Presidential Analysis and the Economy

Joined At The Hip
Economics and politics are intertwined. This analysis is in no way a political statement. To ignore the past/current/future success or failure of the economic policies of Washington would be to ignore reality. As pictured above, neither party can claim that they are better than the other at implementing political decisions that have/may result in better economic outcomes for Americans.

Current Situation
At this point in time, President Obama is likely headed towards an outcome reminiscent of the Carter presidency. Carter was a very likable guy, just like Obama. Being likable does not, however, equal success. Obama has made many of the big decisions he wanted to make and at least thus far, they do not seem to be working. Our economic analysis has the U.S. economy on the brink of either:

a) A double dip back into recession
or
b) Possibly worse

What To Watch For
Between now and 2012, the Obama administration and the House and Senate will need a miraculous turnaround for the U.S. economy to get reelected. Barring a much better second half of the football game, Americans will once again seek change, hoping that change may foster a better economic result. I am on record as stating that of the two choices that were given, Hillary Clinton would have made a much better choice for a host of reasons. These include: More experience, more bipartisan, more pro business, more realistic about what the priorities should be and how much of the apple you can bite off at a time. I have no idea who the Republicans will choose in 2012, but I will not at all be surprised if Hillary breaks rank and runs against Obama.

The Men Above
Of the men pictured above, I could vote for Kennedy, Reagan and Bill Clinton. Nixon could have made the list, if not for Watergate. Bill Clinton, even with some stumbles along the way, gets a pass because he ran the economy very well.
INVESTING LESSON/OUTLOOK
Elections matter. Economic policy matters. Some get lucky; others do not. We can look back years later at our leaders and realize some had skill, while others did not. Only the history books can tell.

Regardless of what party occupies the White House, as an investment manager, I am left to navigate the markets, which I cannot overemphasize are impacted by many other factors than just current politics.

Only by standing against the prevailing winds–selectively, but resolutely–can an investor prosper over time. Such a strategy may underperform during markets that are rising, based upon the momentum of the herd vs. fundamental valuations. Our portfolios at WFG lagged a bit in the past six months as I was too early to reduce our equity exposure, not expecting the market to run up as far as it did. I believe that today, we now sit near the top, looking down the other side of the hill. With that in mind, our reduced equity exposure in our balanced accounts can allow for "shock absortion", if, and when, the footing takes the markets further down.

Support For Why 60% In Stocks Is Too High For Retirees/Pre-Retirees, At This Time

Recent bulletins to clients of my advisory firm, Wade Financial Group, Inc., have focused on why I believe that a 60% allocation to stocks is too high at this point in the economic cycle. The chart below makes a very important point: You must have a VERY long-term time frame for the odds to be in your favor-and that's IF you start retirement from a favorable stock market valuation.

Percentage chance of exceeding a 3% "real return" (return after inflation) with a 60% equity and 40% bonds portfolio (1889-2008)

INVESTING LESSON:
Only by standing against the prevailing winds–selectively, but resolutely–can an investor prosper over time. Such a strategy may underperform during markets that are rising based upon the momentum of the herd vs. fundamental valuations.

A contrarian style of investing is the ONLY method that has proven, over time to reduce risk and take advantage of opportunities.

Hostess Twinkies and Your Wealth: A Must Read

Seth Klarman is one of the most successful investors of all time. In a recent speech, he indicated that he is more worried now than at any time in his career.Below are several quotes from his speech.

"The possibility that the government will continue to print money to solve our economic problems has left me more worried than at any time in my career. There are not enough dollars in the world to do that, unless we greatly debase them."“A Hostess Twinkie is something that has made many childhoods slightly happier with totally artificial ingredients. That metaphor explains the prevailing environment in the U.S. over the last year, when virtually every market condition was maintained by the government, which kept interest rates at zero, bought up mortgage-backed securities, and installed far reaching lending programs. We don’t know the full extent to which we were manipulated. The government wanted people to buy equities, to invest so that the market would go higher, to build the wealth effect so that people would feel better, and to restore a degree of optimism so that the economy might recover.”

"I am worried about what would happen to the economy and the market if those artificial ingredients were removed and we realize it was in effect a Twinkie."

"That high degree of government involvement continues, with the gargantuan European bailout program, which is not likely to work and merely kicks the can down the road, serving as the latest example. It is one more manipulation tempting people to own things. It’s almost like the government was in the business of giving people bad advice. 'We’re going to hold rates at zero, so please buy stocks or junk bonds that will yield at least five or six percent so you might make something.’ In effect, it is forcing unsophisticated investors to speculate wildly on things that are fully too overvalued.”


 INVESTING LESSON:
Only by standing against the prevailing winds–selectively, but resolutely–can an investor prosper over time. Such a strategy may underperform during markets that are rising based upon the momentum of the herd vs. fundamental valuations.