With the stock market of 2000 racking up its worst
performance in more than a decade and a half, the wrangling
between bulls and bears over what to expect in 2001 has
begun in earnest.
The Nadaq's record 39 percent loss over the year (down more
than half from its peak) has shattered the illusion that
prices can be bid up to any level that investors are willing
to pay for them, and stay there. Still, many people assume
that since stocks have historically outperformed bonds, over
long periods of time, this must happen in the future.
We often hear people say that they are "in it for the long
haul," as if it were guaranteed that stocks will be a good
investment if they are held for a long enough period of
time. In fact they are often told just that by investment
counselors.
Ironically, it is the long-term future of stocks that looks
very bad right now. And unlike stock prices in the
short-term-- which can fluctuate wildly-- in a bubble
situation, it is the long run that one can actually say
something definitive about.
What does it mean to say that there is a bubble in the
stock market? It means that the average price of stocks is
still much too high, even after the correction of 2000, to
be justified by earnings that the economy could generate in
the future. In other words, it is not possible to come up
with a future scenario consistent with anyone's projections
about the economy that would make investors want to hold
stocks for a long time-- unless stocks prices were to first
drop very steeply.
Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR) was the first economist to work through the
arithmetic of the bubble, and his findings have since been
confirmed by other prominent economists. It works like this:
in the long run, investors hold stocks only because of the
earnings of the underlying companies. Stockholders get a
return from two sources: the shared earnings paid in the
form of dividends, and an increase in the price of the stock
(capital gains).
The average dividend payout is only about 1.5%. Capital
gains, over the long run, cannot grow much faster than the
economy-- unless you are starting from a point where stocks
are undervalued relative to future earnings. But the average
stock price relative to earnings-- known as the
price-to-earnings ratio-- is still near twice its historic
level. So unless you are willing to believe that stock
prices are unrelated to the profits of the companies they
represent, you can't expect capital gains much higher than
the long run growth rate of the economy-- at least from here
on out. That rate is currently estimated at about 2.2%
annually.
That adds up to 3.7%, and even if growth turned out to be
considerably higher than the 2.2% that economists are
projecting, it couldn't solve the problem. It just doesn't
make much sense to hold stocks rather than a US Treasury
bond, which has a similar real (inflation-adjusted) return
but almost no risk. Unless you think that other investors
are going to keep bidding up the price of stocks
independently of earnings: in other words, that the bubble
will grow. But speculative bubbles can't grow forever-- even
tually they must break.
Of course this analysis applies only to the whole market,
or the average stock. If you can pick the next Microsoft or
Wal-Mart and get in early enough, you could still do very
well. But this is not easy to do. So most individual and
institutional investors maintain some sort of diversified
stock portfolio that moves more with the broad market. And
at some point they are going to move out of those stocks, in
large numbers.
Depending on the steepness of further market declines,
there is a real danger to the US economy. Japan's stock
market lost nearly 40 percent of its value in 1990-- a
decade later it is down even more, 64 percent from its peak
in 1989-- and its economy has yet to recover.
The Japanese scenario may be less likely here, but it would
be foolish not to act before a downward spiral began. The
Fed should begin lowering interest rates immediately. Both
Congress and the executive branch should abandon the
extremist and groundless economic theories-- which we could
tolerate while the economy was booming-- that advocate
paying off the national debt over the next 12 years. A
commitment to pay down the debt is a commitment to reduce
demand and slow the economy at a time when we really don't
know where the bottom of the current economic slowdown is
going to be.
The record stock market run-up has generated great wealth
for some, but not most Americans, who still own little or no
stock even in retirement funds. The majority, who did not
share in the festivities, should not get stuck paying the
bill.
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research. His email address is weisbrot@cepr.net.
###