Why non-transitory recession is coming and how to face it as an investor
Vitaliy N.
Katsenelson NOVEMBER 10, 2022
I am not an
economist, but, looking at this picture, it is hard to see how we can avoid a
recession. Ironically, we’ve been in a recession most of
2022 – real GDP declined in the first and second quarters.
Economists attributed declining GDP to a “transitory” recession
caused by an overhang of pandemic-induced supply chain issues.
As
inflationary pressures squeeze consumers from all directions, they simply will
not be able to buy as many widgets as they bought the year before. Demand for
widgets will decline; companies will have to readjust their workforce to the
realities of new demand and thus reduce their employee headcount; and this will
lead to higher unemployment. All this, in turn, will lead to lower demand, and
voila, we’ll find ourselves in a non-transitory recession.
Recessions do
not worry us. Though I am sympathetic to people losing jobs and suffering
economic hardships, recessions are a natural part of the economic cycle. They
force both companies and individuals to become more efficient and thus make
them stronger in the long term.
Recessions
are like forest fires – small ones are healthy for the
forest, as they get rid of dead wood and convert it to fertilizer. However, the
longer you suppress the fire (with the best intentions, thinking you are doing
a good thing) the more dead material the forest accumulates. Eventually, when
fire does pay a visit, it is more devastating and its effects are more
long-lasting.
Some folks
are upset about what the Federal Reserve is doing now. First off, it is not
clear that it is the Fed that is in control of interest rates today and is
responsible for their going up. Since inflation is running 7–9%, where
would we expect interest rates to be? Second, we should be upset at Uncle Fed
for allowing negative real rates for almost a decade, manipulating the price of
one of the most important commodities of all, the interest rate (the price of
money). This caused bubbles across all assets except one: common sense did not
experience much growth.
Since we are
on the subject of uncles, we should also not forget to thank another uncle – Uncle Sam.
The one who ran our debt from $10 trillion in 2008 to $31 trillion today. When
our debt is $31 trillion, each incremental 1% interest rate increase costs the
government about $310 billion in interest payments, which equates to a major
category of our government spending. The cost of the first 1% increase equates
to about how much we spend on Medicaid, a 2% hike in rates costs us about as
much as our defense spending, and 3% about equals our Social Security outlays.
Though we
have to accept the new reality that income tax rates are likely going higher,
it is going to be difficult to tax ourselves out of the current situation we
are in – the hole we have dug is simply too big and deep.
Also, we are not going to cut Medicaid, Social Security, and especially defense
(now that we are in the foothills of Cold War 2.0 with China and/or Russia).
That would be a sure way for politicians to lose their jobs. No, we are going
to do what every country that can issue its own currency has done since the
beginning of time: We are going to print money and thereby try to inflate
ourselves out of trouble.
Summing up,
the economy is likely heading into a non-transitory recession, and this one may
last longer than past ones (we have accumulated a lot of dead wood).
The recession
should lead in time to lower interest rates (good news for the housing market)
and higher unemployment (bad news for the housing market). Consumer spending is
going to be under significant pressure from all directions – a
significant headwind for the economy.
Recessions in
theory should reduce inflationary pressures. However, the combination of lower
tax revenues and higher interest expense (interest rates may decline from the
current level, but they are unlikely to come back to 2021 levels) means that
our government debt will continue to climb, and the resulting money printing
will bring higher inflation (more money chasing fewer goods), thus keeping
interest rates not far from their current level or even pushing them higher.
As
unemployment rises and we slide into a recession, the Fed may start lowering
rates and fall back on its old tricks (buying back government bonds) that we
saw over the last decade and a half. However, if inflation persists the Fed may
find that the problem it has created over that time is bigger than it can
handle.
If reading
this gave you a minor headache, imagine what I experienced writing it. Neil
deGrasse Tyson has observed that “The universe is under no
obligation to make sense to you.” This also applies to the
current economy.
To make
things even more interesting, while we are facing this economic whirlwind, the
market (the average stock) is still expensive. Bonds, though they are yielding
more than they did six months ago, still provide negative real
(after-inflation) yields and are thus not an attractive asset from a long-term
capital-preservation perspective.
What is our
strategy in an economy that makes little sense and is under no obligation to do
so? Invest humbly and patiently. Humbly because we don’t know what
the future will hold (nobody does!). You handed us your irreplaceable capital,
and thus we’ll err on the side of caution.
We’ll invest
patiently because we don’t get to choose the economy or
the overall market valuations we find ourselves stuck with – Stoic
philosophers would call those externals – and we have
no control over them. The only thing we can control is our strategy and how we
execute it.
(Stoics would
call that an internal.) We are going to continue to do what we’ve been
doing: patiently and methodically keep building a portfolio of “all-wheel-drive,” undervalued,
high-quality companies that have pricing power and should get through anything
the economy throws at them.
In fact, if
you look carefully through your portfolio – and this is
the beauty of custom, separately managed accounts – you’ll see that
the revenues of most of the businesses we own are not tied to the health of the
economy.
Also, though
we may end up being wrong on this (not the first time), the consumer seems like
the weakest link in the economy. Though completely eliminating the consumer is
an impossibility in a diversified portfolio, over the last year we have
significantly reduced our exposure to consumer spending. Our current exposure
to the consumer is tiny.
One last
thing: We’ve been slightly reducing the size of individual
positions to avoid the potential impact of unknown unknowns, shifting us from
20–25 to 25–30 stock
positions.
I wrote the
following to clients on tax loss harvesting, which is something many investors
are either contemplating or doing this time of year. Feel free to skip this
portion and go on to the music section.
Tax Lost
Harvesting
I enjoy writing
about taxes as much as I enjoy going to the dentist. But I feel what I am about
to say is important. We – including yours truly – have been
mindlessly conditioned to do tax selling at the end of every year to reduce our
tax bills. On the surface it makes sense. There are realized gains – why don’t we create
some tax losses to offset them?
Here is the
problem. With a few exceptions, which I’ll address at
the end, tax-loss selling makes no logical sense. Let me give you an example.
Let’s say there
is a stock, XYZ. We bought it for $50; we think it is worth $100. Fourteen
months later we got lucky and it declined to $25. Assuming our estimate of its
fair value hasn’t changed, we get to buy $1 of XYZ now for 25 cents
instead of 50 cents.
But as of
this moment we also have a $25 paper loss. The tax-loss selling thinking goes
like this: Sell it today, realize the $25 loss, and then buy it in 31 days.
(This is tax law; if we buy it back sooner the tax loss will be disqualified.)
This $25 loss offsets the gains we took for the year. Everybody but Uncle Sam
is happy.
Since I am
writing about this and I’ve mentioned above I’d rather be
having a root canal, you already suspect that my retort to the above thinking
is a great big NO!
In the first
place, we are taking the risk that XYZ’s price may go up during our
31-day wait. We really have no idea and rarely have insights as to what stocks
will do in the short term. Maybe we’ll get lucky again and the
price will fall further. But we’re selling something that is down,
so risk in the long run is tilted against us. Also, other investors are doing
tax selling at the same time we are, which puts additional pressure on the
stock.
Secondly – and this is
the most important point – all we are doing is pushing
our taxes from this year to future years. Let’s say that
six months from now the stock goes up to $100. We sell it, and… now we
originate a $75, not a $50, gain. Our cost basis was reduced by the sale and
consequent purchase to $25 from $50. This is what tax loss selling is – shifting the
tax burden from this year to next year. Unless you have an insight into what
capital gains taxes are going to be in the future, all you are doing is
shifting your current tax burden into the future.
Thirdly, in
our first example we owned the stock for 14 months and thus took a long-term
capital loss. We sold it, waited 31 days, and bought it back. Let’s say the
market comes back to its senses and the price goes up to $100 three months
after we buy it back. If we sell it now, that $75 gain is a short-term gain.
Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax bracket, which for most
clients is higher than their capital gain tax rate. You may argue that we
should wait nine months till this gain goes from short-term to long-term. We
can do that, but there are costs: First, we don’t know where
the stock price will be in nine months. And second, there is an opportunity
cost – we cannot sell a fully priced $1 to buy another $1
that is on fire sale.
Final point.
Suppose we bought a stock, the price of which has declined in concert with a
decrease of its fair value; in other words, the loss is not temporary but
permanent. In this case, yes, we should
sell the stock and realize the loss.
We are
focused on the long-term compounding of your wealth. Thus our strategy has a
relatively low portfolio turnover. However, we always keep tax considerations
in mind when making investment decisions, and try to generate long-term gains
(which are more tax efficient) than short term gains.
We understand
that each client has their unique tax circumstances. For instance, your income
may decline in future years and thus your tax rate, too. Or higher capital
gains may put you in a different income bracket and thus disqualify you from
some government healthcare program.
We are here
to serve you, and we’ll do as much or as little tax-loss selling as you
instruct us to do. We just want you to be aware that with few exceptions
tax-loss selling does more harm than good.
沒有留言:
張貼留言