Giving the devil his due, the bottom-up crowd has won this round, as earnings results are not disappointing as much as economists did for the third quarter. Therefore, in light of the recent market action, it seems more than productive to understand the nature of this important (but not dominant) segment of the market.
Most investors are bottom-up oriented. They buy and sell stocks with a passing reference to the sector and style til their portfolios produce. Like many sports teams, portfolios are populated with the best ideas. Sectors and styles are a by-product. Individual company earnings results, performance metrics (such as profit margins, growth rates, etc.), and valuation levels determine the buy/sell/hold decisions made. From that comes the action taken.
This situation is largely due to tradition and training: traditional among individual investors, training among the professional crowd (the CFA program, for example). It is what the financial media obsesses on while providing limited, yet sorely needed, education on what constitutes good portfolio management.
As one of the two essential elements that drive stock prices up or down (the other being financial market liquidity), earnings results can dominate the moment, as they appear to have done thus far this month. When good earnings results motivate investors to act positively, the momos (the real power in today’s market) join the party, as they are indifferent to the reasons that drive investors and are far more interested in an excuse to act. As long as money is abundant (financial market liquidity), the upside bias exists. Which brings us back to earnings results.
As long as companies deliver positive earnings results and financial market liquidity remains ample, the bottom-up crew can move markets (aided and abetted by the momos, of course) to a significant degree. Should earnings falter, however, then the dual impact of declining results and diminution of financial market liquidity (in the form of redemptions and withdrawals) can produce a negative feedback loop to the real economy (Soros’ “reflexivity”). Yet, more importantly, within this investing approach lie the seeds of its own destruction.
Bottom-up investing is aided and abetted by ivy tower fantasies about efficient markets, assisted with high-sounding phrases like “price discovery” and “capital asset pricing models”, and supported by economic methodologies that are anchored in traditional metric analyses. Such traditional economic methodologies do, however, come with two significant blind spots: the inability to forecast with any degree of accuracy and consistency (certainly commensurate with a practice that fancies itself as a “science”) and an inability to do global macro analysis particularly well.
The first point is self evident and saturated with historical fact. For example, one need only look at today’s consumer confidence miss to see just how off the mark these “social scientists” can be. The second point was made most evident in the debacle known as the Great Recession. Moreover, the inability to do global macro well also comes with an inability to incorporate contagion’s speed and source (real and/or financial economy).
This is a big part of how the world works in Wall Street. It is the dynamic reality that exists in the surreal world of finance. It is the state of denial that many who play the investing game occupy. And it is why it is so essential to step back and smell the global macro rose, which right now has a decidedly foul odor to it.
But, hey! “Who cares?”, say the bottom-up boys and girls. "Earnings are good and that’s all that matters to me."