A friend called Friday and asked the question that is on everyone's mind: "How in the world can the financial troubles of a tiny nation like Greece cause the world's financial markets to screech to a halt?
As I listened to him I saw the stock market fall off a cliff: down 60 points on the Dow Jones, down 100 points, down 200 points, down 300, 400, 500, 600 points. I did not see the print of down 900 points because I turned away from my screen for a moment.
Before I could begin trying to explain my thoughts about Greece, my friend asked another question: "Are we going to go back to the bottom of the market we saw in March of 2009?"
My answer was quick, but I have been thinking about it ever since I saw the first riots break out in Greece. "I don't think so," I said.
"I was looking for a more positive answer from you. You have been optimistic lately," he replied.
I told him that I was much more optimistic about the subprime crisis in the US because I could see that the various important players in the drama were all doing their parts. The Fed pushed every lever they had to keep money flowing in the banking system. Congress appropriated enough seed capital to head off a liquidity crisis in the economy. Businesses right-sized their costs relative to their revenues. Consumers reduced spending but did not freeze up. The US Treasury department orchestrated a step by step program to return confidence to the banking system. This enabled the banks to raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new capital to offset the mind-boggling losses they were taking in real estate. I told my friend that as ugly as the subprime crisis was, I remained reasonably confident throughout because I could see there was a unified effort to control the damage and the full power of the United States was being invested to execute the plan. There was a will and a way to get past the crisis.
I explained that taming the financial crisis in Europe was different than taming the subprime crisis in the US for these reasons: Europe is not a single unified entity. Even though they have a common currency with a framework for a kind of United States of Europe, that little of the framework has been codified into law. Thus, the idea of Europe as a single nation is a complete illusion. Europe is still a collection of independent countries. Thus, it is quite possible that nationalistic tensions could sabotage the best intentions and plans of the nominal leaders. In short, European leaders may see a way out of their mess, but there might not be the collective or individual will to do it. In addition, there is no one really in charge. It is like a big club.
The frugal citizens of Germany do not want to loan money to the bankrupt citizens of Greece, who in turn do not want to change any of their financially profligate ways. There does not appear to be a unity of purpose, even if the resources are available to solve the problem.
My friend asked, "So is there reason for optimism that the wealthy nations of Europe can rein in Greece and the other countries that are having trouble?"
I answered, There is and it is based on the strongest of human emotions: survival. Sooner or later the citizens of Greece will realize they are doomed as a nation without the loans. They may be burning bank buildings today, but one day soon when the lights go out and water doesn't flow from the taps, they will realize that as a nation and as citizens they have been living beyond their means so long that they are no longer free to run their own affairs. The water has been turned off, so to speak. They will agree to the loan arrangements and begin the process of trying to live with them. There is really no alternative. Portugal and Spain are also having debt issues. Watching Greece crash and burn will be a reminder to them of where any intransigence they may harbor will likely end.
The world-wide economy is gaining traction. Almost every economic measure in the US has been better than expected in recent weeks. After a long period of weekly job losses, job gains have now occurred in the last three weeks. The developing world is still growing rapidly. Indeed, economist Ed Yardeni recently reported that 60% of US exports were going to the developing world. The economic fundamentals appear to be improving almost everywhere but in Europe. That is not likely to change with the internal squabble that has erupted.
The economic world did not just evaporate today. There are many rumors of so-called "black-box" automated trading systems that generated errant trades, causing precipitous falls in stocks, which had no negative news of any kind.
So the eternal question hangs heavy in the air: Was the market efficient today? Did the economic underpinnings of companies really fall by as much as did the market prices?
I think what we are seeing is a pure trading frenzy that has little to do with the intrinsic valuation of underlying companies. Here is the best proof I can offer of this. Procter and Gamble (NYSE:PG), one of the largest, best managed companies in the world, a company that has paid a dividend since the late 1890s and who has raised their dividend for 53 consecutive years, was selling for around $60 late in the afternoon. In a matter of moments the stock fell to $39.37. It then climbed all the way back to close at $60.75. PG's stock movement had nothing to do with its underlying value. It had everything to do with the noise and mayhem of a video game played by hedge fund tech-savvy kids with real money.
Does it mean that we long-term investors have to acquire the latest programed trading machines, so we can beat the money gunners at the their own game? Heavens no. There is a secret that we know about Procter and Gamble that the money gunners could care less about. Over the last 20 years our model indicates P&G's annual price gain has been nearly 90% correlated to its annual dividend increase. At it current dividend rate, our model says Procter and Gamble is very undervalued. As for me, I would rather trust 20 years of mathematical probabilities than one day of video game idiocy.