Prepare yourself for a 20-year bear market
Prepare yourself for a 20-year bear market

How can a 20-year bear market be possible if the market wasn’t overpriced to begin with? Surely it’s only a matter of time until reason is restored and the market returns to its previous level? Sorry, but I think that’s unlikely. As I pointed out in a 2005 article titled Profits won’t defy gravity forever, the P/E argument is naïve.
Yes, the P/E was in line with its long-term average. But corporate profits – the ‘E’ part of the equation – are the highest they’ve ever been when expressed as a percentage of the overall economic pie. All of the forces of capitalism work to bring this ratio back to its average. Shrewd investor Jeremy Grantham’s US research led him to the conclusion that this is ‘one of the most mean-reverting series in finance’. But even if you reject Grantham’s argument, you will, as Warren Buffett put it, ‘get into certain mathematical problems’ if you expect part of the economy to continue growing faster than the whole.

For mine, I’m on board with Grantham. I expect the profitability of corporate Australia to fall, in some cases dramatically. In fact, the process is already under way.
Profits under fire
The first profits we’re seeing disappear are those that were never there to begin with. The fictional profits reported by the likes of Macquarie Airports, Macquarie Infrastructure Group and a litany of property trusts – thanks to asset revaluations – are a thing of the past (thankfully).
Next in line are the financial sector’s profits. This sector’s share of the economy was about 1% in 1960. In 1990, it was still about 1%. But by December 1999 it had doubled to 2%, and in June 2007 financial corporations were generating 3% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).
Cheap credit and soaring asset prices translated into rapid loan book growth and record low default rates (it’s hard to default when they keep giving you more money). Some of the change is related to deregulation and could be permanent. But finance remains a highly cyclical industry and the cycle has most definitely turned.
Perhaps the largest contributor to the wonderful times for corporate Australia, however, was the resources boom. Most resources are not sold domestically. They’re exported, which means that in theory resources sector growth could outstrip domestic growth for a long and sustained period. But, for the moment, commodity prices are in a tailspin. Zinc is off 77% from its 2006 high and copper has fallen 60% since July. Nickel, a tonne of which would have cost you US$54,300 in May 2007, is now changing hands for US$9,800 a tonne.
Those prices are in US dollars and a plunging Australian dollar will shield local miners to some extent, but nowhere near enough to maintain current levels of profitability.
Blue chips expensive
These two sectors, mining and finance, represent roughly 70% of the total Australian market. So when you consider the overall market’s P/E of 10, you need to consider the fact that the low P/Es of these businesses are dragging the average down. And justifiably so, based on the evidence at hand. In fact, as I wrote last week, many blue chips look decidedly expensive next to some of their international peers.
And I’m not particularly confident about the rest of the economy either. In relation to both their assets and their income, households are carrying more debt than at any time in our history. We have a generation (my generation) of consumers and companies that know nothing but good times and easy credit.
Australia is fortunate enough to have a large government surplus and room to move on interest rates. That gives the authorities ammunition to defray some of the pain caused by falling house prices and tight credit, but it doesn’t change the fact that spending more than you earn is an unsustainable practice. An adjustment to a sustainable level of consumption needs to take place and it won’t be pleasant for those businesses, particularly retailers, that have grown fat on the profligacy of the consumer.
In short, while substantially lower share prices compensate for much of the doom and gloom, we remain concerned about the state of corporate Australia. In many cases share prices still don’t seem to compensate today’s investor adequately for the risks they’re taking on.
That, in a nutshell, is why I think you should prepare for a long and protracted bear market. Don’t be fooled into thinking things can’t get any worse.
Making money in a bear market
My strategy for dealing with this scenario is not complicated. First, avoid potential disasters – no matter how enticing the potential returns on offer. Mr Market, a fictional character first invented by value investing’s godfather Ben Graham to describe the stock market’s bipolar personality, is in a foul mood. He’s short-tempered, quick to anger and impatient, and this is no time to be asking him for favours (just ask GPT shareholders who have seen their stakes in this iconic group severely diluted by a forced capital-raising at $0.60 per unit). Stick to businesses that don’t need any favours from anyone and avoid those that need to refinance debt or raise equity.
Second, find stocks that will deliver their value to you in cash. If you hold such stocks, the length of the bear market won’t make the slightest bit of difference. Take, for example, electronic-parts-catalogue manufacturer Infomedia. This business sells essential software subscriptions to the automotive industry and generated $13m in profit last year. It consistently pays 80% of its profit out as fully franked dividends, equating to a yield of more than 8%. The company has $14m of cash (as at 30 June), no debt, high profit margins, and 80% of its revenues are earned in US dollars and Euros. If the currency stays at its current low levels, it will have a substantial impact on Infomedia’s profit, increasing 2010 earnings (and, likely, dividends) by more than 50%.
If you want your money back in a hurry, there are a number of income securities trading at exceptionally attractive prices at the moment. These debt-like investments are listed on the stock exchange just like ordinary shares. Our favourites are the Southern Cross SKIES (SAKHA), Seven’s TELYS (SEVPC) and the Timbercorp Corporate Bonds (TIMHB), but there are more than 10 we think are attractive. They all offer returns of more than 15% a year, and in many cases you’re due to get your cash back within the next few years, giving you the chance to take advantage of future opportunities.
This simple, safe strategy will be extremely effective in a protracted bear market and provide you with returns well in excess of a cash account. Of course, if the market does roar back into record territory, you’ll miss some of the big gains. But it is, in my opinion, better to be safe than sorry.
For more value investing analysis and advice, register for a free trial to The Intelligent Investor.
The author, Steve Johnson, owns shares in Infomedia as do other staff at The Intelligent Investor.
Warning: The advice given by The Intelligent Investor and provided on this website is general information only, which means it does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or needs. You should therefore consider whether the advice is appropriate to your investment objectives, financial situation and needs before acting upon it, seeking advice from a financial adviser or stockbroker if necessary. Not all investments are appropriate for all people.
- bear market
- blue chips
- Corporate profits
- income securities
- investment strategy
- P/E ratios
- resources boom
Custom Search 2

Comments
Yet another great article Steve,
I couldn't agree more with the logic that the earnings of corporate Australia can't grow bigger than the pie. There is however, one thing i am struggling to get my head around ever since i read some similar comments by Warren Buffett:
Given sharemarket returns should follow growth in corporate profits, and corporate profits cannot grow larger than GDP, how do we get a long term average sharemarket return of 12% (per chart from ASX website - see link below) , when long term GDP growth is significantly less than this? Should the expected return of the sharemarket then be circa 3% over the long term as per GDP growth? I must be missing something fundamental here, I'm confused.
http://www.asx.com.au/resources/newsletters/investor_update/20080513_lon...
I just started blogging about my experiences on the path towards becoming a value investor.
you can click on my name, and it will lead you to my blog.
or copy the url http://studentinvestorsdiary.blogspot.com/
check it out!
thanks for posting this comment.
To Mark:
If you take real GDP at 3%, long term inflation at say 4%, and gross dividends of 5% (or inflation of 3% and gross dividends of 6%) you come up with a nominal sharemarket return of 12%.
Man, there's optimistic, realistic, pessimistic, then you guys. C'mon guys, Ben lived in a different era with different economies, I'm sure he'd adapt to the current era as a champion person would be a champion at any period. Personally, I reckon you guys need to move on from Ben's much outdated value investing theories.
You've been pumping IFM for years now, what's the capital return in the past 2 years? About a 60-70% loss of capital. Rule no1, *always protect your capital*.
Cheers
The share of profits in the total economic pie should revert back to the mean provided that the mix of capital and labour stay at similiar levels (to take extreme examples if we go back far enough so that everything was produced solely through labour the split is 100/0 to labour, and if we go forward to the point that robots do everything and nobody works the split will be 100/0 to capital).
We don't need to go too far back in Australia to come to the point where the capital base was quite small and most of this was held by farming families and not in companies. The mix of labour and capital has changed to such an extent that I would have thought that corporate profits in Australia over an economic cycle will remain higher as a % of GDP than the long run average.
Of course, we still have a significant economic downturn and the resultant savaging of profits to look forward to for the next couple of years.
It seems likely that your prediction will come to fruition, isn't this what has happened in Japan and now Europe and the USA? Nevertheless, the sun and moon will cycle, the markets will open, goods and services will be exchanged and supersized households, financial markets and banks will have to act more prudently and necessarily downsize. The move to the more modest premises will be painful but ultimately it will be a restorative adjustment. The economic hardships will induce a psychological adjustment, ie, many of my friends have altered their retirement plans, but will perhaps take a number of years and a ten year plus timeframe seems reasonable but this shouldn't hold great fear for a value investor.
Sam, I'm too lazy to do my own figures on this but according to comsec IFM's return on capital has been 40+% for each of the last 2 years. Just because the share price is low doesn't mean the company isn't producing returns.
Sam probably meant capital gain (or loss) on holding IFM shares, as opposed to return on capital. Two very different things, anyway.
To Sam: Ben Graham's "outdated value investing theories" have helped make Warren Buffett the richest person on the planet. And he's been investing for at least 50 years, much longer than the two year timeframe you use for Infomedia shares. Just because the recommendation hasn't worked out so far, doesn't mean it's wrong.
If value investing is dated and we should use something else, what do you suggest? I can't think of anything remotely sensible to replace it.
How do you get 12 ?
Gdp @ 3 minus inflation at 3, plus dividends at 6 = 6% return and that is on the optomistic side.
I appreciate your explaination of 12%
I like to think that I don't normally jump on band-wagons, but here I'll make an exception. So here's the latest instalment of let's bash Sam.
Sam, there’s a lot of noise out there that masquerades as ‘news and information’, which is great for people who want to excel in Trivial Pursuit. However, if you want to gain a deeper understanding about things, you need to try to cut through the noise by first understanding fundamental principles (as difficult as this may be). Fundamental things don’t need to ’adapt to the current era’ – if they needed to, then they wouldn’t be fundamental.
On the subject of IFM, the company has been focusing on running it’s business effectively, and using its capital responsibly. This is how a company becomes more prosperous. The market controls the share price, the management controls the business (or tries to). If you want the management to focus on share price rather than building the business, then you are a short term speculator, not an investor.
What happened to II? Early in 2008, you wrote article "Worry not about US economy". Of course, world has changed since then, but people will still want find a way to earn a buck. And this country has much business to do - build new homes and infrastructure, for example. Your argument shows just one part of the equation, but would not this imbalance correct itself by increase in other parts of GDP, rather than be a 10-year bear market (depression)?
It is easy to be a bear today. Please don't let the market's gloomy mood to affect you too much.
As for IFM, there is plenty to worry despite good balance sheet. Some automakers are bound to fail. Looks like the company will have even fewer even more powerful customers. Plus, there simply could be fewer cars on the road, and they will be electric, with lower maintenance and fewer parts.
I'm still not worried about the US economy. The system has a remarkable propensity to correct itself, both politically and economically, and I think you'll do well being invested in the US over a long period of time.
My point is about the stockmarket. The US market is back where it was in 1999 - soon to be a 10 year bear market - despite the economy growing significantly. I expect our economy to grow significantly over the next 20 years as well, but that doesn't mean the broad stockmarket will provide the returns we've come to expect. Especially if inflation takes off.
But don't worry, I'm buying stocks with every cent I can find and fully expect to make money. I simply feel it's a time to be selective.
Very helpful information. Thank you for posting this. It's very difficult in this climate to know what moves should be made next. Thanks for giving me another perspective. Be well.
I have read the debate on IFM with interest. I thought some facts might help.
Since listing on 16 August 2000 the total annualised return for IFM has been -6.72%. Capital -9.82%, Dividends +3.10%. This is calculated on a simple basis. The total compound return over the same period was -9.8%.
If you want to do these calculations in seconds yourself check out www.sharesight.com.au
Actually, I think anyone making forecasts at the moment is taking a punt. We're in a brand new economic era/meltdown at the moment and only time will tell how it's all going to pan out. Stocks that look rock solid one week can turn woozy very quickly. Best logic is to sit tight, there's going to be plenty of time to work out which ones are going to be the survivors. No point in rushing this one, and as to the high yield income securities. Cash back in the next few years? Just don't bet on all of them being around in a few years time! One thing for sure is that when this is over, there will be some really good strong value stocks out there for the taking - all the rest will be gone!
That's all very well and good - but ultimately if you try to time rather than price, then you'll need a crystal ball so that you're not rushing in with the herd. It's the age-old boom/bust dynamics. When there's a boom, everyone says "no point waiting", when there's a bust, everyone says "no point rushing".
If you wait to see who the survivors are, you'll be paying top dollar for them.
On the other hand, if you choose companies that have a good chance of surviving, and you think you're paying a good price, and you don't put all your eggs in the one basket, then you stand some chance of beating the crowd and sleeping at night.
Yes I fully agree with you on 'choosing good companies that have a good chance of surviving'. I'm buying now, only the really strong stocks, but there are some stocks out there that look good but aren't in the clear just yet. I should have been a bit more explicit. I don't mean wait until we're right back into a full bull market, that timing will be too late. What I should have said is, no need to rush in right now, - the market is still in the process of culling out the rubbish, it'll be a gradual process. Which will mean there's plenty of time to assess who'll be the survivors. If you're buying long term 10+ year horizon, it's not going to be that important to try to hit the bottom right now. I basically agree with what you're saying, however I'm still in the 'no point rushing' camp. This isn't going to be over in a few months.
I think we're basically in agreement - and my sense too is that this will be a long drawn out affair (who am I to argue with Warren Buffet?). I just have a fundamental problem with the notion that NOW is the time to be cautious and buy quality, 'safe' companies. Surely that time was also when we were climbing the steep bull market mountain. Infact, shouldn't that be a constant in the way a sensible value investor operates?
From the man himself:
Lesson #1 - Don't lose money.
Lesson #2 - Don't forget lesson #1.
Despite the ~50% decline of AORD (not to mention DJI et al) from peak there are still plenty of opportunities for so-called value investors to forget lesson #1!
With around $40tn notional (and apparently around $4tn "netted") of credit default swaps still lurking out there, the impending failure of GM (a CDS reference entity) and anaemically over-leveraged balance sheets at major Wall St banks (C, MS, UBS come to mind), I think that sitting on the sidelines and waiting this one out long-cash is the only prudent strategy.
I may be proved wrong and there may be bargains out there to be had at "never to be repeated prices" (heard that one before?) but I'd rather defer to lesson #1 for now.
Oh - and to head-off any criticism, perhaps I should have simply added that anyone who doesn't agree clearly has a "mental problem" with how the market works ;)
After the falls this week it's anyone's call. For my part I'm still topping up on solid defensive blue chips, and there are going to be lots of SPP's coming up, just need to be sure they're not bail outs! This is a good chance to improve and build the overall position of a long term value portfolio. Buffet hasn't been sitting on the sidelines, I'd say at the moment the man has lost a packet - but in 10 years it'll be a different story.
The idea that the market is going to be in the doldums for years is an interesting one.
For years corporate bosses have ratcheted down the number of employees ,doing more with less , cutting inventories, outsourcing non-core activities and stripping away management layers - most companies now are very lean and very mean with considerable flexibility in downsizing their workforce (for example my employer used to operate their own OccHealth , Security and laundry services - these were jettisoned years ago )
my question is this
In previous major downturns (70's oil shock , 87 crash etc) there was still a lot of fat that could be trimmed to improve returns - will the leaner , more agile companies today mean that the recovery will be easier or harder ?
Most were already sqeezing their assets very hard - and so were their competitors - opportunities for improvement must be thin on the ground when the downturn is global (can't just relocate to SE Asia or UK to escape a downturn - it's everywhere !
love to hear the posters thoughts whether THIS recovery will be different
Why buy now what you can buy later for less? We are only 1/3 to 1/2 (at most) of the way through a major global deleverage event that will cut across all geographies, asset classes and industries.
Question 1: Are you hoping your crystal ball is better than everyone elses?
Question 2: Why wasn't the crystal-ball working during the boom?
I agree, caution is required. But it was required at least as much during the boom.
To Dave: I prefer to just chip away on the bad days. I buy on value and yield. Basically I'm taking the opportunity to strengthen my portfolio, bit by bit, and average the price down and the yield up. There's no way I'm going to be able to hit, or try to hit the absolute bottom.
To RobB: I think this recovery will be better, because the companies that are left will be strong, and have good balance sheets. They'll make good investments for us to be in. It'll be a long time before they go debt crazy again. Of course they will eventually, they'll forget, and off we'll go again - but I think it'll be a long time. The corporate/financial world is learning some hard lessons very quickly about how the real world functions. They'll be pretty savvy after this lil episode, which will be good for us.
Sorry i dont understand this, why do we have to subtract inflation from GDP.
Stock market returns are expressed in nominal terms, yet GDP is expressed in real terms (or am i wrong in this).
Thus you get GDP of 3%, you have to add inflation on top of this to get a gross value, hence gross value is around 6-7%, add the dividend and you get around 12%.
mmm interesting comments regarding infomedia, maybe thats why warren buffet refuses to discuss his stock choices. Too many chefs in the kitchen.
Anway at the end of the day you should have a diversified portfolio. If you believe in infomedia, by all means hold it, but dont let it be the sole stock in your portfolio regardless of how enamoured you are over the stock.
Correct
[...] the implications for the stockmarket are severe. The All Ords was 3,950 when I originally suggested preparing for a 20-year bear market. It’s up 8% since, but I haven’t changed my view. Print PDF Permalink|Comments RSS Feed - [...]
[...] was already extremely wary of our listed retail businesses (see Prepare Yourself For A Twenty Year Bear Market). The massive increase in consumer leverage has been a tailwind for the sector for the past 20 [...]
Post new comment