Tag Archives: Money

Fitch Downgrades America’s credit rating

I’ve spoken before about how credit rating agencies are downgrading the debt of nations. Now, Fitch has downgraded America’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. Once again I’m seeing a lot of conspiracy theories about this and I thought I’d take a moment to hit back against them.

The first conspiracy is the common one that the financial system is conspiring against the common man. This sort of conspiracy is no different from the old “evil bankers control the world” trope, but it gets a lot more traction online when it’s framed with a leftist slant. To be blunt, the financial system is competing with itself more than it is conspiring with itself. Fitch is competing with the other credit rating agencies (Moody’s, S&P) and if it downgrades America’s credit for no reason, it would lose trust in the eyes of the financial institutions which pay for its ratings.

Ratings agencies rate all kinds of debt, not just sovereign bonds. And financial institutions will pay for those ratings so they know where to invest and where to avoid. Trust is key to this, and without trust, Fitch would die. If financial institutions don’t trust Fitch’s ratings, they simply won’t pay for them and will take their business elsewhere. So Fitch cannot in any way downgrade ratings in a way that the broader financial market would not agree with, otherwise it would destroy trust and tank its business model.

In this, there is a common chicken and egg problem with ratings agencies in that they usually only change their ratings when the broader market is already leaning in a certain direction. IE they are followers, not leaders. But that that just lends more credence to their ratings. The market was already very willing to believe that America needed a downgrade, so Fitch isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary. It’s the politicians who have screwed the people on this one, not the ratings agencies.

The other, similar conspiracy I’ve seen is that the ratings agencies are conspiring to undermine Biden and tank his presidency. Biden has been trying to tout the strong economy, and some liberal commentators have been upset that the public doesn’t always buy it. So of course this must be just another GOP plot to brainwash the voters that the Biden economy isn’t awesome.

I would point out however that American real wages are still below where they were when Biden took office. Note for example that real wages declined 3.6% from June 2021 to June 2022. That’s a big dip, and people notice it. People’s ambivalence about the economy isn’t some nefarious plot, it’s very clear when listening to people’s complaints (inflation) and looking at the data (real wages dropping). It’s also quite understandable that ratings agencies have looked at this very same data, as well as the rising debt amid partisan bickering over how to pay it. From this, they might reasonable downgrade America’s credit rating. Not everything is a conspiracy against one’s favorite politician.

Many people will point to 2008 and the financial crisis about why we can never trust ratings agencies again. But that was over a decade and a half ago and every country added new laws to constrain financial institutions. Saying you can’t trust Fitch because of 2008 is like saying you can’t trust the Labour Party because they were in charge during 2008.

So Fitch has downgraded America’s credit rating, and it seems the financial markets were broadly ready to believe them. Rather that stew in conspiracies, it is better to take these criticisms to heart and find a way to fix them.

Why are conspiracies about the stock market so common?

The obvious answer to the question posed in the title is that the market is complicated, and therefore people who don’t understand it are more likely to fall into conspiracies than to admit their ignorance. But I truly am blown away by how common stock market conspiracies are amongst “retail” investors. I don’t just mean the meme stock traders, many many retail investors I’ve spoken to have conspiracies about how the amorphous Wall Street is driving the market one way or the other in order to “punish” someone. Usually the argument goes that X company is a threat to Wall Street, either because it supports some politics that Wall Street doesn’t or because its technology is highly disruptive to an entrenched industry. Therefore Wall Street “punishes” it by deliberately pushing down its stock price.

Just as an aside, that disruptive tech idea is dumb merely on the face of it. The idea is usually said to me as “Wall Street has too much money invested in Y industry, and X company has a technology that could totally disrupt it. Wall Street is protecting its investment by forcing down X company.” This is dumb on the face of it: Tesla, Amazon, and Apple were all exceptionally disruptive and still grew by leaps and bounds. Just because some investors have their money tied up in Ford doesn’t mean other investors won’t give Tesla a shot. Not every investor on Wall Street is invested in the same things, so the idea that they would act as a collective unit is nonsense.

As another aside, I wrote early about how this was a conspiracy I see a lot when talking about nuclear fusion. The idea is that fusion is such an amazing energy source that all other energy sources can’t compete, so they work together to keep it down. But if they can keep down fusion, why haven’t they kept down every other disruptive tech that upended industries through creative destruction? I never get a good answer.

Anyway I think this widely held believe, that Wall Street “punishes” stocks and causes them to go down, is simply another case of people not understanding that the market is filled with individuals acting in their own selfish interest. The only way Wall Street could act as a collective would be if each and every investor was forced to act the same way no matter what.

Say Company X has stock selling at 20$. Some Wall Street investors think that 20$ is a fair price for that stock. But some Wall Street investors are angry that Company X has technology which will disrupt their investments, so they want to “punish” it and force its price down to 1$. They can try to do this by selling the stock, but if the stock falls to say 15$, then the investors who think 20$ is a fair price will happily snap it up, because if 20$ is a fair price, then 15$ is a deal. Quickly the buying pressure from investors who think it’s undervalued should overwhelm those who want to push it down, and the price would stabilize.

Now there are two reasons this mechanism could fail. One is that all investors are forced to act in concert, which again doesn’t make sense at all. Investors compete fiercely with one another, they do not work together for common benefit. And furthermore working together creates a huge prisoners’ dilemma, if even one investor breaks with the group at large, they can reap enormous rewards by buying up stock with a fair value of 20$ for just 1$. Getting to 20x your money for free is a huge incentive to break with the collective, and no greedy investor would pass such an inventive up.

The second reason this mechanism could fail is that there are very few investors who believe the fair value is 20$, and most agree the value is 1$. But that isn’t a conspiracy in action, that’s price discovery in action. The price is an equilibrium between the expectations of the buyers and the sellers. If more and more people think its fair value is higher than at present, its price will go up. If more and more people think its fair value is lower, price will go down.

Trying to “force down” the price of a stock below its fair value is not a profitable way of doing business. No one investor or group of investors control the market, the market is a huge competition between all investors. And so while selling a stock for a price below its fair value can momentarily drop the price, it’s also a great way to lose your own money. Meanwhile if the market is filled with investors who think the fair value is higher, they’ll buy the stock back up to the original point. All you’d succeed in doing with this trick is burning your own money.

The price of your favorite stock went down because more investors thought it was overvalued than thought it was undervalued, not because of some huge Wall Street conspiracy.

If the weavers get replaced by machines, who will buy the clothes?

I’ve seen way too many articles about AI casting doom and gloom that it will “replace millions of jobs” and that this will lead to societal destruction as the now job-less replacees have no more money to spend.  The common refrain is “when AIs replace the workers, who will buy the products?”

This is just another fundamental misunderstanding of AI and technology.  AI is a multiplier of human effort, and what once took 10 men now takes 1.  That doesn’t mean that 9 men will be homeless on the street because their jobs are “replaced.”  The gains reaped from productivity are reinvested back into the economy and new jobs are created.

When the loom replaced hand-spinning weavers, those weavers were replaced.  But they could eventually find new jobs in the factories that produced looms, and in other factories that were being developed.  When computers replaced human calculators, those calculators could now find jobs programming and producing computers.

For centuries now, millenia even, technology has multiplied human effort.  It used to take dozens of people to move a single rock, until several thousand years ago someone had the bright idea of using ropes, pullies, and wheels.  Then suddenly rocks could be moved easily.  But that just in turn meant the demand for moving rocks shot up to meet this newer, cheaper equilibrium, and great wonders like the Pyramids and Stonehenge were suddenly built.

The same will be true of AI.  AI will produce as many new jobs as it creates.  There will be people to produce the AI, people to train the AI, people to ensure the AI has guardrails and doesn’t do something that gets the company trending on Twitter.  And there will be ever more people to use the AI because demand is not stable and demand for products will rise to meet the increase in supply generated by the AI.  People will want more and more stuff and that will lead to more and more people using AI to produce it.

This is something that people get hung up on, they think that demand is stable.  So when something that multiplies human effort gets created, they assume that since the same amount of products can be produced with less effort, that everyone will get fired.  Except that demand is not stable, people have infinite wants and finite amounts of money. 

Technological progress creates higher paying jobs, subsistence farmers become factory workers, factory workers become skilled workers, skilled workers enter the knowledge economy of R&D.  These new higher paying jobs create people who want more stuff because they always want more stuff, and now have the money to pay for it.  This in turn increases demand, leading to more people being employed in the industry even though jobs are being “replaced” by machines.

To bring it all back to weavers, more people are working in the textile industry now than at any point in human history, even though we replaced weavers with looms long ago.

AI will certainly upend some jobs.  Some people will be unable or unwilling to find new jobs, and governments should work to support them with unemployment insurance and retraining programs.  But it will create so many new jobs as well.  People aren’t satisfied with how many video games they can purchase right now, how much they can go out to restaurants, how much housing they can purchase, etc.  People always want more, and as they move into higher paying jobs which use AI they will demand more.  That in turn will create demand for the jobs producing those things or training the AIs that produce those things. 

It has all happened before and it will happen again.  Every generation thinks that theirs is the most important time in the universe, that their problems are unique and that nothing will ever be the same.  Less than three years ago we had people thinking that “nothing will ever be the same” due to COVID, and yet in just 3 short years we’ve seen life mostly go back to normal.  A few changes on the margins, a little more work from home and a little more consciousness about staying home when sick, but life continued despite the once-a-century upheaval.

Life will also continue after AI.  AI will one day be studied alongside the plow, the loom, and the computer.  A labor-saving device that is an integral part of the economy, but didn’t lead to its downfall.

Corporate Greed is over, now comes corporate generosity

If you’ve been to the grocery store recently, you have probably seen an incredible sight. Eggs are now selling for less than they did in 2022. Walmart says they’ll sell me eggs for 1.19$ a dozen, and Target will sell them for 0.99$ with a special discount. Considering that at the beginning of 2023, eggs were selling for as much as 5$ a dozen, this comedown is remarkable.

It gets to the heart of a discussion about the origins of inflation though. The classical definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. That means that when either the money supply is increased or their is a shortage of goods, we should expect to see inflation. This thesis does seem to have played out in 2021-2023. The money supply was increased enormously in 2020 and 2021, while COVID restrictions meant the supply of goods was constrained and could not rise quickly to meet it.

But that isn’t the definition that has been gaining traction. Recently folks have pointed to corporate greed as the primary driver of inflation. Under this thesis, inflation is not driven by the money supply or the goods supply, but by corporate greed in and of itself. If corporations weren’t greedy, they wouldn’t raise prices. But if prices go up because corporations are greedy, doesn’t that mean they go down because corporations are generous?

I’d like to see someone like Bernie Sanders explain the fall in egg prices. Why aren’t Walmart and Target just being greedy like all the other companies? If it’s so easy to raise egg prices by being greedy, then what mechanism could possibly make prices fall? What possible reason could their be for a fundamentally greedy company to willingly lower prices and receive less money?

For that matter, why is Exxon-Mobile being so damn generous? Over the past year, crude oil prices have gone from 100$ to just 70$. Exxon-Mobile was public enemy number 1 when gas prices were high, and was blamed for being too greedy. Have they now become generous instead? Have all the oil companies become generous? Why are the oil companies so much more generous than all the other companies?

It gets to the heart of the problem, inflation isn’t driven by corporate greed. Corporate greed is a constant, I’d go so far as to say human greed is a constant. Corporations (on average) demand the highest possible price for their goods that the market will bear. Laborers (again on average) also demand the highest possible price for their labor that the market will bear. No one ever willingly takes a pay cut without good reason, good reason usually being they have no other choice.

If corporations want to raise their prices above what the market will accept, then they’d be like me walking up to my boss and demanding a million dollar salary. They won’t get what they want no matter how hard they try. If Walmart raises the price of eggs, then Target can steal all of their business by keeping its egg prices low. People stop buying eggs at Walmart, they instead buy eggs from Target or from one of the hundreds of small and independent retailers that still dot America. Grocery stores are not a monopoly in our country, they do not have the power to set prices on their own. They are always in competition with each other and prices reflect that competition.

By the same token, if I demand a million dollar salary, my boss just won’t pay it. If I say I’ll quit if I don’t get it, he’ll show me the door. I am competing with hundreds of other workers in my field and so I cannot raise the price of my labor over and above what others are charging or else I’ll get replaced. It is a fact that many people ignore, but there is a market for labor just as their is a market for any other good. And the labor market has sellers (workers) and buyers (employers) just like any other. So when trying to answer questions about (say) the egg market, it’s useful to first think about how it works in the labor market. We are probably all more familiar the labor market with since if you’re reading this blog you’ve likely worked in your life.

So, in the labor market, can the sellers of labor (the workers) raise their prices just by being greedy? No, of course not. Without some decrease in supply or increase in demand, the price (salary) of laborers doesn’t go up, and workers who refuse to work for the market raise simply won’t receive job offers. It’s the same with corporations and it’s the same with goods inflation. Prices of goods aren’t driven by greed. They’re driven by supply shortages and a glut of money, both of which are in part exacerbated by government policies.

The current administration has continued Trump’s protectionist trade policies, which prevent American companies from being forced to compete with overseas companies. And both congressional spending and the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have expanded considerably, bringing more and more money into the money supply. Too much money chasing too few goods, that is what causes inflation.

It’s official, we’re now being taxed to pay back Peter Thiel

I posted a while ago about how the Biden administration was bailing out SVB without calling it a bailout. Basically Silicon Valley billionaire and hedge fund managers (like Peter Thiel) put all their money in a bank well in excess of the 250,000$ FDIC insurance limit. That limit is a known risk. If the bank you use goes bankrupt, and if you exceed that limit, the FDIC is only obligated to give you back 250,000$. Doesn’t matter if you had 250,001$ or 999,999,999,999$, FDIC is only obligated to give you 250,000$.

But that would be unfair to the billionaires. After all, why should they ever suffer the consequences of their actions? So instead the administration promised that every single depositor would be made fully whole. This was spun as them protecting the little guy, but the little guy was already covered by the 250,000$ insurance. I don’t have more than that in the bank, neither does anyone else I know. If my bank goes bankrupt, I will be fully paid back because my deposit is far less than 250,000$. If you have more than that amount, then you are solidly rich and do not need a government bailout.

But the bailout came anyway. The FDIC handed out money to cover the billionaires and hedge funds. Now that money has to come from somewhere. Biden promised it wouldn’t come from the taxpayers of course, but it still is coming from the little guy. It’s coming from our bank accounts.

Every person who owns a bank account is paying a small amount of tax into the FDIC insurance program. It won’t show up as a line item in your bank statement, but it’s there all the same. But for every bank account held by a bank, they have to pay a little bit into the FDIC. That cost naturally gets passed on to the holder of the bank account, just like every other tax. When the tax on cigarettes rises, the price of cigarettes rises. So too is it with bank accounts. You won’t see the tax as money rushing out of your account, but you will see it as less money going in. The bank will pay you less interest on your deposits because they have to take some off the top to pay for the FDIC insurance. And if there was no FDIC insurance, you’d get more interest.

You can see this exact same scenario if you look at big bank accounts. There are some banks with accounts which hold millions, even billions of dollars. The FDIC is only obligated to pay back 250,000$ in the case of bankruptcy, but a responsible billionaire who does not need a government bailout will pay for deposit insurance which covers more than the 250,000$ FDIC limit. That deposit insurance will decrease the amount of interest paid on the deposit, or even remove the interest entirely to pay the insurance. If you have to pay for insurance, you get less interest.

Everyone with a bank account has to pay for FDIC insurance, we don’t even get a choice. And now we need to pay for even more insurance to refill the FDIC’s account since they emptied it to bail out Peter Thiel

The FDIC plans to hit big banks with a tax to refill its account. This is being spun as a progressive redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s the opposite. If a tax is levied on Walmart, Walmart just raises its prices, and the Walmart customers pay that tax themselves. The vast majority of Americans have their money in a big bank like Bank of America. So the big banks are going to pass this new tax onto their depositors, just as they pass the FDIC insurance tax onto us. You and I will be receiving less interest on our deposits now, because the FDIC spent all their money on Peter Thiel and co. Take from the poor to give to the rich, socialize loses and privatize profits. It’s 2008 all over again.

I know the amount is small. It’s probably going to be no more than a few dollars in lost interest in my account. But a few dollars times the 100 million or so Americans who bank with big banks makes the few billion dollars needed to bail out Peter Thiel and co. And it shouldn’t be this way, we should not be paying for their mistake.

And I know I keep harping on Peter Thiel, but it’s because a bunch of so-called “progressives” are refusing to even contemplate that this is a bailout taking money from the poor. By ignoring the context you can see SVB and its depositors as “the little guys” and Bank of America as “the rich” so taking money from Bank of America to give to SVB depositors is re-distributive. But it isn’t so. SVB was the bank of billionaires and hedge funds, Bank of America is the overwhelming bank of America’s poor and middle class. Taking from Bank of America to pay back SVB’s depositors is taking from the poor and middle class to pay back the billionaires. And reminding those “progressives” of exactly who is being paid back is just something I feel I should do.

Quick Post: WTF happened with Silicon Valley Bank

So I’m really only making this post so I can link to it in another post, but while there have been plenty of explainers going around about what happened with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) I wanted to get all the facts as I know them in one place.

Basically, Silicon Valley Bank had a bank run and needed a bailout. Why?

When you deposit your money into a bank, the bank pays you interest on the money. You are giving what is essentially a loan to the bank, and they in turn use that money to give loans to other people. The assumption is that the interest they get on their loans is more than the interest they pay you for your money, so the bank can always stay profitable.

Banks have their best relationships with the people who deposit money into them, so those tend to be the ones they reach out to and offer loans. Whatever bank you deposit your paycheck into is likely going to be the one that offers you a car or a house loan. But SVB was taking deposits from Tech startups and Silicon Valley hedge funds. Those guys don’t need or want loans. They raise money through equity, not loans. So while lots of deposits flowed into SVB, far fewer loans flowed out.

So how could SVB make money without loans? They bought bonds instead. Government bonds are just a loan you give to the government after all, and SVB thought that using their deposits to buy bonds was a surefire strategy because the government will never default. Remember that banks don’t ever just sit on loads of cash, they have to sell assets if they want “liquidity” (finance speak for cash). But if depositors want their money back, SVB can just sell bonds and give them cash, while if depositors hand them more money, SVB will use that money to buy government bonds.

But then inflation came, and brought with it interest rates. We’ve discussed before about how when interest rates rise, the price of an old bond falls. If you bought a bond paying 0.25% and interest rates have gone up to 5%, no one will buy your bond without a heavy discount. So 3 years ago a tech startup deposited $100 dollars into SVB, and SVB bought 100$ worth of bonds. Now the startup wants its money back but the 100$ bond SVB has bought has given them almost no interest (0.25%!) and has collapsed in price. When SVB sells its bond, it gets back WAY less than 100$.

So when interest rates rose, SVB’s bonds were all worth a lot less, but they were obligated to sell them to pay back their depositors. That would be fine if only a few depositors wanted their money, SVB can take a loss and make back the difference with profit elsewhere. But if ALL their depositors want their money back, SVB cannot cover.

And the depositors did want their money back. Startups backed by hedge funds get piles of money by selling stock, IPO’ing, and selling equity. Then they handed that money to SVB. Stock prices collapsed in part due to rising interest rates, the flow of cheap money stopped. Because of that, startups needed to take their money back out of SVB to keep the lights on. Money was flowing out but nothing was flowing in.

So SVB had a massive interest rates risk on both sides of its balance sheet. Interest rates decreased the amount of money going in (by tanking the stock market and making IPOs and share selling less common) while also decreasing the value of the assets SVB held (by making their government bonds worth less). Add onto that that inflation increased the amount of money flowing out (since startups needed to pay more for everything) and SVB was primed for a bank run. Depositors realized SVB didn’t have enough cash to cover everyone’s deposits, and so they all rushed to take all their money out before it collapsed.

And so collapse it did, and the government handed it a bailout. I’ll write more about that tomorrow.

Follow up: what did Joel Kurtzman think of the 90s and 2000s?

I wrote a post last week about Joel Kurtzman’s “The Decline and Crash of the American Economy,” a book from the 80s that posited that America’s best days were behind it. Kurtzman’s central thesis appears to be:

  • Manufacturing is moving overseas, causing America to run a trade deficit
  • To buy foreign goods, America and Americans are becoming indebted to the rest of the world
  • Foreign investment is flooding into American stocks and American debt, causing us to lose control of our own economy
  • The much touted “service jobs” and “information age economy” are a mirage
  • As a result of the above four facts, the American economy is entering a period of decline and crash which can only be solved by strong protectionism and government control of the economy

This was all written in the 80s, and to an old-school leftists I guess it all seemed very sensible. I could imagine Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders making these exact arguments in 1980, while adding a few more worker-centric chapters of their own. The problem is that this thinking has largely been supplanted by modern economics.

Manufacturing is not the only thing an economy does. The knowledge economy, which Kurtzman scoffed at as the “information age economy,” has rapidly eclipsed all the manufacturing that came before it and continues to propel American forward. Likewise foreign investment flooding into America is by no means bad, as it allowed American companies and the Government to finance themselves with debt or equity. If foreign investment was fleeing America, that would be cause for concern. Being in debt is not a biblical sin for an economy. We all take on debt all the time because the value of having a car or a house now is greater than the value of the money we will use to pay off that debt over 5 to 20 years. The same is true for companies expanding, and foreign investment flooding into America means companies can issue debt much more cheaply than they could otherwise.

Furthermore Kurtzman’s prescription was largely abandoned in the 90s. Both Republicans and Democrats largely made peace with free trade (although the 2 most recent presidents have bucked this trend). There is a strong argument to be made that tariffs on foreign goods hurt the American economy as much as they do the foreign economy for a number of reasons. Tariffs create a walled garden for certain goods, allowing noncompetitive industries to remain in business for longer than they should. In turn these noncompetitive industries suck up investment and compete for resources, making it harder for actually competitive companies to expand as they should be able to. There is only so much supply of money, parts, and workers, if Ford was heavily subsidized by tariffs, would Tesla have been able to take off? Finally tariffs alter the incentive calculus for a company because once tariffs are part of the political equation, companies can increase their profits more by demanding higher and higher tariffs from the government than they can by actually improving production. This caused some Latin American countries to enter a tariff spiral where goods became more and more expensive because rather than compete with the rest of the world, companies put their effort into demanding higher and higher tariffs.

In the 90s and the 2000s America largely abandoned Kurtzman’s thesis and his prescriptions. Angst and newsrooms aside, the trade deficit kept expanding, NAFTA remained in place, the service and information sector were seen as avenues of growth, and debt kept piling up. If Kurtzman then thought the Financial Crisis was proof of his theory, he would have been rather sad that America came out of the crisis much better than most of the nations he said it was indebted to, such as Japan, Latin America, and Europe.

Reading Kurtzman’s book is like reading politics from a bygone age. I once read a book about “the Crime of ’73,” a much maligned bill which removed the right of silver-bullion-holders to have their silver minted into dollars. Pro-silver advocates despised this bill so utterly that it eventually launched William Jennings Bryan as a presidential candidate, a candidacy he might not have gained had the silver movement not been so motivated and powerful. Yet reading it today, it’s hard to understand why this economic debate was filled with such hatred and vitriol. It’s hard to understand the motivations behind the players, and how for them this was the defining issue of their age. Because honestly, America has moved past that debate long ago: silver isn’t money and neither is gold, dollars are. I almost feel the same way with Kurtzman’s book. The last 2 presidents notwithstanding, most of my adult life has been shaped by a bipartisan agreement on free trade and the importance of the information economy over traditional manufacturing. I just wonder what Kurtzman would think now.

Do momentum strategies beat buy-and-hold?

This post has been a LONG time coming, but a while ago I wrote about the rate of return for investing in the S&P 500. In that article, I compared the returns of someone executing a buy-and-hold strategy starting in a certain year and ending 10 years later. Unsurprisingly, the best time to start a 10-year investment was in 1990 or early 1991, as the peak of the DotCom bubble happened 10 years later and you could sell out at the top.

Figure 1: Return over 10 years of a $10,000 investment, assuming buy-and-hold strategy

But what about someone who wants a more sophisticated strategy than simple buy-and-hold? The reason people day-trade is that they hope to beat the market, not just match it. One strategy that I have seen genuine, peer-reviewed literature discussing is the so-called “momentum” strategy of buying while the market is going up and selling while it’s going down. In this way you should avoid big loses (like the DotCom bust) but still have big gains (like the DotCom bubble).

Now, a momentum strategy can be done in different ways. It can look at specific time periods, it can include shorting, it can include sector rotation, etc. But the simplest momentum strategy I found was to simply sell out whenever the market dropped by 20%, and then buy back in when it recovered 20% from the bottom. This is intended to stop loses on the way down and avoid FOMO-ing back in during a bull trap, only buying stocks during a true bull market.

I wrote a program to calculate the return on a $10,000, 10-year investment using that strategy.

Figure 2: Return over 10 years of a $10,000 investment, assuming 20% momentum strategy

The results are fairly discontinuous because of the rigidity of the 20% cutoff, but some patterns do emerge. The return is almost identical for people who invested in 1990, because for that 10-year period the market never dropped 20%. Once you get into 1991 however, this strategy would have allowed some people to avoid the worst of the DotCom crash, as they would have sold out when the market dropped hard. In that case they would have done better than a buy-and-hold strategy.

However that’s just an example of the strategy working at it’s best. I decided to compare the two strategies. I simply subtracted the two graphs from each other, creating the below figure as a result. Any dot that is on the zero line is a point in which buy-and-hold performed identically to momentum. Any dot below is where momentum performed worse, and the few dots above are where it performed better.

Here, we see some interesting patterns, the momentum strategy actually performed pretty poorly for anyone who started a 10-year investment in the 2000s. The peaks in the early 90s are people who sold out during the DotCom bust and missed the worst of the loses. The peak around 1999 is people who sold out during the Financial Crisis and missed the worst of the loses. But the declining valley during the 2000s is the result of people who would have sold out during the Financial Crisis, but then waited for the market to get above where they had sold before buying back in.

Remember that the momentum strategy involves selling when the market has lost 20% and only re-buying when it’s regained 20% off the bottom. Less than 20% off the bottom and you can argue (as some have this year) that it’s just a “bull trap” and the market still has “another leg down” ie much further to fall. This can result in standing on the sidelines with your cash while the market makes money without you. And using this momentum strategy, that’s exactly what can happen.

I use this to illustrate a point I’ve talked about before, it’s not usually smart to just sit on cash waiting for the market to fall further. Sure the market can fall further, but it can also rise and leave you behind. Time in the market beats timing the market. Furthermore, this experiment is as generous as possible to the momentum strategy: there are no transaction costs (the bid-ask spread is an unavoidable real-world cost) and we ignore dividends (which further rewards time in the market at the expense of timing the marker). If total returns were taken into account along with transaction costs, it’s debatable as to whether any 10-year momentum investment would have beaten buy-and-hold. Even as it stands now, only a very few lucky investment windows would have benefited from momentum strategies, most would do best with buy-and-hold.

Just for kicks, I reran this data with a 10% momentum strategy instead of 20%, and the results were even worse for momentum. Selling out at the first sign of trouble, FOMO’ing back in to the first recovery, and then losing all over again makes for a terrible strategy and that can basically be what momentum trading is.

I can go forward and look at more exotic momentum strategies some other time (for example short stocks that are falling and long stocks that are rising), but for now I think I’ve proven my point.

So who’s still sitting on cash?

A couple of months ago people were clambering that anyone holding stocks was a moron and it was better to be sitting on cash. Where are those people now?

This time December, the S&P 500 was hovering around 3800 and we had just emerged from the S&P’s worst performing year since the Great Recession. With the Federal Reserve continuing to tighten plenty of folks were scrambling to say that the worst was yet to come and everyone needed to get out of stocks NOW.

Since then, the market has recovered, the FTSE in particular has hit all-time-highs, and sentiment is strengthening. Is there still a case to be made that the market will drop another 20% from here? If there is, I’m not seeing it get made. If you pulled everything out of the market in December, well you missed the upswing. Cash isn’t without its downsides.

This was supposed to be a bigger post, but frankly I just don’t have much else to say. Don’t be like this guy, just because stocks can go up as well as down doesn’t mean your best bet is to sell everything and put it under a mattress. On average, the people who make the least amount of trades have the best portfolios, and that means buying once and never selling.

What was the best 10-year period to invest in the S&P 500?

I’m doing a small project right now looking at whether stop losses are actually useful in investing. When FTX blew up, it was noted that the traders there didn’t believe in stop losses, for which they were ridiculed on social media. Of course, do stop losses actually help? Or are they more likely to kick you out of a volatile-but-profitable investment than save you from an unprofitable one? Well I can’t answer that yet, but I can answer a different question.

To start my project, I downloaded 30ish years of S&P 500 data starting September 1990 and asked a quick question: what 10-year period gave the best return if you had invested in the S&P? Once I get the baseline return down, I can add in things like stop-losses and momentum strategies to see if a savvy investor could have improved their return with simple rules. Anyway, here’s the data:

I make a small program to estimate the return if you have bought $10,000 of S&P 500 stocks and simply held them for 10 years, selling them at the end of the 10th year. From this we can see that 1990 would have by far been the best years to start as you would have been able to sell at the peak of the Dotcom Bubble. Just a couple of years later however and you would have sold into the Dotcom Crash instead, drastically lowering your returns. The worst years for a 10-year buy-and-hold were 1998-2000 as you would have sold into the teeth of the Financial Crisis. These are only years where your 10-year return would have been negative. Then we can see 2008-2009 themselves as some of the best years to start investing, since you would have bought right at the bottom and ridden strong returns into 2018-2019.

I hope to update the program soon to see if momentum strategies beat buy-and-hold, but for now this gives a good picture of the historical returns for the S&P 500. The average 10-year-return was 100%, but with an 80% standard deviation. The absolute worst return would have been to start investing March 30th 1999, you would have bought into the Dotcom Bubble and sold into the Financial Crisis with a net return of -48%. The best 10-year-return was to start October 11, 1990, which would have had you buy very low and sell near the tippy top of the Dotcom Bubble for a 510% return. There are some wild swings with the buy-and-hold strategy, but the average is still very positive, we’ll see later if stop-losses can beat that.