Why a Market Crash Doesn’t Matter 82 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Market Generalities
When reading Seeking Alpha Friday, I couldn’t help noticing that the most popular article was: Why the Stock Market Should Crash, by Charles Hugh Smith. With all due respect to Mr. Smith, and all the other doomsayers out there, I frankly just don’t get it. In my opinion, fear is a negative emotion that causes more harm than good. My favorite acronym for FEAR is: False Evidence Appearing Real.
People who are worried about whether the stock market will crash or not are worried about a generality. In contrast, the world’s most successful investors are known to deal solely with specifics. Investing giants like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch are on record as ignorers of the general stock market. Instead, they are only interested in the specific companies they own.
Regarding the stock market, there is also a lot of talk about the so-called “Lost Decade”. I will use the S&P 500 since calendar year 2000 as my proxy for the “Stock Market”, and its dreadful decade in this article. However, my contention is that unless you have all your liquid assets invested in the S&P 500 or some other passive index fund, the general market should be of little concern.
In Figure 1 below, we show the S&P 500 correlated to its earnings since 12/31/1999 to include performance. There are three key factors that are obvious from this graph:
- On 12/31/1999 the S&P 500 was at 1469 (green arrows) and was overvalued trading at more than 26 times earnings of $55.83 (red arrow.) Therefore, since the normal P/E ratio of the S&P 500 has been 17.5 for the past 20 years, future poor performance should have been expected.
- The rate of change of earnings growth for the S&P 500 of 2.9% (Red circle), was not strong enough to generate a positive return from such a lofty valuation.
- From calendar year 2000 to the current, we suffered through two recessions which created above-average cyclicality of earnings for the S&P 500. Clearly, earnings drive the long-term movement of stock price.
Figure 1 S&P 500: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
In his runaway national bestselling book "One Up on Wall Street", Peter Lynch devoted Chapter 5 to the thesis of my article titled “Is this a Good Market? Please don’t ask.” Mr. Lynch clearly and eloquently expressed his disdain for attempting to forecast the stock market. The following snippets from Chapter 5 illustrate the point:
“If you must forecast,” an intelligent forecaster once said, “forecast often.”
What Stock Market?
The Market ought to be irrelevant. If I could convince you of this one thing, I’d feel this book had done its job. And if you don’t believe me, believe Warren Buffett, “As far as I am concerned,” Buffett has written, “the stock market doesn’t exist. It is only there as a reference to see if anybody is offering to do anything foolish.”
Finally Mr. Lynch added:
I’d love to be able to predict markets and anticipate recessions, but since that’s impossible, I’m satisfied to search out profitable companies as Buffett is. I’ve made money even in lousy markets, and vice-versa. Several of my favorite tenbaggers made their biggest moves during bad markets.
Company Specifics
In the long run, earnings determine market price, and valuation plays a prominent role. Utilizing our Fundamentals-at-a-Glance research tool, I offer the following examples that validate the thesis and premises of this article. I will illustrate some stalwart like, solid growing businesses, and will sprinkle in a few powerhouse fast growers. Then I will add two examples of how overvaluation impacted returns even when earnings growth was strong.
I start with Nike (NKE), Figure 2. Note that Nike’s stock price (black line) starts out slightly above the earnings line (green line with white triangles) implying modest overvaluation. However, earnings growth of 13.4% translates into annual 10% appreciation (excluding dividends) compared to a minus 2.9% annual loss for the S&P 500, or the stock market.
Figure 2 NKE: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
In Figure 3 we feature Cognizant Technologies Solutions (CTSH) a fast-growing outsourcer that has no debt and an earnings growth rate of almost 40% (39.8%). Clearly, the stock market had absolutely nothing to do with the returns that Cognizant shareholders enjoyed.
Figure 4 features TEVA Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA), an Israel based ADR, the largest generic drug developer in the world. With earnings growth over 29% per year, TEVA shareholders enjoyed annual appreciation of almost 20% even though their stock price (black line) is currently at a discount to earnings (green line with white triangle). Once again, the stock market didn’t matter to TEVA Shareholders.
Figure 4 TEVA: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
Figure 5 features ITT Educational Services, Inc. (ESI). Strong earnings right through the recession rewarded shareholders far in excess of the general stock market.
Figure 5 ESI: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
Figure 6 features Coach Inc. (COH) where 30% growth of earnings translates into a similar shareholder return, regardless of the bad market. Note that both Coach and the S&P 500 are measured only from October of 2000 because Coach was not a public company in 1999.
Figure 6 COH: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
Figure 7 features Google, Inc. (GOOG) and only has a track record since going public in 2004. However, once again, there is no correlation or relationship to Google shareholder results and the stock market (S&P 500).
Figure 7 GOOG: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
Figures 8 and 9 are offered to illustrate the importance of valuation. Both Procter & Gamble Co. (PG), a Peter Lynch stalwart, and Oracle (ORCL), a faster-growing technology company suffered from overvaluation at the beginning of the period. Both of these companies generated returns that were closer to the general stock market. However, it was overvaluation and not the market that affected their respective results.
Figure 8 PG: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
Figure 9 ORCL: EPS Growth Correlated to Price and Price Performance
These are but a few examples of many that could be offered. Remember the stock market is about averages, and as Warren Buffett also said "Who wants to be average?" It is better to focus on what you own and not worry about things you don't. I believe you will find this to be more peaceful and profitable, in the long run.
Conclusion
We, like Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett, believe that all the fuss about what the stock markets in general may or may not do is unwarranted, assuming - of course - that valuation is in line with cash flows. At the end of the day, we feel that all it does is take the investor's eye off the critical ball of what they actually are invested in. Wall Street may climb a wall of worry, but good businesses climb a wall of business success, more commonly known as earnings. Therefore, what the stock market may or may not do really shouldn’t matter to the serious long-term fundamental investor.
Disclosure: Long NKE, ESI, CTSH, TEVA, GOOG, COH, ORCL, PG at time of writing.
The opinions in this document are for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell the stocks mentioned or to solicit transactions or clients. Past performance of the companies discussed may not continue and the companies may not achieve the earnings growth as predicted. The information in this document is believed to be accurate, but under no circumstances should a person act upon the information contained within. We do not recommend that anyone act upon any investment information without first consulting an investment advisor as to the suitability of such investments for his specific situation.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Well that's obvious. If you own large stakes in a couple of dozen companies then of course the company specific issues are dominant in your mind. But there are millions of US investors who - on the advice of their consultants - have exposure to the wider market, the S&P 500, or Russell Indices, so for you to dismiss their wider "stock market" worries as unfounded is a bit unsympathetic.
Let's not forget the Dow 30 is lower now than it was 10 years ago. There's plenty to be legitimately worried about if you are exposed to equities I think.
Really, my "whistling past the graveyard" friend? So all the stats showing the housing price bubble and the ongoing economy-wide ramifications of its collapse are "false evidence"? Interesting. So how did you do for your clients last year?
The problem with your theory (and Peter Lynch's) is that:
1) There are very few companies with businesses that aren't at least SOMEWHAT leveraged to the overall economy, so a "less-bad" earnings decline is still an earnings decline, and earnings declines mean stock price declines, and...
2) When terrible macro problems tank the stock market, almost EVERYTHING goes down.
Sure, you can always find a few winners in a terrible overall environment-- perhaps a consumer company with a flukily "hot product" (just be sure to sell the Pokeman or Nutra-Systems or Krispy Kreme before you wind up riding it right back down) or a microcap biotech or pharma company with either a favorable binary data point or a new product increasing sales off of a relatively small base, but those companies are few and far between (and betting in advance on the outcome of a biotech binary data point is extremely high risk).
So, with your "smile and ignore the big picture" philosophy, how did you do for your clients last year? The last five years? The last ten? (And I mean porfolio-wide, rather than just cherry-picking a handful of stocks as you did above.)
So indulge me, please.
First off, would you ever utter the title of this article to ANY of your clients over the age of 30?
Did Peter Lynch ever experience anything in his 20 year career on the level that we are currently experiencing ?
In the last twenty years, has the national deficit levels gone parabolic?
Do you believe the current administration feels would agree with the title or is it largely behind the stock market's recent upsurgence?
Gerald Celente has a line,"When someone loses everything, and they have nothing left to lose, they lose it."
On that basis, may I choose the title of a future article that I believe will prove to be widely read on SA?
"Why mass social unrest doesn't matter."
I am positive there are certain data points to support that title as well.
During the last three weeks, commodities (especially base, and preciious metals) have been decoupling from the equities market. Commodities remain strong, as equities slide. Furthermore there have been record inflows into commodities this past quarter. This implies that the smart money are buying up mining companies/agri-busines... futures on dips, positioning themselves for a likely commodities bubble. Also, they can mask their massive speculation/bubble by arguing/promoting a mainstream media message of "impending hyper-inflation". And once us retails come back into equities buying up mining/agri stocks, they will have sold @ the top.
Don't miss out on the next bubble (gold/base metals).
dont' believe me, then check out this chart for the TSX-venture exchange (largely weighted for mining compaines)
stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...
end of transmission.
That is one of the most NAIVE articles I've ever read.
It is rare, indeed, that anyone presumes to offer investing advice based on such a vacuous notion.
What a wonderful world it would be, indeed, if your pet companies existed in a Vacuum, as oblivious to the economic landscape as you all too evidently are.
Had Buffet ~ or the hilariously arrogant Lynch ~ started in ~ shall we say 1929? ~ and managed to make their bones in THAT Market, then their arguments about ignoring the Market would hold SOME weight.
Again: Vapid!
People who don't worry about a crash are the ones crying after it happens.
That's great. Tell it to the guy who's depending on his 401k for retirement. Because I'm pretty sure he can't cherry pick individual stocks through that particular investment vehicle.
The problem is that most of us don't have 7 figure net worths and are not concerned primarily with wealth preservation. Buying stocks today for income, whether it be short to medium term trading or dividend investing, is out of the question.
Unlike Warren Buffett, I don't buy companies. I buy stocks.
This is a point of view that will spell disaster for any investor. Why has the market been so top heavy with insiders doing nothing but selling and very little buying over the past months? These are owners of stocks in their own companies that are bailing out. Cash is king right now, along with precious metals and short term T-bills.
Just these occurrences should cause any investor to re-evaluate their position.
Your statement that it "shouldn't matter" flies in the face of prudent investing. So, good luck with that! You're going to need it.
I joined because of the quality and diversity of thought found on this site. I joined because I am concerned about the financial future of this nation, and globally. I seek to be more informed. This article however was very disappointing.
" People who are worried about whether the stock market will crash or not are worried about a generality." "It shouldn't matter to the serious long-term fundamental investor."
Chuck, how many of us are NOT serious or do NOT approach investing as a long-term discipline for future security and retirement ? Therefore how could one NOT consider a crash to be a matter of serious gravity ?
Further, might one not say that, while the investor who can realistically buy and hold for a very log time period what he or she has strong reasons to assume is a very sound and well financed and manager company can take Mr. Carnevale’s perspective when deciding to purchase stock in that company, for purchases of shorter duration and in the stock of companies without all the sterling qualities just described, the state of the stock market and stock market timing become relevant, sometimes highly relevant factors.
Implicit in Mr. Carnevale’s article is a particular type of investor and the otherwise fine article should have made that clear.
And never forget that if you're not an insurance co rolling over the value of unpaid capital gains and dividend taxes for decades it's your own fault.
Group rotation, the carry trade, 24/7 Forex, etc. has changed the business of investing and trading.
Yes, and in the long-run we're all dead.
For the rest of us who live in "now", hedge and watch valuations. Buy and hold can destroy a retirement.