VALUE vs. MOMENTUM
THE LAW OF PERVERSE OUTCOMESTHE DAILY RECKONING PARIS, FRANCE THURSDAY, 16 NOVEMBER 2000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Greenspan's Fed holds steady course
but "evidence of a slowdown mounts
" *** Margin debt down 16%
with a lot further to go
. *** World markets topping out
will biotechs be the new dot.coms?
High Tea at the Savoy
and more
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** Alan 'Harry Potter' Greenspan met with his little band of central banker magicians yesterday. They neither raised nor lowered interest rates, as expected. But they didn't move to a neutral stance either, which disappointed Wall Street, especially the financial stocks. *** The Fed said that the battle against inflation was not entirely over. Meanwhile, "evidence of a slowdown mounted" said the Financial Times, "with
a decline in factory output, an abrupt slowdown in stockpiling among retailers, wholesalers and factories, and a weakness in the loan portfolios of major U.S. banks." *** Stocks nevertheless managed a modest rise yesterday. The Nasdaq gained 27 points. The Dow gained 26. *** 1656 issues advanced on the NYSE; 1188 declined. 74 hit new highs; 62 hit new lows. *** Investors are still believe in the power of stocks to make them rich
and in the magic of the Fed Chairman to make sure nothing goes too seriously wrong. *** Abbey Joseph Cohen says "stocks are at their best values of the year." This is, of course, undeniably true. But the question is whether or not they will be even greater values in the months ahead. *** The trouble is that stocks are still far too attractive to investors. They are still pouring money into mutual funds, and still willing to go into debt to buy shares - on the theory that capital values will rise faster than the cost of credit. *** Richard Russell reports that margin accounts have fallen from their peak of $278 billion at the height of Nasdaq mania in March to $233 billion today. But Russell cites the work of Dr. Sloan Wilson who said that a bear market should reduce margin accounts by 90% - which would give us a target of just $27 billion for margin debt when stocks are ready to head up again. *** Also from Russell: "The Dow Jones World Stock Index
has formed a huge top, then
broke sharply below its May low. This suggests to me that a world economic slowdown is on the horizon
The next U.S. president is not going to have a picnic." *** Oil is at $35.48 after rising 71 cents in N.Y. yesterday and dropping back a little in trading in Asia overnight. *** There was little action in the currency markets. The euro still refuses to rise and the dollar refuses to fall. For now. *** "We have just not even begun to appreciate the effect of biotech on culture and on society," observed Greg Blonder in Barron's. "I think we have completely underestimated its impact," said the former MIT scientist with 70 patents, now a venture capitalist. *** "Could biotechs become the market's next dot.coms?" asks a Barron's headline. Blonder and a lot of other people think so. "Since mid-1999," writes Michael Shaoul, Vice President of Oscar Gruss & Son, "the biotechs have generated impressive gains and, even in the face of the market's recent volatility, a number of them remain at or near all-time highs, while many of their brethren in other areas of the tech universe have been battered." *** As with the rest of the tech universe, very few investors understand what happens on Planet Biotech. But they have heard that the new technology may be able to perform wonders - such as growing new organs and greatly extending the human lifespan. Surely there must be money to be made. And since investors are sure that there is a fortune waiting for them somewhere
why not in the biotech space? *** "Nevertheless," writes Shaoul, "the economic value being placed on the companies at the center of these achievements isn't founded in reality
the group is being over-valued on a fundamental basis
" *** PC makers fell yesterday, while Intel and Micron rose. William Fleckenstein comments on the 'disconnect': "It was as if they were pretending they were just names, and not businesses that make the parts that go into PCs
.. In my opinion we are not too far away from pre-announcements in PC land - probably starting sometime in the next couple of weeks. In this quarter, folks are finally going to come to the conclusion that PC stocks deserve much smaller multiples because it's a terrible business, arguably no better than making televisions or some other consumer appliance." (see: Things that go bump in the night ) *** "While the Internet/telecommunications/technology bubble is in the process of collapse," writes David Tice, "the dangerous real estate bubble is running unabated. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported that mortgage applications increased almost 6% last week to its highest level since June of last year. Considering the historic mortgage-lending boom, there should be little surprise that home construction remains quite strong and housing inflation continues to accelerate in many markets." (see: A Truly Extraordinary Financial Environment ) *** We had a long day yesterday - taking the train over to London in the morning and back in the evening. We had intended to stay overnight - but the hotels were sold out. *** Addison had never been to High Tea in London, so we continued our meetings at the Savoy (Brown's was booked). There is probably some unwritten rule against discussing business matters at tea, but the whole experience has drifted down market in recent years anyway - as tourists from all over the world rush to London's grand old hotels to empty their pockets in front of liveried attendants and white-gloved waiters. *** A few tables down from us, two women looked like they might have walked right in from Boone's Mobile Estates in Upper Marlboro
while at an adjoining table a man who looked as though he lived before the introduction of mirrors, sat without friends. There was no one to tell him that he looked ridiculous and he couldn't see for himself. *** But the experience had its uplifting moments, too. On the other side of the room, a decrepit man fondled the hand a beautiful young woman who reminded me of a Vargas Girl pinup. The man - at least 20 years older than I am, and probably a half-century older than the woman - gave me hope for the future. If something should happen to Elizabeth, perhaps I will be able to make a fool of myself too. * * * * * * * * * Advertisement * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1,891 "Insider Secrets" - Put MORE MONEY In Your Pocket How do some ordinary people buy the latest cars, clothes and jewelry - and never worry about money? Simple, it's not "who" they know, but what:
- Eight clever angles to get a free - or nearly free university education. - How to make up to $100,000 a year in 'finder's fees' - How to choose safe, high-return investments where your money multiplies tax-free - How to get money out of your home without moving or getting a home equity loan
These and thousands of other easy wealth-building secrets are yours in one blockbuster report: International Wealth Angles. Hot off the presses - IWA will show you 1,891 ways to increase your quality of life (with very little effort). Read it today:
International Wealth Angles * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VALUE vs. MOMENTUM
THE LAW OF PERVERSE OUTCOMES Bryant Gumbel, Tom Brokaw, tennis star Andre Agassi, Miami Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga, NBC President Bob Wright, CMGI Inc. Chairman David Wetherell, and Joe Flom of the New York law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom. - all these men were given an opportunity to buy 'insiders' shares of a company called Dreamlife, promoted by Tony 'Awaken the Giant Inside' Robbins. What Mr. Robbins awakened inside these movers and shakers was the craven little scamp, greed, not a giant of virtue and achievement. And he did so by setting off an alarm that awoke them with the opportunity to buy a $16 stock for just $8. Even given a lock-up period of 6 months in which the insiders couldn't sell, this deal had to be what the boys on Wall Street would call a 'no brainer'. Alas, dear reader, contrary to what you may have commonly observed, even the absence of brains is no guarantee of success in modern America. It is, of course, a big advantage, but even near-perfect stupidity and ignorance cannot be counted on to overwhelm the Law of Perverse Outcomes. If ever there was a growth and momentum play, Dreamlife was it. The company came out of nowhere with nothing and grew to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in almost no time. Not only that, but its ownership list included some of the most celebrated personalities and heavyweights in the nation. Unburdened with a realistic business plan, operations, profits or even sales
the stock floated upon the steamy expectations of the manic market like greasy bubbles on the surface of homemade soup. But that was several months ago. Now, the heat has been turned down and the price of Dreamlife shares has fallen to $3. But even that price fits as awkwardly on the Dreamcast business as a white dinner jacket on an Iowa hog. With 40,000 shares outstanding, it presumes a market capitalization for the firm of $120 million. And yet, Christopher Byron, Bloomberg columnist and my source for this story, says that Chase Manhattan recently refused to lend the company a paltry $1.5 million without an outside guarantor. The reason? Because Dreamlife is a nightmare that is about to end. The company is going broke. In 18 months of business, it has managed to lose almost $25 million on sales of only $28,000. The whole affair reinforces our belief in the aforementioned Law of Perverse Outcomes. Somehow, sometime, somewhere
people get, not what they expect, but what they deserve. Things sort themselves out. It all comes right in the end. Victor Niederhoffer, speculator extraordinaire
until his speculations produced such heavy losses that his hedge fund went bust
challenged this view in an article that I first thought was a joke
and still am not sure about. "Why high P/E stocks are good for you" begins the headline. In the thin air of a bubble market, the helium filled stocks with high prices and low earnings, like Dreamlife, may rise faster than their denser brethren. But Niederhoffer seemed to be making a deeper point - that they are 'good for you,' like broccoli or confession. "Risk pays," wrote Neiderhoffer, reinforcing the absurdity of his point and making you wonder why he didn't go broke sooner, "and that's why those risky growth stocks will always be better for your portfolio than value stocks." Always? Risk pays when the real risk is over-priced
that is, when the danger is exaggerated in the price. Bond investors, for example, will find that their high yield, junk bonds from Amazon are good investments - if the company merely survives longer than the bond market expects. By contrast, risk will not pay when it is underestimated. If Amazon goes belly-up in 3 years rather than the 4 years that bond investors anticipate, Amazon's bondholders will discover that particular risk did not pay. Dreamlife shareholders seem to be as blind to risk
or perhaps, as dull to pain
as Mr. Robbins' firewalkers. "Value is back," Niederhoffer continues
perhaps with his tongue so far into his cheek that he is in danger of biting it off, "at the wrong time and the wrong place - just when investors should be loading up on growth and momentum plays." Niederhoffer: "The main reason that growth investing will always outperform value investing is that markets pay an investor to lend long-term to companies with above-average rates of return. That's the process that leads to assets being deployed in their best possible uses. And that's the process that all stock exchanges show in their films to visitors to explain this. But strangely, the message has been lost." No one doubts that investors generally get a return on their money from investing
nor even that there is some relationship between risk and reward, but that does not mean that investors don't occasionally over-invest in risky projects, reducing the yield per dollar of investment - and do not sometimes misjudge the real risk involved. Niederhoffer and a colleague studied the returns from Nasdaq 100 stocks over the last 3 years. They found, not surprisingly, that when the wind picks up - as it did since 1996 - the Dreamlike fluff flies high. In fact, those Nasdaq stocks least freighted with earnings rose most. From this he might have drawn the conclusion that the last 3 years were unusual. Instead, he seems to think that what happened between 1996 and 2000 might continue forever - that is, that the most expensive companies (per dollar of earnings) will forever become even more expensive
a hypothesis so unlikely that it ranks alongside classics, such as: "I didn't inhale." "High P/Es are good P/Es," Niederhoffer concludes
and "we intend to place some of our hard-earned cash from writing, and perhaps a few more from savings, into a little speculation on the least value-full of the Nasdaq 100." If the next three years, are like the last three, Niederhoffer may be able to complete a full cycle
from genius to fool to genius again. And who am I to say that he won't? But the Rehabilitation of A Speculator could also take much longer. "After a portfolio of growth stocks is identified," said Bill Bernstein, quoted in Grants as he put his finger on Niederhoffer's LPO problem, "it becomes less profitable with time, and after a portfolio of value stocks is identified, its profitability improves." Mass recognition is the last step in a financial cycle - before it reverses direction. Thus, not until everyone becomes aware that Niederhoffer is a fool will he become a genius again. And not until everyone becomes fully convinced that the bull market is over, then - it will be ready to begin a new climb. Companies that everyone knows are declining in terms of growth and profitability do the obvious thing - they cut expenses and hustle for extra sales. Meanwhile, companies that everyone knows as growth stocks - with rising earnings and profits - "become complacent," says Bernstein, "and tend to waste capital and decrease profitability
Thus, the long-term historical superiority of value, with its rising profitability
over growth, with its deteriorating profitability." But Bernstein goes on to make a deeper point. "All investments," he says, "
have two return components - the investment return and the entertainment return." Daily Reckoning aficionados, if there are any, will recognize in Dr. Bernstein, a companionable soul. You may recall, months ago, that I suggested that dot.com and tech investors had a motive other than money. They were sacrificing themselves for the public good, I reckoned that day, figuring that they were over-investing their money so the new technologies would be built out more quickly than would be economically sound. They were like the Kamikaze pilots of Japan in WWII - caught up in the mass madness and willing to go down in flames for the cause. They did so, not by reason, but by instinct
so that the rest of us would enjoy the fruits of the new tech sooner than otherwise. And at least they could feel good about themselves, even superior to the rest of us. With a flashlight of cash, they were helping to usher in the New Era. Bernstein puts it differently: "The purchase of a bubble stock has a high entertainment return, but this unfortunately crowds out most of the investment return. Investors accept low investment returns on tech stocks, I believe, for the same reason they accept low returns form a trip to Las Vegas - they derive considerable entertainment from it." More particularly, growth stocks
even goofy 'growth' stocks like Dreamlife
allow investors feel superior. They are with it; they get it; they are hip to the New Era - forward-looking Digital Men, with modern art on their walls and a palm pilot in their pockets. But it's expensive entertainment. Your correspondent, Bill Bonner P.S. If the general proposition is correct - that is, if things balance out in life
then just as you would pay a price for owning attractive growth stocks
you'd expect to be rewarded for owning unattractive value ones. This might be the same phenomenon that allows buyers of modern art to make a profit - they are rewarded for putting up with ugliness. "There are stocks," says Bernstein, "that scare the bejabbers out of us, which can be thought of as having negative entertainment value, for which we are thus rewarded with return in excess of the market." Tomorrow - some of the most unappealing stocks in America. Take these ugly puppies home and they will be your most loyal and trustworthy friends
fetching profits for as long as you own them. |