Real return from stocks was better under Trump I than under Biden

 

S&P 500 average real return, dividends fully reinvested

Nov 2016--Nov 2020: 13.18% per annum

Nov 2020--Nov 2024: 9.97% per annum

On a nominal basis it was a draw, that's how bad inflation was for stocks: Trump 15.33% per annum vs. Biden 15.39% per annum.

 

Although the Reagan Bull from July 1982--August 2000 was spectacular, yielding 18.99% nominal and 15.28% real, the actual Reagan era itself was still a huge battle with inflation

Nov 1980--Nov 1984: 10.5% nominal, 4.9% real

Nov 1984--Nov 1988: 17.06% nominal, 13.22% real.

As stock indexes make new all time highs, it's still a 7% world, not a 16% world

The current $SPX world, from Aug 2000 (market peak) to Dec 2023, dividends reinvested, average per annum return: 7.019% nominal.

The previous world of similar length, Apr 1977 to Aug 2000: 16.246% nominal.

Remember that no one even dates the bull market conditions of the past starting from 1977. The Reagan bull began in the summer of 1982. But even from 1977, it was a completely different, better world for investors.

The rate of nominal return per annum was 2.31 times better in that world.

Investing $100 per month in the previous world produced over $258k. Investing $100 per month in the current world has produced only $103k.

The following Vanguard mutual funds have inception dates in the year 2000. They reflect the same reality.

I show nominal average annual return since inception for each fund in 2000 through 12/31/23, per Vanguard.

Performance in red beats average SPX nominal 7.019% since 2000, but none by much. Remember that through 12/31/23 stocks generally were only recently buoyed by exceptional returns, after a down year last year. $VTSAX, the total stock market index, was up a whopping 26.01% in 2023.

VIGAX 8.21 Growth Index

VFIAX 7.62  500 Index

VTSAX 7.90  Total Stock Market Index

VEXAX 8.22  Extended Market Index

VSGIX 8.93  Small Cap Growth Index Inst.

VESIX 4.47  European Stock Index Inst.

VSMAX 9.01 Small Cap Index

VBAIX 6.70  Balanced Index Inst.

VBIAX 6.57 Balanced Index

VPKIX 3.40  Pacific Stock Index Inst.

VVIAX 7.18 Value Index

VEMIX 6.37 Emerging Markets Stock Index Inst.

VIPSX 4.49  Inflation Protected Securities

 

These are but a shadow of the former things which obtained in the previous world.

Stonks have really sucked for the last 21.5 years

Average per annum return of 4.77% has been 26% off the long term historical return from 1871 and over 61% off the immediately preceding 21.5 years beginning in February 1979. The Great Reagan Bull didn't even begin until 1982.

The secular bear continues.

 

The on-going housing bubble

I checked the value of my home on Zillow today.

It's nuts.

After 13 years the estimated price is up 6.5% per annum.

On the other hand, the house I previously owned and sold is up only 0.8% per annum over the same period.

Two entirely different houses, two entirely different locations, two completely different histories. What seems like a bubble living in my current house wouldn't seem like one living in my old one.

The best way I've found to think about this is to ask, How much of a house will my income buy? For bubble purposes nationally, even though housing is a regional and local matter, use median household income and median sales price.

Here's the chart of that data as currently available.

In 2020 the Median Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States (MSPUS) averaged a new high of almost $337k. We don't yet have the median household income figure for 2020, but it's likely to be bad news, skewing the graph lower again as less income buys a smaller share of increasingly expensive housing.

As you can plainly see, the trend for the percentage of a house purchased by an income has been all downhill since the end of Reagan Bull in 2000. The percentage really fell a lot during the housing bubble which peaked in 2005-06, helping precipitate GFC1. Incomes fell a lot after the Great Financial Crisis because people lost their jobs by the millions and never got them back and so less income purchased less house. Housing prices bottomed in 2012 and then rebounded slowly. Incomes did not, however, and what you made just kept buying less in the low range of 19%. 

That all sucked. Obama really sucked. Sucked historically bad. Record-setting bad. 

You'll notice things really improved in 2019, however. That's because median household income shot up $5k to over $68k (Trump tax cuts), and the median sales price of a house actually fell $5k to $320k. Your higher income bought more of a slightly cheaper house, not as much as the good old days, but more.

Unfortunately in 2020 median sales price shot up almost $17k while millions upon millions lost their jobs. The feds enacted foreclosure forbearance so that 2.3 million homes whose owners lost their jobs never came onto the market. But desperate people who wanted out of cities snarfed up inventory. Demand far exceeded supply, so prices went up. 

But even at 21.5% in 2019 housing was nowhere near affordable like it was from 1987-2001. It was a nice, hopeful moment, while it lasted.

I'm guessing it's going to be quite a while, though, before we ever see even that again. 

COVID-19 in the largest countries by population: Update for Sun 5/2/21

Countries with 200 million population or more: China, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria.

Data isn't available in all categories for all countries, and data quality varies dramatically.

One should assume figures in the Big Seven are more or less gross underestimations except in the USA. 

China in particular is a JOKE. Why anyone takes them seriously as a "global partner" is beyond me. Show me an honest communist and I will give you six free winning lotto numbers.

Hospital reporting is the worst. Very few countries report the data at all, which tells you they are neither motivated nor equipped to do so even though this is a pretty serious situation which is over one year old. Given how important that data is in judging the progress and severity of the pandemic, it is more than discouraging. The top five for hospitalizations are all US and Europe, the difference between true civilization and the rest being that we know the numbers at all.

The situations in Brazil and especially India are alarming given the high positivity rate in India and the high death rate in Brazil. Reports concentrating on India underreporting deaths (from Reuters and the like) in recent weeks are a sick joke compared with neighboring China which the charts say is a COVID utopia. India is a developing nation struggling to cope under an enormous strain while still remaining part of the free world, but journalists would rather criticize it than question China's glaring effrontery. The myopia is damning.

These Big Seven represent 4.065 billion of the world's population of 7.79 billion, 52.2%, and we don't have a clear picture of what's really going on with them.

What reason would there be to think positively?

Daily new cases, and deaths, per million in the US are still at last summer levels and have not made new lows. Same with hospitalizations. Case positivity is rising again and is actually at 5.8%, provisionally, in this data. Previous very recent levels in the 7s, however, have simply vanished from the record. Why? Johns Hopkins is currently showing 4%. What to believe?

Vaccinations still can't be pointed to for lowering the US numbers because the numbers remain too high. I'm sure they'll point to them once they decline as evidence for vaccine efficacy. Seasonality will be ignored. I will leave a vaccination horror story update for a separate, future post.

Why have cases and deaths and hospitalizations ebbed and flowed in the past in the absence of vaccines? I predict they'll never really say, same as we hear no good explanation for why H1N1 from 2009 simply dropped off the radar. Why did it go away despite the vaccine against it turning into a giant flop? 

They can't predict pandemics' comings and goings anymore than they can predict global cooling in the 1970s, global warming in the 2000s, the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 or the end of the Reagan Bull in 2000.

Man is a worm, according to the Bible, a poor player upon the stage, according to Shakespeare, an idiot whose tale is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Nothing!

 

daily new cases per million

daily new deaths per million

case positivity rate

share of population vaccinated usa v world

Top five countries for C19 hospitalizations

share vaccinated in the largest countries by population

 

daily new deaths/million

daily new cases/million

The 20th anniversary of the end of the Reagan bull in August 2000 shows stock market return hasn't been just sub-bull, it's been sub-normal

Average per annum real return from the S&P 500 in the last 20 years has underperformed the 100+ years up to the beginning of the Reagan era by 36.8%.

Don't even begin to THINK return has compared with the era of the Reagan bull. This isn't a bull market, let alone a normally performing market.

Remember, this is real return, not nominal. 

 

Back when America was great, Q2 real GDP used to average 4.4%, under Trump it averages 2.6%

From 1982 to 2000, coincident with the great Reagan bull market in stocks, the average report of real GDP for the second quarter was 4.4%.

Trump was going to make America like that again.

At an average report of 2.6% so far, he has no grounds for saying America is back, let alone greater than ever before. He's doing better than Obama at 2.3%, but that's about it.

The economy shrank dramatically after 2000, and no one has figured out how to fix it.

The current secular bear market in stocks matched the length of the Reagan secular bull in September 2018

Average investors since August 2000 have underperformed the great Reagan secular bull market by nearly 70% annually through September 2018, but the current secular bear marches on.

Average investors aren't just severely underperforming the Reagan bull, however. The average 5.77% per annum return since August 2000 also underperforms the S&P 500 annually from 1871-1982 . . .  by 29%.

When the current secular bear ends is anyone's guess. While already long in the tooth, there's nothing that says it can't last even longer.

But you'll know it's over when stocks are universally shunned, as they were in the summer of 1982. Unfortunately, that would mean the S&P 500 would have to fall, and fall hard and deep, from here. In a worst case scenario that would mean to a level of, say, 283, which is today's inflation-adjusted level of the S&P 500 in July 1982, 89.6% south of yesterday's close at 2728. That's what it would take to match that buying opportunity, not just of a lifetime but of the whole history of the S&P 500.

On an inflation-adjusted basis a more likely future washout range would include a level something well north of 283, however, say between December 1987 at 527 and March 2009 at 898. The feeling has always been that the catastrophe of 2009 was arrested by draconian interventions, and that the market wasn't allowed to do its work and destroy the weak as it should have.

The Reagan secular bull was an extreme outlier in the history of the market. Nemesis is still lurking out there somewhere in its relentless quest to revert to the mean. Best not to stand in its way. 

HaHaHa, HaHaHaHaHa: I got your "booming economy" right here, fella

The Reagan bull ended in August 2000 with final average nominal per annum return of 18.99%, real 15.28%

It's hard to escape the conclusion that US GDP has been highly dependent on fertility

Peak Baby Boom 1952-1957 when births per 1,000 of population averaged 25.17 (graph 1) is probably the simplest explanation for outsized GDP performance during the years when this generation turned 22 from 1974-1979. More babies in the 1950s equaled more GDP come the late 1970s.

We only wish for that GDP now.

Jimmy Carter, elected in 1976, still owns the best 4-year GDP record in the post-war, despite everything you've been told (graph 2). It's nothing special he did really, it's just that in 1975, the year before his election, you had the very peak of the Baby Boom turn 18, those born in 1957 when births per 1,000 hit 25.3 for the second and final time in the post-war. They and the rest of their cohort were ready to consume in numbers never seen before. Their era spanning from Nixon/Ford from 1972 when the first of them turned 20 through Reagan in 1984 when they turned 32 represents the coming of age of America's most powerful economic demographic and the period when America's GDP performance hit its highest levels (average 46.3%).

Their failure to have enough children themselves, however, is also a big part of the explanation for the GDP trend heading south after their time. They consumed, but they did not at all produce children like their parents had. In fact, the nadir of births per 1,000 before the current period occurred from 1972 to 1977, precisely the period exactly 20 years after peak Baby Boom 1952-1957. Births per 1,000 averaged just 14.92 during this period, a rate nearly 41% lower than their parents' era. So the most prolific fruit of the Baby Boom had gone on to become themselves the least prolific, having the fewest children ever.

Not surprisingly, without enough bodies the economy inevitably began to run out of gas starting about two decades after that. Clinton era GDP performance was never as good as Reagan's, and the era was marked by various warnings, not the least of which were the bond debacles of 1994 and 1999. The great Reagan bull market ended in August 2000, a recession ensued in 2001, average S&P 500 return has been reduced to 5.2% per annum over the last 17 years, and the GDP growth rate after Clinton has averaged just half what it averaged before Carter (16% vs. 32%). No wonder the trend is down so dramatically (graph 3).

The solution?

Have LOTS more kids, and wait 20 years, if you want America to still be America, that is. Otherwise, let in even more than the 1 million immigrants we already let in annually, and prepare to kiss your country goodbye.

But don't hold your breath. Births per 1,000 have fallen to an average of just 12.5 for the five year period 2011-2015.

They don't call it the suicide of the West for nothing.

graph 1

graph 2

graph 3

Full-time job growth under Trump so far beats Obama and Bush, but that's about it

Note that employers panicked under Obama and fired people like crazy after his election, so there was a steep decline in full-time.

So far the growth of full-time shows a tentative thumbs-up to Trump, but still nothing like the vote of confidence typical after previous changes at the helm of state.

The puny 2.5% growth under George W. Bush, keep in mind, was still all pre-911 and post-Reagan bull market, which ended in August 2000. Trump is doing better than Bush, but not by much.

George Herbert Walker Bush's legacy: It took only 7 years of NAFTA to destroy hours worked in the United States

Hours of all persons grew 44% during the Reagan bull market, which ended in August 2000. Since then, hours of all persons has grown just 3%.

NAFTA went into effect in January 1994, eleven years after the Reagan bull began and a little over one year after Bush inked the deal. Seven years later hours of all persons peaked.

It reminds me of Bill Clinton's innovation, the so-called Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which blew up the housing market after just 10 years.

Republicans take away your job, then Democrats come along and take away your house.

If you're living in your car, you'd better watch your back.  

The main reason we are still in a secular bear market

Ed Easterling, Crestmont Holdings LLC, quoted here:

"P/E has not declined to levels that are required to drive a secular bull market.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Other forces have been hard at work manipulating prices, inhibiting discovery of actual value.

Apathy Precedes Bull Markets, Not Fear

The secular bull market in gold since 2001 is coincident with a secular bear market in stocks since 2000, if this November 30, 2009 analysis by Brett Arends for The Wall Street Journal is correct.

 

The current stock market rally is therefore a cyclical bull market within the long term bear market, which at present elevated levels is ground where angels fear to tread, or ought to, as the title "Gold Run a Reason to be Wary of the Stock Market" suggests:

The booming gold price is making me very nervous. About Wall Street.

Why? Because gold's rocketing boom -- it's risen from around $260 an ounce about a decade ago to just under $1,200 now -- is a vivid daily example of what a real bull market looks like. ...

Looking back to early March, there certainly was a lot of panic and capitulation, which you usually see at a market bottom. People talked of a new "Great Depression." One thing I noted at the time was that investors were shying away even from rock-solid defensive stocks with big, well-protected dividend yields. People weren't just scared; they were petrified.

Is that really how a massive bear market usually ends?

The last example before our eyes was gold, whose big bear market ended a decade ago. It looked very different.

Like shares in the 1930s and the early 1980s, gold ended its secular bear market in 1999-2001 with a whimper, not a bang. People didn't panic; they simply lost interest.


Read the rest at the link.