Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 410

Grantham interview on the coming day of reckoning

Jeremy Grantham co-founded GMO in 1997 and is a member of its Asset Allocation team, serving as the long-term investment strategist. He was interviewed by Kunal Kapoor, CEO of Morningstar, at the Morningstar Investor Conference Australia on 2 June 2021. We previously featured Grantham’s pessimistic outlook on the market in ‘Waiting for the Last Dance’.

 

JG: Having high-priced assets is great for retirees and old folks like me, for selling off my assets, but for everybody else, it means you compound your wealth more slowly. And if you don't have any wealth, you pay twice what your parents paid for a house, you pay twice for a portfolio in the sense that you get half the yield. It's a fairly miserable world so I welcome lower asset prices which I'm confident will come from these very high prices, even a modest retracement back towards the last 100-year average. If it went back halfway, there's a major bear market.

And the other thing we have to watch is, if you're going to have a bubbling market, make sure you only do it in one major asset class. Don't pull a Japan. Japan had the biggest bubble in history in land and real estate, bigger than the South Sea Bubble in my opinion. It also had the biggest equity bubble of any advanced country. Pulling two at the same time means 32 years later, their land is not back to where it was in 1989, and the stock market is not back in nominal dollars to where it was in 1980.

And that's a perfect example as the higher you go, the longer and greater the fall. Japan had never sold at over 25 times earnings before and at the time, it was 65 times. That's a pretty hefty new high, from 25 to 65.

And the same in 2000. We had never sold over 21 times earnings and then the tech bubble took us to 35 and 10 years later, we were selling at a lower price. And that's how it works. You can't get blood out of a stone. You can have a high-priced asset or a high-yielding asset, but you can’t have both at the same time.

KK: What do you think some of the triggers might be that could lead to this reassessment of the valuation of different asset classes?

JG: Well, they're still arguing about what caused the 1929 crash. We have not been good at identifying causes and it may be because there is no traditional pin to pop the bubble. The market hits its all-time high when optimism is at an absolute peak. And the following day, is the second-most optimistic day in history, but it's a shade less optimistic than it was yesterday, and the price begins to fall a little bit.

It won't take bad news, it won't take a thoroughly bad economy. It will take a perfectly good economy and perfectly optimistic outlook, but a little less than it used to be a week ago, a month ago. And in 2000, we saw the really optimistic crazies, the pet.coms, peel off in March of 2000. The rest of the market shrugged them off as crazies and the market kept rising, and then they peel through the growth stocks and finally they shot Cisco which for eight seconds was the biggest company in the world by market cap.

By September, the 30% of the market that had been growth was down 50% but the S&P was unchanged. The rest of the market had continued to rise by 15%, and then the termites, the optimism termites or the pessimism termites, would be a better description, finally got to the balance of the market and the whole 70% rolled over and dropped 50% in two years.

What do we see this time? The super crazies are anything to do with electrification, EV for sure. Tesla is the king of that route, and the SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) and the intersection whether EVs or batteries and so on. It was perhaps the most outstanding degree of enthusiasm and the SPAC index is down 30%.

KK: So amidst that big picture where we're in a unique time with unique asset prices, interest rates low, debt high, debates around whether inflation is going to be real or not, are there any pockets that you think are interesting from an asset class perspective? Where you think people can earn a decent return, or do you feel you're going to have to just be defensive for a long time?

JG: It's closer to that. 2000 was brilliant, though. Bonds were incredibly cheap, TIPS (inflation-linked bonds) yielded 4%, real estate sold below replacement costs. You don't want to pull a Japan, and we tried to in 2008. We had a genuine housing bubble in America, a three sigma, one-in-100-year event, and it sucked the equity market with it. The housing market went all the way back to trend line and it took the S&P down 50% with it.

And those two combined packed a much bigger punch to the economy than had the tech bubble in 2000. And 2008 also had oil and commodities spiking in 2007 so they inflicted quite a lot of pain on consumer income and that made the recession even worse. This time, real estate is suddenly pretty bubbly in almost every interesting market in the world. I have to say, notably including Sydney, but also Vancouver, London, Paris, New York, San Francisco all over, and our housing market is up 15% in the last year. You can't have an asset class like housing, where the house doesn't change and you're just marking it up in real terms, year after year. Eventually, there'll be a day of reckoning.

And remember, the higher the multiple of family income, the longer and the bigger the pain is likely to be based on Japan and on the US. So real estate almost everywhere on the planet has doubled in price and halved in yield. The bond market, as Jim Grant would say, is the highest in the history of man. We have records going back to the Babylonians, and there's never been these kinds of negative real rates. And then it comes to equities, where it isn't so much global as the US.

The developed world is merely overpriced, no big deal on its own, but the US is heroically overpriced and emerging markets is actually fairly cheap. Then within the structure of equities, value managers have had a brutal 11 years. It was the worst 10 years in history for value versus growth, and then last year was by far the worst single year. Value is certainly as cheap as it has ever been against growth, and there are signs over the last few months that it has shifted.

If you look at the intersection of these two ideas, emerging markets and value, I have complete confidence that if you bought the intersection - cheap emerging market stocks - then you would get a perfectly handsome 10- or 20-year return. And I am pretty darn confident that you will not get a handsome 10-year return from say the S&P 500 or NASDAQ. NASDAQ peaked two months ago, and is now up 5% versus the S&P’s 12%.

Remember, it has a higher beta. When high beta stocks start to underperform, you want to watch out. In 1929, the flaky, junky high beta stocks underperformed the whole year so badly that they were down year-to-date the day before the crash. They did the same in the Nifty50 era of 1972. The S&P was up 17% while the average big board stock was minus 17, nice symmetry. And then in 2000, as I said, all the growth stocks went down, and the rest of the market went up for eight months. And this time, my guess is the super SPACs peaked in January, the NASDAQ peaked in February, and maybe in a few months, the termites will get into the rest of the market.

KK: I want to ask you a simple question around the surge in commodity prices where any significant commodity is at multi-year highs. What's your view and what's going on and is it sustainable? Obviously for investors in Australia, it's a very important topic.

JG: I think there was a paradigm shift. We had gone from 100 years of irregularly falling prices, yes, they go up in World War One and World War Two and the oil crisis, but in between they kept coming down. So over 100 years, they lost 70% of their real value. Then from 2000 to 2008 and then in 2011, prices bounced up without anyone getting too excited, mainly due to China. That created a new era where we've kind of entered the end game, where instead of prices routinely falling in the long term, some will rise, some will fall, some will be flat, and you just have to get used to the fact that it’s not a tailwind (for the economy) any longer.

There is no way copper will not rise hugely from here because of the electrification of everything. And that goes for cobalt, that goes for lithium, and all of the metals except iron and aluminium are really scarce. We’ve done a pretty good job over 200 years of mining out the really high-grade ores everywhere. There's a lot of aluminium, there's a lot of iron ore, you may have squeezes like we have today from time to time but in the end, there's plenty, but everything else is really, really scarce.

You have to be reconciled in the long run for a different world of commodity prices, but what that means for the next two years, I leave to other people.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

KK: A lot of what you've been laying out (in the past about climate change) obviously makes sense if you're overseeing a large pool of money and you're allocating assets and you have access to all kinds of information and data that allows you to make some of these decisions. What do you think an effective decision making and implementation framework might be for a financial adviser or an individual investor who's starting to think about these issues? If they want to make a shift in their portfolios to reflect valuations and climate change and some of its effects. How can folks individually start to make a difference?

JG: They can make a difference by buying climate change funds. I'm happy to say GMO has a pretty good one. ESG funds, where many reputable firms have them, that would make a difference. It would be good if we had a better rating on all the funds voting records to see how green they are.

Let me just say a word about the Grantham Foundation because we have a completely different investment approach. We decided that American capitalism seems to be past its prime, a little fat and happy, not aggressive enough. There's only half the number of people working for firms one- and two-years-old as there were in 1975. So we're losing some of our dynamism, but there is one thing where the US is still exceptional and that is venture capital. Venture capital is really attracting the best people these days, they don't go to Goldman Sachs to write algorithms, they go into venture capital or to start a new firm.

Venture capital is not like private equity. It's not institutional investing. In the end, we have to admit we're playing a cosmic poker game. We (GMO) are trying to beat the other players, and it's fun, but we're not really creating value. Venture capital is, we're causing firms to exist that otherwise would not exist. We're raising money for them, and in some cases, some of us are giving good advice to them. But America does that very well and we decided in our Foundation to go for broke. We are aiming to put 70% of everything we have into early-stage VC, of which half is in green early-stage VC, and we have our own team doing that. Thoroughly exciting Boston is a great place to do that, we started more new ventures last year than San Francisco.

It's just amazing what new technologies are out there. Microbes that will sequester nitrogen in the ground. Batteries that will last twice as long and weigh half as much and won't burst into flames. The list is completely endless. And the challenge is endless, so this is going to be where all the opportunities are.

The FANG-type companies are what separates the US stock market from the rest of the world, and not so much the P/E as the earnings. Most of the outperformance of the US market in the last 10 years has come from extra earnings, and over 80% of those extra earnings have come from this handful of FANGs. They have sprung out of the venture capital industry. They are a classic demonstration of that pool of venture capital 20 to 50 years ago, these are some of the winners that have become global giants, bone crushing in their competence and competitive spirit. And I think that that will continue, and it will be a true advantage for the American system.

 

This is an edited transcript by Graham Hand, Managing Editor of Firstlinks. A full transcript and video of the interview will be added as soon as it is available. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. 

 

 

13 Comments
Chris
June 14, 2021

Respectfully, I've heard this kind of talk over and over from Jeremy (and others), and so far, it has not come to fruition. In the old days, there used to be a "sandwich board man" on London's Oxford Street, and it read "The End is Nigh". It was a standing joke. This is the same.

Harry
June 14, 2021

I liked the Interview but liked all the financial wisdom in the comments below more.

peter
June 08, 2021

Sadly I find this interview to be of no value. More money is lost waiting for the next crash than the crash itself, all these bear/pessimistic forecasts over the past decade have lead to mediocre return and I'm sure he will be right some time ... I mean, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Risking 70% of money in VCs? 

Paul G Tynan CFP
June 08, 2021

With all due respect, after 30 years of advising, I stopped listening to the funds managers.
They say what they say and do what they do because they need your client's funds. The whole system is broken and completely difficult to read, particularly the US markets. What do you do with a market where $5-7 trillion dollars of new money goes into the economy courtesy of panicked Governments? $60-70 trillion in debt?

What about the next form of pandemic? In Australia, we have no reserves. China sends a shot across the bow of a friendly country's warships or decides to 'liberate' Taiwan or scour Hong Kong 'clean' of non-Chinese influence. We are so vulnerable as a world economy. Nothing normal is going on.

The end of 'real growth' has begun. Growth should not be expected. Asset values should see a steady deflation or stagnation of prices to bring net cashflow (returns) back to 'sustainable' returns. Give be dirt, sunshine, water and some tools. Go back to the beginning. This experiment in price speculation didn't work.

GG
June 07, 2021

'We can have a high-priced asset or a high-yielding asset, but not both.' If you bought in at the right price you can.

Trevor
June 06, 2021

Jeremy Grantham : Quote :
"It's just amazing what new technologies are out there. Microbes that will sequester nitrogen in the ground."
Really ? Where has he been for most of his life ? Certainly NOT near a library or a garden or a farm !
"How Legumes 'Fix' Nitrogen in Your Soil:
Legumes (peas, vetches, clovers, beans and others) grow in a symbiotic relationship with soil-dwelling bacteria.
The bacteria take gaseous nitrogen from the air in the soil and feed this nitrogen to the legumes; in exchange the plant provides carbohydrates to the bacteria. This is why legume cover crops are said to "fix" or provide a certain amount of nitrogen when they are turned under for the next crop or used for compost."
.
I , like others who have commented , would NOT risk my "hard earned" to his "tender mercies" thanks very much !
YOUR WARNING IS APPRECIATED !

Chris
June 14, 2021

Agreed. Obviously Fritz Haber should have just used microbes to harvest nitrogen, rather than by fractional distillation.

Peter
June 04, 2021

Interesting interview.

If you can answer the question why millions of people put money into slot machines everyday, despite the fact that they will lose everything over time, then you have the answer as to why people will create bubbles in an asset class, like equities.

JG is essentially saying the "wisdom of the crowd" isn't always wisdom.

Scott
June 04, 2021

JG's Statement below:
"We are aiming to put 70% of everything we have into early-stage VC".........Jeremy Grantham

This statement implies a strategy of following the crowd into a very high risk asset class.
This asset class was decimated after the tech wreck.
Investing in VC is cool, but you have to look at your own risk profile (in JG's case, its Other Peoples Money!).

Scott
June 03, 2021

I would'nt put 70% of everything into VC.
10% maybe, as that is what I can afford to lose.
If you can afford to lose 70% of other peoples money, go for it!
Finding the next FANGG stock at VC stage is like walking into a casino and putting a dollar in a slot machine that pays you back $1Million.
I like Ark_ Invest approach to investing in cutting edge sectors/companies that have some sort of track record.
I see the Aussie stock market as value and at some point in the next 18 months, global liquidity will find its way here and push the All Ords up to 8,500-9-000 pts. If you are waiting for a significant correction, it may not happen.
House prices in Australia are simply a byproduct of the price of money. The variable rate was 12.5% when I bought a house, Now its 2%.




Steve
June 03, 2021

Mr. Grantham looks older and wiser and speaks with clearly and with authority, and oh . . . that glare!

But when does a perma-bear become simply a perma-wrong?

I have heard this warning from him for 20 years now.

C'mon already.

DD
June 03, 2021

This is a real head scratcher.
How long has he been bearish and how long has he been wrong? These high level views are largely missing the micro picture of what is changing in business. When "fundamental" investors start rambling about macro issues and valuation . . . . that is typically a warning sign.

Also, did anyone pick up the double talk? Trashing tech and growth stocks . . . but then putting all his money in early stage innovation (read: tech) companies and talking about how they change the world?!?! Yes, the world of business is changing . . . but not in your emerging market bank (value) investments.

Joey
June 03, 2021

You have to hand it to the Americans when it comes to taking risk and backing young talent, and even with the rise of Asian companies, most great global business are still American even after the decline of the Exxons and Fords. Think Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, Apple, Starbucks ... the VC system and willingness to take risk is impressive.

 

Leave a Comment:

     
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.