two years they roared back with a vengeance, gaining 70 percent.

In other words, to believe that stocks will be rotten again in 2002 is to believe they will buck a strong tide that has been running in the same direction for more than 60 years. Go back further. After the Great Crash, stocks fell four straight years, 1929 to 1932, for a total loss of 64 percent. But that was a time of terrible economic mismanagement, trade wars and 25 percent unemployment. At any rate, over the following four years, stocks tripled in value, recouping the loss and then some. The S&P dropped in each of the three years leading up to World War II (1939-1941), but that decline was more modest -- 21 percent in all. Over the following four years, the S&P returned 146 percent.

Okay, enough numbers. The point is this: Like a buoyant lifesaver or a rubber duckie, the stock market usually doesn't stay under water very long. Forces that seem almost elemental push it back to the surface. Those forces are economic. In other words, the reason that stocks tend to bounce back is not because of the metaphysics of market cycles but because of the resilience of the U.S. economy.

Stock prices and economic growth are linked for a simple reason: A stock's price is determined by expectations of future profits, and, if the economy is bad, profits are bad.

Between World War II and the end of the millennium, the U.S. suffered nine recessions. (A recession is typically defined as occurring when output declines for two straight quarters.) The average recession lasted 11 months; the longest, 16 months. Often, booms create busts -- usually because investors, businesses and policymakers get sloppy in their euphoria and because the inflation that usually accompanies a boom prompts the Federal Reserve to crack down with higher interest rates. But busts also create booms -- as policymakers wise up, businesses pare back their excesses, investors send their capital to truly deserving ventures and interest rates fall.

You don't really need to know the precise reasons or the exact timing. Only know this: The U.S. economy bounces back. During the 1930s and the 1970s, the process took a particularly long time, moving in fits and starts, and if you think the current period bears a strong relationship to those eras, then you should be wary of stocks. You should also be wary if you think that vulnerability to a new kind of terrorism will scare consumers, add severe costs for businesses and governments, and spook investors.

I think that, while these concerns exist, they are outweighed by the economy's proven strength in past wars and crises -- though I understand that the very short term is utterly unpredictable, and stocks could fall before they rise again.

Few analysts believe the United States will relive the Depression, but they raise the 1970s -- specifically, the period from 1973 to 1979 -- as a warning to investors. If you had put $1,000 into the S&P 500 stocks on Jan. 1, 1973, you would have been left with just $691 in purchasing power by the end of the decade. A nightmare. But inflation rose at an annual rate of 9 percent during those years. Ask yourself whether the Fed will ever again allow it to get so far out of control.

Anyway, what was the alternative in the 1970s? An investment of $1,000 in Treasury bonds at the start of 1973 declined to $707 in purchasing power by the end of 1979. And while bonds did beat stocks by a little, how would you know that the end of the 1970s was a good time to switch back to stocks? During the following two years, stocks rose while bonds fell 20 percent.

The point is that there is no need to obsess over what the economy will do next. As long as you can ride out the storms, the stock market is always the best place for your long-term money. According to the Chicago research firm Ibbotson Associates, while the S&P declined in 22 of the 76 years between 1926 and 2001, it fell in only two of the 65 overlapping 10-year periods between those dates. And stocks beat bonds and Treasury bills in every one of the overlapping 20-year periods since 1926 (1926-1946, 1927-1947, etc.).

Don't bother trying to time the market, jumping in and out when you think it's about to turn up or down. Stocks tend to rise when investors least expect it. Who could have guessed that the Nasdaq index would soar by nearly one-half from its low just after Sept. 11 to the first few days of 2002? Or that the Dow would climb by nearly one-third?

In fact, the most troubling aspect of this economic downturn (and the bear market that began in the spring of 2000) is that so many analysts are convinced it's over. Optimism is a poor backdrop for a recovery. As James Grant wrote recently in his newsletter, "Almost nobody saw the recession coming, but multitudes believe they see it going."

Also bothersome are traditional indicators of valuation -- especially price-to-earnings (P/E) ratios, which tell investors how many dollars it takes to buy a dollar of a company's profits. At year-end, the P/E for the S&P 500 was a whopping 41 -- nearly three times the historic average. A few months ago, H. Bradlee Perry, a veteran analyst for David L. Babson & Co., in Cambridge, Mass., wrote to clients: "This bear market shows one dramatic difference from all of its predecessors since 1950: most high-quality stocks have not been driven down to anywhere near cheap valuation levels."

In 1974, for example, the S&P fell to a P/E of 6 (!) when it hit bottom; in 1982, to 7. Today's S&P is probably distorted by huge, one-time write-offs, but even after adjustments, it's almost certainly higher than 20.

So here's a paradox: The history of the market as a whole shows one thing (that stocks should rebound sharply) while the history of P/E ratios shows something else (that they haven't reached bottom yet).

History does not repeat itself in every detail. If it did, the United States would still be an English colony. Things change. From the early 1930s to the late 1950s, for example, it was an ironclad rule that stocks had to pay dividends that were higher than Treasury-bond interest rates. If stocks did not, then they were surely overpriced. But in 1958, stock prices surged 43 percent, and suddenly bonds were yielding more than stocks. Time to dump your shares? That would not have been wise. Over the next 10 years, the S&P rose 159 percent. And since 1958, stock dividends have never exceeded bond rates.

What's changed this time? Investors, it seems, have become more comfortable with risk and more oriented toward the long term. As a result, they seem to be willing to tolerate higher P/E ratios (and higher stock prices) because they understand that stocks are a better deal than bonds. (By the way, this is the idea that economist Kevin Hassett and I developed in our 1999 book, "Dow 36,000.")

You may disagree, believing with Perry that, even if the economy is on the verge of recovery, "the next big party for investors may be quite a ways off." Still, the way to assuage your worries about P/E ratios is not to eschew stocks entirely but to direct a larger part of your portfolio toward value -- cheaper, unwanted companies.

Robert C. Carlson, who chairs the Fairfax County Employees' Retirement System and edits the excellent Retirement Watch newsletter, recently told subscribers, "While I'm optimistic that the economy is nearing a bottom, I want to be cautious with our portfolios a little longer." He recommends "conservative value-stock funds" -- specifically, Dodge & Cox Stock, Longleaf Partners and Schroder U.S. Smaller Companies. Last year, the average growth-stock mutual fund fell 17 percent, but Carlson's three funds all rose: Dodge & Cox by 10 percent; Longleaf, 11 percent; and Schroder, 12 percent.

Will they keep rising? That's a question no one can answer. My guess is the market is poised to rise sharply this year, but hedging that bet with value stocks may be a prudent maneuver -- like keeping an umbrella with you just in case it keeps raining for a third year.


JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.

Up

01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the Amazon.com
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2002, Tech Central Station