Lyn

Typically, the federal government spends more than it takes in. This has been going on for decades. At moderate levels, i.e. moderate debt/GDP ratios, this is not cause for concern. Presumably the national economy will grow enough to service the debt.

Historically, deficit spending would temporarily increase during some crisis like a major recession or major war, then it quickly tapered back down again. There was a general understanding, it seems, among most voters and most politicians that huge deficits were not healthy; one would not want to burden future generations with a lot of debt.

During the 2020-2021 epidemic experience, however, politicians found they got instant popularity by handing out trillions in stimulus money; anyone who squeaked that we couldn’t afford this much largesse got run over. And this spend-big, tax-small mentality has now become entrenched. Both presidential candidates have been traversing the nation promising juicy tax cuts. Apparently, we the people have decided to vote ourselves lots of free money right now, and the heck with future generations.

Here is a forecast from the Congressional Budget Office, with the optimistic assumption that we will never get another recession, showing that the recent levels of deficit are much higher than historical norms:

This is just the yearly deficit, not the exponentially-growing accumulated debt. The influence of the total debt may be seen in the mushrooming interest outlays. Below is another chart with data from the St Louis Fed, displaying both deficit level and unemployment over the past 80 years. Again, deficit spending would ramp up during recessions, due to reduced tax revenue and increased spending on unemployment benefits, etc., but then it would ramp right back down again. It failed to come back down completely after the 2008-2009 recession, and indeed started ramping up around 2016, even with low unemployment.

I don’t see this trend changing, and so investors need to take this into account. Here I will summarize some key points from analyst Lyn Alden Schwartzer in her article on the Seeking Alpha investing site titled Why Nothing Stops The Fiscal Train.

She notes that besides the primary deficit, the interest paid on the federal debt is a transfer of money to mainly the private sector, and so is further stimulus. This is one factor that has helped keep the economy stronger, and inflation higher, than it would otherwise be.

Some key bullet points in the article are

The U.S. faces structurally high fiscal deficits driven by unbalanced Social Security, inefficient healthcare spending, foreign adventurism, accumulated debt interest, and political polarization.
Investment implications suggest favoring equities and scarce assets over bonds, with defensive positions in T-bills, gold, and inflation-protected Treasury notes.
Fiscal dominance will likely lead to persistent inflation, asset price volatility, and potential stagflation, making traditional recession indicators less reliable.
A neutral-to-negative outlook on U.S. stocks in inflation-adjusted terms, with better prospects for international equities and cyclical mid-sized U.S. stocks.

She suggests looking to the recent histories of emerging economies to see what happens in nations with perhaps stagnating real economies kept afloat by ongoing federal deficits. Her tentative five-year outlook for investing is bearish on the major U.S. stock indices (gotten overpriced) and on government bonds (real returns, in light of anticipated ongoing inflation, will be low), but bullish on international stocks, inflation-protected bonds, short-term T-bills, gold, and bitcoin (again, all mainly driven by expected stubborn inflation as the money supply keeps growing):

-For U.S. stocks, I have a neutral-to-negative view on the major U.S. stock indices in inflation-adjusted terms. They’re starting from an expensive baseline, and with a high ratio of household investable assets already stuffed into them. However, I do think that among the universe of more cyclical and/or mid-sized stocks that make up smaller portions of the U.S. indices, there are plenty of reasonably priced ones with better forward prospects.

-For international stocks, I think the 2024-2025 Fed interest rate cutting cycle is one of the first true windows for them to have a period of outperformance relative to U.S. stocks for a change. It doesn’t mean that they certainly will follow through with that, but my base case is for a meaningful asset rotation cycle to occur, with some of the underperforming international equity markets having a period of outperformance. At the very least, I would want some exposure to them in an overall portfolio, to account for that possibility.

-For developed market government bonds, like the U.S. and elsewhere, I don’t have a positive long-term outlook in terms of maintaining purchasing power. A ten-year U.S. Treasury note currently yields about 3.7%, while money supply historically grows by an average of 7% per year, and $20 trillion in net Treasury debt is expected to hit the market over the next decade. So I think the long end of the curve is a useful trading sardine, but not something I want to have passive long exposure to.

-A five-year inflation-protected Treasury note, however, pays about 1.7% above CPI, and I view that as a reasonable position for the defensive portion of a portfolio. T-bills are also useful for the defensive portion of a portfolio. They’re not my favorite assets, but there are worse assets out there than these.

-Gold remains interesting for this five-year period, although it might be tactically overbought in the near-term. It has had a nice breakout in 2024, but is still relatively under-owned by most metrics, and should benefit from the U.S. rate cutting cycle. So I’m bullish as a base case.

-Bitcoin has been highly correlated with global liquidity, and I expect that to continue. My five-year outlook on the asset is very bullish, but the volatility must be accounted for in position sizes for a given portfolio and its requirements.

I’ll add two comments on this list. First, the bond market is usually pretty good about figuring things out, and has evidently realized that endless huge deficits mean endless huge bond issuance and ongoing inflation. Thus, even though the Fed is lowering short-term rates, bond buyers have started demanding higher rates on long-term bonds. And so long-term government bonds may not be as bad as Schwartzer thinks.

Second, for reasons described in The Kalecki Profit Equation: Why Government Deficit Spending (Typically) MUST Boost Corporate Earnings, when you work through the various sectoral balances in the macro economy, most of the huge deficit spend dollars will end up in either corporate earnings or in the foreign trade deficit. So the ongoing deficits will continue to buoy up U.S. corporate earnings, and hence U.S. stock prices.

I ran across an article by Lyn Schwartzer on seeking Alpha last week, which I thought was insightful regarding investments. Here is my summary.

The article is Most Investments Are Bad. Here’s Why, And What To Do About It. The article’s first bullet point is “Historical data shows that the majority of investments, including bonds, stocks, and real estate, perform poorly.” Unpacking this, looking at various investment classes:

Bonds and Stocks

Investment-grade bonds typically pay interest rates just a little above inflation, so it’s not surprising that they have been mediocre investments over the long-term. The prices of long bonds (10 years or more maturity) tended to rise between about 1985 and 2020, as interest rates came steadily down, but that tailwind is pretty much over.

It has been known for years, e.g. from a study by Hendrik Bessembinder, that only a tiny fraction of stocks makes up the vast majority of returns in equity markets. I wrote about this a couple of years ago on this blog.:

The rise of the S&P is entirely due to huge gains by a tiny subset of stocks. The average stock actually loses money over both short and long time periods. … half of the U.S. stock market wealth creation [1926-2015] had come from a mere 0.33% of the listed companies… Out of some 26,000 listed companies, 86 of them (0.33%) provided 50% of the aggregate wealth creation, and the top 983 companies (4%) accounted for the full 100%. That means the other 25,000 companies netted out to zero return. Some gave positive returns, while most were net losers.

As investors, we of course want to know how to lock in on those few stocks that will perform well. I see two approaches here, not mentioned in the article. One is to be very good at analyzing the finances and market environments of companies, to be able to pick individual firms which will be able to grow their profits. Being lucky here probably helps, as well. An easier and very effective method is to simply invest in the S&P 500 index funds like SPY or VOO. Because these funds are weighted by stock capitalization, they inexorably increase their weighting of the more successful companies and dial down the unsuccessful companies. This dumb, automatic selection process is so effective that it is very difficult for any active stock-picking fund manager to beat the S&P 500 for any length of time.

What the article suggests in this regard is to focus on businesses that have “durable competitive advantages (network effects, powerful brands, intangible property, economies of scale, oligopoly participation, and so forth),” or to try to pick up decent/mediocre companies at a low price.

The big tech companies which are mainly listed on the NASDAQ exchange have these durable advantages, and indeed the QQQ fund which is comprised of the hundred largest stocks on the NASDAQ has far outpaced the broader-based S&P 500 fund over the last 10 or 20 years.

Real Estate

All of us suburbanites know that owning your own home has been one of the best investments you can make, over the past few decades. The article points out, however, that real estate in general has not been such a great performer. If your property is not located close to a thriving metropolitan area, where people want to live, it can be a dog. The article cites abandoned properties all around Detroit (“large once-expensive homes that are now rotting on parcels of land that nobody wants”), and notes, “In Japan, there are millions of abandoned countryside homes that are nearly free. Many of them are in beautiful and safe rural areas, and yet there is insufficient demand for them.”

And so, “Most real estate falls somewhere between those extremes. It performs decently, especially when considering that it can replace the owner’s rental income or be rented out for cashflows, but after maintenance and taxes are considered, its unlevered total return from price appreciation and cashflow generation net of maintenance leaves something to be desired relative to gold.”

Gold As a Reference

The article uses gold as, well, the gold standard of investing returns. The supply of gold creeps up roughly 1.5% per year, so after say 95 years there is four times as much physical gold as before. We find that an ounce of gold will buy more food or more manufactured goods than it did a century ago, but that is because our efficiency of producing such things has increased faster than the gold supply. On the other hand, “All government bonds have underperformed gold over the long run, and most unlevered real estate has underperformed gold as well.” Stocks in the broad U.S. market (most foreign stock markets did more poorly) greatly outperformed gold, but that is only accomplished by the top 4% of stocks. The other 96% of stocks as group did not generate any excess returns.

Owner-Operators versus Passive Investors

I am looking at these issues from the point of view of a passive investor – I have some extra cash that I want to plow into some investment, and have it return my original capital plus another say 10%/year, without me having to do extra work. It turns out that many companies, especially smaller ones, provide useful products to customers and they make enough profit to pay off the owner/operators and the employees, but not enough to reward outside passive investors, too. These companies serve an important role in society, but are not viable investment vehicles:

Being an owner-operator of a business, or a worker at a business, makes a lot of sense. However, the vast majority of businesses are not strong enough to provide good returns for outside passive investors after all expenses (including salaries) are considered.

Good returns for outside passive investors are reserved for only the best types of companies; companies that are so dominant and high-margin that even after paying all of their executives and workers, they have plenty of excess profits for outside passive investors. Although stocks from any sector can have these characteristics, Bessembinder’s research found that major outperformers were disproportionally concentrated in the technology, telecommunications, energy, and healthcare/pharmaceutical sectors. They are on the right side of an emerging tech trend, they have network effects, they have economies of scale, they have protected intangible property such as patents, or they are part of an oligopoly, and so forth.

Similarly, real estate (especially unlevered), works most easily when it is occupied or used by the owner. After all, you must live somewhere. Now, you can make money buying and renting/flipping properties, but that typically demands work on your part. You add value by fixing the tenant’s toilet or arranging for a plumber, or by scoping the market and identifying a promising property to buy, and by working to upgrade its kitchen. All this effort is not the same as just throwing money at some building as a passive investor, and walking away for five years.

Upping Returns via Leverage

This is a packed sentence: “Historically, a key way to turn mediocre investments into good investments has been to apply leverage. That’s not a recommendation; that’s a historical analysis, and it comes with survivorship bias.”

For example, banks have historically borrowed money (e.g. from their depositors) at lowish, short-term rates, and combined a lot of those funds with the bank corporate equity, to purchase and hold longer-term bonds that pay slightly higher rates. Banks are often levered (assets vs. equity) 10:1. This technique allows them to earn much higher returns on their equity than if they used their equity alone to buy bonds.

It is easy to leverage real estate. If you put 20% down and borrow the rest, bam, you are levered 5:1. Now if the value of your house goes up 6%/year while you are only paying 3% on your mortgage, the return on the actual cash (the 20% down) you put in becomes quite juicy: “After maintenance and recurring taxes, the majority of unlevered real estate, even when rented out for cashflows, doesn’t outperform gold. But unlike gold, 5-to-1 leverage makes real estate actually pretty good in many contexts, and historically allows it to outperform gold.”

Large corporations can leverage up by issuing relatively low-interest bonds: “They can borrow large amounts of money for decades at low interest rates, and use that capital to organically expand their business, buy smaller companies, or buy back their own shares. Either way, they are borrowing abundant fiat currency at low rates and using that capital to build or buy business equity, and they are arbitraging that spread for shareholders.”

Savvy firms like Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway take it a step further, by having controlling interests in insurance companies, and investing the low-cost “float” funds, as we described here. From the article:

Berkshire has also made a habit out of buying small and medium sized private businesses in full. Many of these smaller companies would have higher borrowing costs if they were independent. But Berkshire can buy a lot of them, and then issue corporate debt at the parent company level at much lower interest rates than any of them could issue on their own. So he can buy a lot of unlevered cashflow-producing small or medium-sized businesses, and turn them into a portfolio of businesses that are levered with Berkshire’s very low cost of capital.

Now other companies like Ares Management and Apollo are jumping onto this arbitrage bandwagon, buying up insurance companies to get access to their captive cash, to be used for investing.

Here is another rough example of the power of leverage. The unleveraged fund BKLN holds bank loans, and so does the closed end fund VVR. But VVR borrows money to add to the shareholders’ equity. There is more complication (discount to net asset value) with VVR which we will not go into, but the following 5-year chart of total returns (share price plus reinvested dividends) shows nearly triple the return for VVR, albeit with higher volatility:

The Changing Global Economic Landscape

The article closes with some summary observations and recommendations. The past 30-40 years have been marked by ever-decreasing interest rates, and by cooperation among nations and generally increasing globalization. It seems that these trends have broken and so what worked for the last four decades (buy stocks, shun gold) may not be as good going forward:

For equity and real estate investors, the key takeaways from this piece are 1) do not extrapolate the prior decades for a given investment and instead assess it with this context in mind, 2) try to emphasize the sectors [such as Big Tech] that Bessembinder identified as ones that disproportionally generate excess returns, and 3) look for companies that have locked in or are otherwise still able to play this arbitrage game going forward in a more difficult environment for it.

Additionally, hard monies [i.e. gold, silver] become a serious alternative once again in this context, and are worth serious consideration for a portfolio slice, because the hurdle rate for stocks to outperform them is high when there are not a lot of tailwinds at the backs of stocks.