Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 361

Why the stock market rallies cannot be justified

While there is a consensus amongst most economists that the impact of the upcoming recession will be worse than the GFC but not as severe as the depression of the 1930s, this has not been reflected in global equity markets.

In the US, from which most stock markets generally take their lead, the COVID-19 death toll has now passed 114,000 and is continuing to rise by a weekly average of about 1,000 deaths per day. In response to a flattening of the infections curve and the lifting of lockdowns, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has rallied 48% from its March lows and is now close to its all-time highs set in February this year.

While the rate of new infections has steadied in recent months and has not risen as social distancing restrictions are eased as yet, the US is still recording new cases averaging above 20,000 per day and recently passed two million in total.

In contrast, rates of infection continue to surge in Brazil, Russia and India. The highest number of worldwide daily cases recorded since the pandemic began was 130,511 on 4 June 2020 so on a global basis the virus is clearly not controlled.

Disconnect between company results and stock markets

Economically, US corporate profitability fell by over USD300 billion in the first quarter of 2020, the second-highest fall on record. Second quarter results are expected to be much worse. At the end of April the US market was trading at forward PE levels not seen since the dot com boom and has since exceeded these levels moving to a ratio of around 23.

Source: FactSet, Business Insider.

Credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s currently has a record number of 1,287 companies on negative watch or outlook for downgrade despite S&P having already downgraded 700 companies since the crisis began. Media articles are warning of an upcoming 'pandemic of corporate bankruptcies' in the US so large it may overwhelm the court system.

Geopolitical tensions between the US and China have also increased both due to accusations of the origins of COVID-19 and China’s clampdown in Hong Kong. Both Presidential candidates are expected to make a ‘tough on China’ mantra into November as part of their electoral campaigns. Stresses also remain in the global oil markets and the precise terms of Brexit still need to be negotiated.

The mainstream rationale to justify current market pricing is the predicted effectiveness of the various economic stimulus packages of major central banks to do ‘whatever it takes’. The flaw with such a rationale is these measures are being used to ameliorate a problem that did not exist before the stimulus.

More downside risk that upside potential

What if instead of borrowing an additional US$3 trillion, the US government borrowed an additional US$330 trillion and gave every American citizen a cheque for US$1 million? Will that be good for the economy? While this proposition is outlandish, it illustrates the point that unlimited quantitative easing (printing of money) is unlikely to be a panacea. If it were, why was this not the economic policy in place before the pandemic and not simply the response?

The rationale for a higher stock market relies heavily on the belief the stimulus will result in a ’V’ shaped recovery where global economies bouncing back quickly with little lasting damage from the very sharp, and by definition temporary, declines in GDP and increases in unemployment.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

Will the actual economic recoveries both globally and locally be ‘V’, ‘U’ or ‘L’ shaped? These letters representing a very sharp recovery (‘V’), one which takes slightly longer to bottom out and recover (‘U’), or one where there is no or a slow recovery (‘L’). The equity markets are discounting the latter two possibilities and are pricing in a near certainty of the former.

It therefore appears as if there is far greater downside than upside risk. If events transpire to challenge the market expectation of a ‘V’ shaped recovery, without residual ‘scarring’ of the economy causing long term damage, then equity markets are likely to adjust their expectations downwards. It is hard to imagine what news could cause equity markets to move significantly higher; perhaps another unexpected fall in US unemployment from a record high of 14.7% to a slightly less worse 13.4% as occurred on 5 June? Even after the second-worst unemployment rate in US history, the Nasdaq composite index rallied to a new record high.

A vaccine would drive an all-time high

The acid test would be if news miraculously emerged of an immediately-available vaccine or cure for COVID–19. Such an event would take equities beyond their all-time highs in late February 2020 when COVID-19 cases were less than 1,000 a day and mainly contained within China. Such a scenario would imply a better forward outlook than pre-COVID with absolutely no short- or long-term damage done to the economy. This just does not seem cogent.

To accept such an argument is to ignore the parable of the Broken Window as espoused by French economist Frederic Bastiat in his 1850 essay, “That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See”. Bastiat argues a broken window for a shopkeeper appears to create economic stimulus for the glazier (that which we see). What is hidden is the alternate and better uses of the shopkeeper's money going to the butcher or the baker (that which we do not see).

If the COVID-19 crisis had not occurred, the stimulus funds could have been profitably used elsewhere. This alternate opportunity has now been lost. As Bastiat said, “society loses the value of things that are uselessly destroyed”. The starkest example is the over 400,000 recorded deaths from COVID-19 so far globally. If the COVID-19 shutdown is to have no effect on future corporate earnings why not shut down the global economy for a week or a month every year and give everyone extra time at home with their families?

In Australia, while the equity markets have not been as optimistic, a domestic recession is still expected with a base case fall in GDP projected by the RBA of 9%. Unemployment rises above 10% in their latest Statement of Monetary Policy. If the US markets were to again turn bearish (and have a ‘W’ shaped recovery?), it is unlikely Australia will be immune.

 

Moray Vincent is Executive Director Amicus Advisory, an independent fixed income research firm that provides advisory services to conservative wholesale credit investors. Operating since 2008, it currently has around $1.8 billion of funds under advice. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

 

9 Comments
Nick
December 15, 2020

I'm glad i didn't listen to any of this. Maybe Moray should have stuck to his specialty - CDOs.

Lachlan
July 05, 2020

Hi Moray,
Great article. I agree with your assessment of the disconnect and I think your use of hyperbolic examples (million dollar loans) is a great way to drive your points home. Your point about shifting investment towards a vaccine is a fresh perspective to me. I would be interested in understanding how long the US federal banks are able to continue with the quantitative easing in conjunction with supporting the community with the stimulus. Its argued that the markets are "forward thinking" and these issues are factored into the market prices, but if the answers are unbeknownst to us, how can they be known by other professionals?

Mark Story
June 19, 2020

This is far too clinical a review... and overlooks the reality that its sentiment that moves markets forward (or backward) and this is why fund managers are being forced to joint the party even though they don't believe. The fact that the current rally is unsustainable may be a given, but the bigger question is how do you play it.

Moray
June 26, 2020

Hi Mark, The point I was trying to make was (in my opinion) the current level of markets cannot be justified by fundamentals. Clearly sentiment (or more accurately, preponderances of buyers and sellers) drives markets which doesn't mean they need to follow economic fundamentals. However, I make two observations, the deviations can persist for extended periods of time and whenever markets crash there is almost invariably much commentary post the fact that the previous levels could never have been justified on fundamental grounds. If you trade based on sentiment my article is of little value, but if you invest based on fundamentals perhaps worth considering?

Greg Hamilton
June 18, 2020


Thanks for the article I read it with interest resulting in my following comments.
Business cycles changed post 2008 with once reasonably reliable “rules of thumb” established since the late 1960’s now seemingly disguarded and replaced by (until the intervention of Covid19) a gradual ever increasing appetite for grow in most investment markets. In the second half of calendar 2019 I was feeling that markets were becoming over valued with what seemed to me in my business an abnormal spike in forward orders. Whilst not as acute as in 2007 which lead to GFC collapse non the less a rapid increase in the rate of growth in forward orders. So I was expecting to see a slow down in 2020. Then came Covid19 the result of which again seemed to alter business cycles and it seems short term economic logic.
History no longer seems to repeat itself, yet another “rule of thumb” disguarded. I guess only the future will tell by which time it will be history. Challenges abound.

Robert
June 14, 2020

Thank you for your thoughtful article Moray. I am inclined to agree with you and am intrigued by the thought that recent market behavior may be characterized as as a struggle between professional bears and retail or inexperienced bulls. Certainly the efforts of central banks vowing to ”do whatever it takes” to keep their respective economies afloat and the fear of missing out (FOMO) are significant contributors to the rapid rebound. I would also like to see some informed commentary on the influence of computerized trading strategies and AI during these times of extreme volatility.

Kerry
June 14, 2020

First rate analysis Moray, tks for sharing your well thought out commentary.

Alex
June 11, 2020

Yes, Moray, like you, I've been wrong since 23 March.

Moray
June 11, 2020

Hi Alex, I at least managed to buy some hybrids on the dip which I deemed the less risky trade at the time, but caution is not always rewarded!

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

The coiled spring: markets are primed for the year ahead

Should investors brace for uncomfortably high inflation?

Four fruitful themes show plenty of juice in the market

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The risk-return tradeoff: What’s the right asset mix for a 5% return?

Conservative investors are forced to choose between protecting capital and accepting lower income while drawing down capital to maintain living standards or taking additional risk. How can you strike a balance?

How long will my retirement savings last?

Many self-funded retirees will outlive their savings as most men and women now aged 65 will survive at least another 20 years. Compare your spending with how much you earn to see how long your money will last.

Buffett's favourite indicator versus all-in equities

Peter Thornhill shows how his personal portfolio has thrived under an 'all-in equities' strategy, but Warren Buffett's favourite valuation indicator says stock markets are priced at their most extreme ever.

In fact, most people have no super when they die

Contrary to the popular belief supported by the 'fact base' of the Retirement Income Review, four in every five Australians aged 60 and over have no super in the period up to four years before their death.

Five timeless lessons from a life in investing

40 years of investing is distilled into five crucial lessons. An overall theme is to embrace uncertainty to make an impact on how much you earn, how much you spend, how much you save and how much risk you take.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 403

Most Australians hold their superannuation in a balanced fund, often 60% growth/40% defensive or 70%/30%. Lifecycle funds are also popular, where the amount in defensive assets increases with age. Employees who are not engaged with their super (and that's most people when they start full-time work) simply tick a box for the default fund selected on their behalf by their employer. Are these funds still appropriate?

  • 15 April 2021

Latest Updates

Property

Whoyagonnacall? 10 unspoken risks buying off-the-plan

All new apartment buildings have defects, and inexperienced owners assume someone else will fix them. But developers and builders will not volunteer to spend time and money unless someone fights them. Part 1

Superannuation

Super changes, the Budget and 2021 versus 2022

Josh Frydenberg's third budget contained changes to superannuation and other rules but their effective date is expected to be 1 July 2022. Take care not to confuse them with changes due on 1 July 2021.

Economy

Why don't higher prices translate into inflation? Blame hedonism

Why are prices rising but not the CPI? When we measure inflation, we aren’t measuring raw price changes, we’re measuring the pleasure-adjusted or utility-adjusted price changes, and we use it incorrectly.

Economy

Should investors brace for uncomfortably high inflation?

The global recession came quickly and deeply but it has given way to a strong rebound. What are the lessons for investors, how should a portfolio change and what role will inflation play?

Risk management

Revealed: Madoff so close to embezzling Australian investors

We are publishing this anonymously knowing it comes from an impeccable source. Bernie Madoff’s fund was almost distributed to retail Australian investors a year before the largest-ever hedge fund fraud was exposed.

Exchange traded products

How long can your LICs continue to pay dividends?

Some LICs have recently paid out more in dividends than their net profit as they have the ability to tap their retained profits and reserves. Others reduced dividends to ease the burden on cashflow and balance sheets.

SMSF strategies

How SMSF contribution reserving can use the higher caps

With the increase in the concessional cap to $27,500 on 1 July 2021, a contribution reserving strategy could allow a member to make and claim deductions for personal contributions of up to $52,500 this year.

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.