• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

IronBridge Private Wealth

Forward with Confidence

  • Home
  • Difference
  • Process
  • Services
  • Insights
    • IronBridge Insights
    • Strategic Wealth Blog
    • Strategic Growth Video Podcast
    • YouTube Channel
  • Team
  • Clients
  • Form CRS
  • Contact Us

volatility

The Fed is Stuck

June 30, 2021

Despite economic data showing massive improvement from the COVID recession and inflation running hot across all parts of the economy, the Fed continues to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system. Why? They know that if they stop, things will come crashing down.


It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Henry Ford

The Federal Reserve board met earlier this month to discuss their interest rate and bond purchase strategy.

Following the meeting, markets fell nearly 2% on terrible news that surely signaled the Fed was going to finally pop the massive bubbles across the markets and economy.

What news was that?

Instead of raising interest rates in 2024, they were considering doing it in 2023 instead.

WHAT???

You can’t make this stuff up. Markets sold off hard because the FIRST interest rate hike might occur 2 years from now instead of 3.

Granted, markets (as they often do), reassessed the situation and realized that the Fed just brought a huge case of booze to spike the punch bowl even more, despite the party-goers being ragingly inebriated and in no shape to consume more. Markets promptly recovered those big losses.

But inflation is obviously running hot. The economy is obviously improving. There are millions of job openings. Employment data would be incredibly strong if government stimulus had not made it more profitable for people to not work than getting many lower waged jobs.

Despite things being in much better shape than it was a year ago when the Fed flooded the market with liquidity, they continue to add $80 Billion each WEEK into the financial system.

Why?

The answer is pretty simple…they are stuck.

They will tell you the reason is that inflation is “transitory”. (This is a word you are likely to hear way too much of in the coming months.)

In some ways, inflation is transitory. We recently shared a brief blog post “The First Wave of Inflation is Receding“, where we showed that lumber prices fell over 50% from recent highs.

Let’s share the chart of lumber in case you missed that report. (We published it on social media, so be sure to follow us for the latest reports.)

Lumber prices skyrocketed but have fallen over 50% since earlier this year.

In just over one year, lumber prices went from under $300 per unit to over $1700.

These are crazy price movements.

As soon as everyone was predicting that inflation was here to stay, lumber prices fell 52% in a matter of weeks.

Human Behavior and History

The price of lumber is exactly what we are talking about when we discuss inflation waves. Our thesis is that inflation will not just immediately come upon us and stay. Instead, it will ebb and flow into the economy in gradually increasing levels.

This thesis is based on both human behavior and history.

The impact from human behavior is pretty easy to think about. Let’s look at the recent increase in home values and lumber as our primary example:

  • The pandemic locked people in their homes.
  • People became tired of their homes. They wanted a bigger/nicer/different place from which to live and work.
  • Demand for homes started to increase.
  • Increased demand for homes caused increasing demand for lumber.
  • Homebuilders and other opportunists saw the price of lumber increasing and started to purchase lumber for future projects. Aka, “hoarding”.

This is how inflation works. Prices begin to rise, and it makes more sense to buy something now, because it will most likely become more expensive in the future.

Inflation can, in fact, be self-fulfilling. High prices tend to lead to even higher prices. It’s FOMO, the “fear of missing out”.

While at first inflation supports even more inflation, there comes a point where it is also self-correcting.

Prices reach a level where it simply doesn’t make any sense to buy it. Whatever “it” is.

This is what happened with lumber. Prices simply became too expensive and people stopped buying it.

We’re not winning any Nobel prizes in economics for this one.

The pace of home building slowed down, and people stopped hoarding lumber. Things just got too expensive. When demand slows, prices tend to fall. Voila. Lower prices.

This is what the Fed is banking on. They believe that inflation is “transitory” because they believe in the self-correcting mechanism of inflation itself. They believe that human behavior will naturally keep a lid on the inflation rate.

Janet Yellen, the US Treasury Secretary and former Fed Chair, said last week that she expects to see 5% inflation this year, but that it will drop to 2% by sometime later this year or in 2022.

Current Fed Chair Jerome Powell blamed inflation on supply bottlenecks in various ports across the globe. He suggests that once this bottleneck gets resolved, inflation will decrease as a result.

Here’s a great article from Reuters about it:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-debt-yellen-inflation/yellen-says-inflation-should-be-lower-than-current-levels-by-year-end

In the short-term, they are probably right…inflation does tend to self correct.

But higher prices also can be sticky.

Why? The expectations of sellers increase.

Let’s say you are going to sell your home. Over the past few years, homes have sold for $800k-900k pretty regularly in your neighborhood. So you list your home for $900k.

But you just saw ten of your neighbors’ homes sell for $1.2MM. Two even sold for over $1.4MM, but maybe they had done some upgrades. What would you do? Probably increase your sales price (either officially or just mentally) to $1.2MM. That is the new floor.

Homes didn’t stay at the peak sales price. But they stuck at a level higher than the previous prices. Not quite as high as the highest price point, but significantly higher nonetheless.

Outside of a crisis, either personally or economically, you’re probably not going to ask for less than what the average or most common sales price has been. Your expectations have caused a stair-step higher in price. Two steps forward, one-step back.

Thus, we have our first inflation wave.

Simply from human behavior.

These inflation waves happened before. We are no different than previous generations, other than the fact that our access to information is much more easily and quickly accessible than in the past.

We discussed the historical reasons for this theory in “The Coming Inflation Waves“, so we won’t go back over the details. We’ll only say that every inflationary cycle over the past 300 years has started in this way, so it’s a pretty easy bet that it will happen the same way again this time. Humans are, after all, still human.

That does not mean the coming inflation cycle will be easy to predict with regards to timing and magnitude.

The price of lumber should not have risen by THAT much over the past year. But it did. And we have one group to thank…the Fed.

The Fed’s easy money policy for over a decade has put massive amounts of liquidity into the markets and economy. And that makes the inflation cycles much more difficult to predict.

The Wildcard: The Fed

There are smart people on the Federal Reserve Board.

The people at the Fed know that the financial system has become dependent on the easy money policies instituted over the past 13 years.

And they know that if they start to reduce the amount of liquidity they are injecting into the markets that they will lose control of both the narrative of financial stability and the upward support of asset prices.

Let’s look at a couple charts that shows results of the Fed’s actions.

First is a chart of the Fed’s balance sheet versus the S&P 500 Index, courtesy of Lance Roberts of Real Investment Advice.

Fed Balance sheet versus the S&P 500 index. Stocks are highly correlated with the Fed's actions.

It doesn’t take a professional statistician to see that there is a correlation between how much money the Fed is printing and stock prices.

This chart is all over the investment industry, and the Fed certainly knows of this correlation as well.

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said back in 2010 that stock prices were a way to deliver confidence into the economy. Read it HERE.

Ever since then, the Fed has viewed their role as the driver of stock prices.

But why would increasing liquidity support stock prices?

Simple…it increases valuations.

The next chart, courtesy of Bloomberg, shows an even higher correlation between the Fed and stocks. And it shows the REASON why stocks prices have gone up with the Fed balance sheet.

This chart shows the Fed’s balance sheet versus the P/E ratio of the S&P 500. P/E ratios are the most common way to show valuations in the stock market by taking the price per share of a company’s stock and dividing it by the earnings per share.

Fed balance sheet causes stock valuations to increase.

This chart is much more in sync than the first chart. For example, in the chart above of the Fed vs the S&P 500 Index, there was a period between 2017 and 2019 where the Fed’s balance sheet declined, but stock prices rose.

When we look at the chart of valuations, we can see that between 2017 and 2019 valuations actually declined as prices rose. Valuations reflected the reduction of the Fed balance sheet while prices kept moving higher.

The secret to the Fed’s ability to impact stock prices, it seems, is by increasing valuations.

The primary way valuations are affected is by investor sentiment.

So what this really tells us is that the Fed is driving investor behavior by flooding the market with trillions of dollars of liquidity.

Exactly like Mr. Bernanke said.

And here lies the problem.

The Fed needs to pump the markets with so much liquidity that the economy becomes so strong that stocks will remain stable even if they stop asset purchases. God forbid they actually go so far as reducing their balance sheet.

More accurately, the Fed needs to pump so much liquidity into the market that they generate so much CONFIDENCE in the economy that the Fed can taper without crashing the system.

So far it is working.

Markets have become dependent on the Fed to keep prices afloat. They expect it.

If the Fed tells the market that they will raise rates in two years, it is similar to telling a drug addict that they are going to rehab in a couple months.

What would that addict do? They would binge on everything they could get their hands on and roll into Betty Ford in a stupor.

That’s what we’re witnessing in financial markets. Risk taking is everywhere. Assets of all types have been sought after. Prices across the board have gone up. We’re in an environment where even fake digital assets with dog memes are being coveted.

This speculative attitude towards risk could contribute to a massive rally over the coming months or years. Similar to the tech mania in the late 1990’s. Unbridled speculation would lead to one final blow-off top that puts a cherry on top of the bull market. Chef’s kiss.

Unfortunately, the same support of massive risk taking today is laying the groundwork of the volatility that will follow.

The Fed knows this as well.

Thus, they are stuck.

Do they rip off the Band-Aid now and stop the party? Or do they continue to support the craziness?

It comes down to one thing: they don’t want the party to stop on their watch.

It is easy to criticize from the outside. But no one wants to be in charge when it comes crashing down.

And that’s what we’re dealing with.

No matter how well-intentioned the people at the Fed may be, they are still human too. And they don’t want to go down in history as presiding over the end of the golden era of speculation investing.

So we’re likely to continue on the current path until someone is forced into action.

And inflation is the likely culprit.

The Fed will likely change the narrative before they start to tighten. They will start to blame something other than their own policies. They will blame bottlenecks or China or Congress or us. Anything but their own policies.

And that’s when we’ll know the cycle is truly changing.

When the consequences of the Fed’s actions are eventually felt, Henry Ford’s quote in the beginning of this report will most likely prove significant. For there is likely to be a backlash against the Fed for the reckless behavior and influence.

Until then, we must be prepared for volatility, but we must be prepared for an out-of-control stock market first. And out-of-control markets can be a lot of fun.

But now is not the time for complacency. And it is not the time to be stubbornly bullish or bearish.

Now is the time to be stoic. Be completely in tune and at peace with reality. When investing, that’s a good state of mind to be in anyways.

We can’t unstick the Fed. But we can try to navigate the consequences of their actions, whether good or bad.

Invest wisely!


Filed Under: IronBridge Insights Tagged With: dow jones, federal reserve, inflation, markets, portfolio management, volatility

Elections and Overconfidence

October 13, 2020

With less than a month to the election, we look at the dangers of overconfidence, analyze sector performance under tremendously different legislative environments, and discuss whether you should reduce risk prior to November 3rd.


“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

-Mark Twain


Overconfidence

Mark Twain’s quote above seems appropriate for the weeks leading up to a Presidential election. It is about overconfidence.

The exact origin of this quote is not completely clear. It is credited to Twain, but many scholars have a hard time tracing it directly to him. Some give credit to one of his contemporaries, Josh Billings, who was a prominent political humorist in the late 1800’s.

Originally, Mr. Billings used it as a jab towards politicians. But over time, it has been used to criticize religion, the military, politics, environmental activists and finance.

This quote was included in the opening scene of an excellent film about investing called “The Big Short”. This movie was based on a book written by Michael Lewis. The main character is a hedge fund manager who bets big against the housing market leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The events in the movie are almost entirely true. The main character, who in both real life and the movie is named Michael Burry, was ridiculed for taking a stance that was extremely opposite of the consensus view that housing prices would never fall. By taking this position, he lost clients, lost employees, and almost lost his entire business.

When the financial crisis hit and home values across the country plummeted, he made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself and his clients. (We strongly recommend reading any of Michael Lewis’s books, particularly those about finance. They can be found on Amazon here.)

Both “The Big Short” and Mark Twain’s quote have one major theme…the danger of overconfidence.

An entire generation of financiers were convinced that housing prices would not fall. They were so confident in their belief that the bets they made brought down legendary companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. Other companies who made the same bets and should have gone bankrupt are companies like Merrill Lynch, UBS, Wachovia, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, AIG, Washington Mutual, Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland. The overconfidence was amazingly broad and well accepted.

Presidential elections represent the apex of overconfidence in modern society.

Each election cycle, we ask presidential candidates to make bold predictions about how they will steer society to a better future. These days, it’s almost a job requirement to have unhealthy amounts of overconfidence. To run for the office, you must either have a massive ego or a very special calling. Usually both.

But presidential elections don’t only bring out overconfidence in the candidates. Investors, and the investment industry as a whole, are just as guilty of this on a very widespread scale.

With less than a month before the election, our inboxes have been bombarded with reports predicting the market outcomes under Trump versus Biden administrations.

All of these reports sound eloquent and well thought out.

But there is one important question…should we listen to any of them?

Previous Legislation by Industry

Nearly every conversation we have with clients and prospects right now includes a discussion about the election. Specifically, people are wondering if they should reduce risk before the election.

When considering an action like this (or any other action for that matter), you must first have a reliable understanding of how effective that implementation may be.

So let’s look at a few examples of major policy initiatives that were both campaigned on, and also legislated into action. And then look at the resulting performance that resulted from that policy action.

Most presidents have domestic policies that are very industry-specific.

President Obama and President Trump are polar opposites in many ways. Perhaps the most contrasting policy initiatives between Obama and Trump were in three main industries: healthcare, financials and energy.

The chart below shows just how different the two men were with regards to legislation that affects these industries.

President Obama passed major legislation that dramatically increased regulations on large financial institutions, energy companies and the entire healthcare industry.

In 2016, candidate Trump ran on an agenda of repealing each of these laws, and to a large extent was successful in removing large portions of them once he became president.

Surely these dramatically different policies would have a noticeable effect on the stock prices of each of these sectors.

Quite the contrary. Under President Obama, here is how these sectors performed annually during his administration:

  • Healthcare: 14.2%
  • Financials: 7.2%
  • Energy: 5.0%

Here are the performance of the same sectors under Trump:

  • Healthcare: 14.1%
  • Financials: 7.1%
  • Energy: -15.8%

Read that again.

Despite the huge differences in policy, the performance of healthcare and financials were practically identical. And energy did much WORSE under Trump than under Obama!

Policy differences sure didn’t lead to stock performance differences in these sectors.

If we look back to 2016, most investment firms were predicting that a Trump presidency would be very supportive for Financials and Energy. They literally couldn’t have been more wrong.

Let’s pick on JPMorgan, one of the more well-respected behemoths of the financial world.

The chart below shows their predictions from 2016 of which sectors would be hurt, and which would benefit under a Clinton versus a Trump presidency.

A green (+) in the column below each candidate represents which sectors they believe would benefit from that candidate becoming president. A red (-) represents which areas they believe that candidate’s policy will have a negative impact on the performance of that sector.

There is quite a bit of data on this chart, but the fine folks at JPMorgan essentially predicted that under a Trump presidency the best performing areas of the market would be Financials, Discretionary and Energy, while the Technology sector (IT in the chart above) would under-perform the broad market.

Just like people are doing in 2020, they laid out a very logical argument on why you should follow their highly intellectual musings and rely on their vast intelligence to guide your investment decisions.

You probably know where this is going.

Despite teams of “experts” in markets, politics, taxes, legislative processes, company fundamentals, and who knows how many other areas of expertise, they were flat out wrong.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise us at all.

Maybe this is just industry-specific. Surely there were meaningful differences in stock performance of various sectors, and possibly the broad market as a whole under such different administrations.

The next chart, courtesy of LPL Financial, shows a more comprehensive sector performance under both Obama and Trump. The Trump data is shown through the end of September. The chart is organized in descending order by sector performance under Obama.

To continue picking on JPMorgan, let’s first look at the column under “Trump”.

Despite massive deregulation for Financial and Energy companies, they were the two worst performing sectors under Trump. Energy stock prices were hit especially hard, down nearly 16% per year. Most large investment firms predicted that energy stocks would be the single biggest beneficiaries of a Trump presidency.

To add insult to injury, Technology, which JPMorgan predicted would be the worst performer sector under Trump, ended up being the best performer BY FAR.

To be fair to JPMorgan, they were not alone in their poor efforts of prediction. Most large firms made very similar predictions, and all were made with a very high degree of confidence. Hopefully these firms didn’t use their overconfidence when implementing client portfolios, because their clients would have suffered dramatically if they followed their own advice. Or maybe they did shift client portfolios, which partially explains why we’re seeing consumer trust in financial institutions near all-time lows.

But if they didn’t shift client portfolios in that direction, why would they go to the effort of making these predictions in the first place???

To finish up with the chart above, it is incredibly interesting to us to see just how similarly the sectors performed under each president. The top two sectors were the same, the bottom two sectors were the same, and the rest were within a few percentage points of each other.

From an overall market standpoint, stock performance is very similar as well. The S&P averaged 12% per year under Obama and 14% per year under Trump.

This is real data.

Despite completely opposite legislation, and despite huge PR campaigns to rally support while the bills were being passed, there was very little difference in performance in nearly every sector.

So what explains the similarity?

It’s the Economy Fed Stupid

One of the more popular phrases during presidential elections was coined by James Carville, one of Bill Clinton’s primary advisors during his 1992 presidential campaign. He said, “It’s the Economy Stupid.”

He meant that how the economy is doing is the single biggest factor in whether an incumbent would win re-election.

Today, the single biggest factor in determining stock prices is simple…it’s the Fed.

We’ve written about this many times this year, and will write about it many times in the future. It continues to be the single most important theme for the markets.

The next chart below shows the Fed balance sheet since 1994. It is amazing just how much money has been printed this year in response to the COVID crisis. The values on the right side of this chart are in thousands. This means that the current Fed balance sheet is $7 million-thousand, or $7 Trillion for everyone on planet earth who is not an economist.

Stock prices have soared on the back of this massive injection of liquidity. Since the Fed started printing in late 2008, markets have relentlessly and consistently moved in tandem with the Fed’s actions.

And there is scheduled to be even more in the coming months, to the tune of nearly $4 Trillion of additional money printed.

This is what makes the market performance so eerily similar between Trump and Obama. The Fed began massive money-printing just before the start of Obama’s presidency. And they have continued until this very day.

Markets are responding to this liquidity by going up, despite what legislation has been passed.

The Fed is making company valuations irrelevant. They are making economic data irrelevant. They are making tax policy irrelevant. They are making geopolitics irrelevant.

And they are most likely making the presidential outcome this year irrelevant as well, at least as it pertains to the stock market.

Someday there will be massive consequences to these actions, but that day is most likely not today.

So What Should We Do?

Will the Fed’s massive support of the stock market help Trump get re-elected?

When the markets are higher in the 3 months leading up to the election, the incumbent president has won EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Will history repeat itself? Who knows. It is 2020 after all.

At this point, it doesn’t seem like that would be a very good bet. Biden has huge, double-digit leads in the polls. But continuing the theme of the danger of overconfidence, we would suggest that based on 2016, the Biden campaign and his supporters shouldn’t get too comfortable.

The final chart below shows the probability that Donald Trump will win during the days leading up to the election in both 2016 and 2020. This chart was derived from the betting odds via RealClearPolitics, and shows the likelihood of him winning versus the number of days left until the election.

At this same point in the election cycle, Trump had a 20% LOWER probability that he would win the election in 2016 than there is now. And the pattern is eerily similar.

So anyone confident that they know who will win the election is simply guessing, or more likely just trying to sway public opinion.

Should You Reduce Risk before the Election?

Let’s get back to the original question we keep receiving from clients, which we haven’t answered yet…”Should we reduce risk before the election?”

Bottom line, no. At least not as of the time of this newsletter.

And the other primary question…”Should we listen to the pre-election predictions?”

Once again, no. Don’t listen to the ivory tower academics at the large investment firms. They are most likely going to be wrong, despite spending lots of resources on trying to sound smart. And just like everyone else, if they were right, it’s as attributable to luck as anything else.

Our investment process raised cash for clients in early September, not because we were predicting volatility around the election, but simply because the market became volatile and we followed our predetermined process. As a result, most of our client accounts moved to roughly 25-30% cash.

The S&P 500 proceeded to declined 10% in September. Frankly, we thought that our system would likely keep us with increased cash exposure into or past the election. However, last week we had multiple buy signals. And despite the election drawing closer, our system had us increase stock exposure across the board, not decrease.

Now, the market is back to flirting with all-time highs. Despite the pending election, stocks are moving higher.

One thing is for certain…STAY NIMBLE.

Just because we invested in stocks last week doesn’t mean we will stay at our current investment exposures from now to beyond the election. A lot can happen, especially in this crazy year. We have our exits already mapped out in case volatility does return, so if our system tells us to move funds back to the sidelines, we will do it.

And if we do raise additional cash before the election, it does not mean that it will stay in cash long. We have predetermined buy signals to get our clients back in.

The anticipation of market volatility around the election is normal. It will happen this election, and will likely happen in every election for the rest of our lives.

The Lesson?

The main lesson is that you should create a process that is agnostic to anticipated risk.

The expectation of risk is greatly different than the realization of risk.

Adapting your portfolio when risk happens is key. When markets actually start to realize risk is when you should adapt, not when you think risk should happen.

Way too many investment managers fall victim to the same overconfidence that politicians and financiers make, and use their “experience” and “intuition” to make adjustments based on what is nothing more than guesses.

Don’t let it happen to you.

Most of our clients have heard us say this before. We don’t know what the market will do in the future. No one does.

And that’s okay.

Don’t try to guess when volatility will happen. Chances are that you will be wrong. And if your investment advisor is trying to guess when volatility will happen, they should stop also because chances are they will be wrong too.

By following a predetermined process, we don’t have to worry about the possible effects of the election on our clients’ portfolios. Our system will adapt to whatever the future may bring.

The best part of this process is that it allows us to have comfort in the fact that we don’t have all the answers right now. We don’t have to worry about whether we should worry about the election.

The most important thing to the market right now is not the president, but the Federal Reserve chairman. If that were to change, markets could undergo dramatic increases in volatility. But that appears to be very unlikely under either Biden or Trump.

Bottom line, the trend in the market is higher, and has been since the March lows. Valuations are stretched in many areas, but it simply doesn’t matter at this point. Don’t miss out because you think that the market should be volatile around the election. A pre-set plan will help greatly reduce the worry you may experience around big events like the election.

Then you can worry about more important things…like how a country of 330 million people can produce these candidates as our two primary options.

Invest wisely!


Our clients have unique and meaningful goals.

We help clients achieve those goals through forward-thinking portfolios, principled advice, a deep understanding of financial markets, and an innovative fee structure.

Contact us for a Consultation.

Neither the information provided nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. The investments and investment strategies identified herein may not be suitable for all investors. The appropriateness of a particular investment will depend upon an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. *The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable. However, IronBridge does not independently verify the accuracy of this information and makes no representations as to its accuracy or completeness.  Disclaimer This presentation is for informational purposes only. All opinions and estimates constitute our judgment as of the date of this communication and are subject to change without notice. > Neither the information provided nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. The investments and investment strategies identified herein may not be suitable for all investors. The appropriateness of a particular investment will depend upon an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. *The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable. However, IronBridge does not independently verify the accuracy of this information and makes no representations as to its accuracy or completeness.

Filed Under: IronBridge Insights Tagged With: biden, elections, investments, portfolio management, president, s&P 500, trump, volatility, wealth management

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5

Footer

LET'S CONNECT

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

AUSTIN LOCATION

6420 Bee Caves Rd, Suite 201

Austin, Texas 78746

DISCLOSURES

Form ADV  |  Privacy Policy  |  Website Disclosures

  • Home
  • Difference
  • Process
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Team
  • Clients
  • Form CRS
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2017-Present by IronBridge Private Wealth, LLC. All rights reserved.