A very smart friend was visiting from Manhattan this weekend. His proximity to Wall Street gives him a window into the world of finance. His tendency to be out of sync with the average American protects him from the herd instinct. Despite having a demanding academic science job, he has been a successful individual investor for a couple of decades. In the spring of 2008, with the Dow at 13,000, he moved all of his family’s investments into bonds.
When conversation turned to the latest sag in the stock market, he opined that much worse was yet to come and that the Dow might get back down toward 7000. He cited the moribund U.S. economy and the profligate U.S. government (people who argue for stimulus spending tend to underestimate the government’s ability to waste money, e.g., putting a 6-year-old girl on the no-fly list (story)).
I have trouble letting go of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. If the Dow is at 9700 right now then that is the best estimate of where it will be a few years from now (plus whatever the yield on a TIPS bond is, i.e., 1-2% per year). With the U.S. state and federal governments amping up taxes and handing out the money to the retired, the world’s least efficient health care system, and political cronies, and 15 million Americans unemployed, how can the S&P 500 not be dragged down? My argument is that most of the companies in the S&P 500 aren’t dependent on the continued prosperity of working Americans. General Electric can build factories in and sell products to customers in any part of the world that is thriving economically. Intel can sell processors to families in Turkey, Brazil, and India. Walt Disney can welcome visitors to its Shanghai theme park. Admittedly many of the companies in the S&P 500 would appear to be dependent on American consumers, e.g., Southwest Airlines or various insurers. But even these should still produce good profits. The U.S. economy may end up with big shifts in wealth, e.g., from workers to retirees, from the private sector to government employees, and from competitive industries to government-sponsored industries. The per capita income of the U.S. may fall, as the population increases and the GDP remains constant. But as long as GDP does not fall, the same amount of money is there circulating for a company to collect as profit. [In January 2009, I wrote a posting about how the U.S. economy does not need to crash or boom; it can simply slide sideways as England’s did for decades.]
What do readers think? What plausible scenario causes the multinational companies in the S&P 500 to become worth significantly less than they are now?
Full post, including comments