|
Smith
Faculty Opinion Article
The 30
Seconds Outlook
July 15, 2009
|
"The journey to a new stasis is a destructive one insofar
as it affects previously assumed wealth."
|
|
— Bill Gross, Managing
Director, PIMCO, April 2009 |
The crash following the bubble
has and will have brought us
de-leveraging, de-globalization,
re-regulation and higher taxes with
slower growth, increased risk
aversion, distrust of conventional
investment models, and a focus on
“survival.” We have seen higher risk
premiums and volatility with lower
prices for most asset classes.
Rough estimates suggest that as
much as 40% of global wealth has
been destroyed. The survival of
capitalism and its rewards over the
long term now depends on correct
anticipation of future global growth
and volatility, where the guiding
rule must be “buy low-sell high.”
There is no longer a “best text book
estimate” of future long-term
returns.
The financial implications of the
crash include future declines in the
dollar, much stricter credit
standards, smaller equity returns,
and increased risk in emerging
market securities. All of this
requires that personal and
professional policy portfolios must
be restructured for our new
“financial destination,” wherever
that lies. We cannot assume that
future security risks and returns
will approximate historical asset
returns and risk. Homes are no
longer the keys to our fortune.
Pension fund portfolios must be
seriously restructured for present
and future retirees. None of these
necessary changes will be a “slam
dunk”—the past good times will not
be the future over the next few
decades, at least.
An endnote: The government’s
approach to “stimulus” has kept
deflation at the top of the “wall of
worry.” Why? The rate of inflation
is highly positively correlated with
nominal GDP growth. What do we have?
Unemployment is approaching 10%.
Current inflation is just over 1%.
The personal savings rate has
fundamentally increased—less
spending due to uncertainty. The GDP
growth rate is well below trend.
And, then, there is that “nasty
fiscal multiplier” which has been
assumed by the White House to be
quite larger than properly estimated
using empirical statistical
analysis.
John A. Haslem
|