Mentioned In This Article November's election has come and gone, and with it so has Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Normally, government gridlock is extremely good for stock market investors, based on looking at real investment returns after inflation.
But because I distrust the accuracy of the CPI (the government has such a stake in its consequences), I use gold as a deflator. Using this measure back to 1973, and the total return on the S&P 500, investors have had yearly real returns of 15 percent on average for all split governments, and yearly real losses of -10 percent when government is unified with the same party controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. For example, the S&P 500 Index is up 35.7 percent from the end of 2008 through November 5, 2010, but gold is up 61.3 percent, so investors are losing about -10 percent annualized in real terms with our recent unified government, which is consistent with unified government by either party. In fact, since 1973, gold has gone up at an annual rate of 28.8 percent when government is unified, which explains in part its recent giant rally. Conversely, when government is split, gold has gone up at an annual rate of only 3.4 percent, which suggests it's best to be careful about the quality of this gold rally, at least in the short term.
The RatchetEven though the historical record for real returns with gridlock is great, I am worried that history will not repeat itself in the near term because there is a difference between benign gridlock, when economic times are “normal,” and malignant gridlock, when they are not. We are in an economic crisis which may be aggravated by having Congress itself split and the growth in government subject to a ratchet effect making it difficult to make government smaller.
While Reagan had a split Congress and a fabulous run, Hoover had a split Congress during his last two years, and the market lost 63.4 percent. In times of crises, a Congress that cannot undo its mistakes is not good. Could you imagine using your computer without an undo button? What concerns me is that the United States had in some ways more relative positives in those times than we do now, and the market still suffered enormously. For example, the dollar was strong, we were net creditors to the world, and government was a relatively small component of the economy.
And that certainly isn't the case now. Against this background, some of the initial indications coming out of Washington do not appear to be favorable for seriously reducing the size of government, which is essential to long-term economic health. Fed Chairman Bernanke's Treasury is printing an additional $600 billion to fend off deflation, and Congress has yet to even produce a budget for the fiscal year that has already started and may not even settle our tax rates until after the New Year.
The Republican Minority Leader, Senator McConnell, said that he would work with the Democrats to fund electric cars and coal projects, and Speaker Pelosi is determined to be the House Minority Leader, notwithstanding losing over 60 seats in the House.
If it turns out to be a “business-as-usual” Congress afraid of being branded “do-nothing” while the dollar is slipping closer and closer to a run due to excessive quantitative easing; it will not be good for real investment returns.
The acid test of this Congress will be whether it can rein in spending, and drastically reduce our borrowing and regulatory burden, immediately, if not sooner. As many economists note, we now face a liquidity trap, where additional injections of money into the economy fail to stimulate demand. Interest rates cannot be reduced below zero, although we are trying to do that with TIPs.
A key driver of this liquidity trap is what I would call the “regulatory trap” where government harbors the illusion that additional regulations have no cost. In fact, some have estimated the regulatory drag on the economy at roughly $2 trillion. Think of the regulatory drag as deflationary because it freezes business and Bernanke's Fed as inflationary, and you will understand better why we're all feeling so bipolar.
To give you some perspective, I believe Sarbanes-Oxley was the main straw that broke the back of small business job growth in the United States. This bipartisan law passed 99-0 in the Senate and 421-3 in the House. It had only 16 regulations. That was enough to be an important factor in systemically raising unemployment from 5.9 percent when it passed at the bottom of the last recession to 9.6 percent last month.
Between health care and financial regulation reform, there are over 1,400 new regulations in the works. The American investor is like a skier at the base lodge watching an avalanche start at the top of the mountain. Who can be optimistic that this Congress can stop the regulatory avalanche, or get control of our budget or our debt? There are just too many permutations, and too many opportunities to play good cop, bad cop, and really bad cop. It's not your father's gridlock.
Eric Singer, principal of Congressional Effect Management, runs the Congressional Effect Fund (CEFFX), which only invests in equities when Congress is on vacation. For more, see congressionalfund.com.
var pageCount = 'page 1 of 1'; var SurphaceSettings = { s4id: '9XXJXCT7' }; var _surphld = document.createElement("script");_surphld.type = "text/javascript"; _surphld.src = "http://cdn11.surphace.com/rcwidget/loader.js"; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(_surphld); Acceptable Use Policy View the forum thread. blog comments powered by Disqus Want to use this article? Click here for options! © 2007 Penton Media, Inc. Market DataMarket quotes are real time except where noted
var accordion=function(){ var tm=sp=10; function slider(n){this.nm=n; this.arr=[]} slider.prototype.init=function(t,c,k){ var a,h,s,l,i; a=document.getElementById(t); this.sl=k?k:''; h=a.getElementsByTagName('dt'); s=a.getElementsByTagName('dd'); this.l=h.length; for(i=0;i S&P 500 Details Charts News Company Financials NASDAQ Details Charts News Company Financials var slider1=new accordion.slider("slider1"); slider1.init("slider",0,"open");Market index values delayed 15 min
advertisement
var count = ''; //GENERIC COUNT VAR var tilecount = ++tilecount; count = 'square300' + ++squarecount300; //300x250 document.write(''); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) { document.write(''); document.write(''); } Most Popular StoriesSubscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Blogs & Opinion Get the latest from Registered Rep. Editor-in-Chief David A. Geracioti on his blog Von Aldo.Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Get the latest from Registered Rep. Features Editor Kristen French on her blog Wall Street Cops n Crooks.Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
advertisement
var count = ''; //GENERIC COUNT VAR var tilecount = ++tilecount; count = 'square300' + ++squarecount300; //300x250 document.write(''); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) { document.write(''); document.write(''); } Ask The ExpertsA panel of experts answers your questions on all things trusts and estates related.
The latest question:Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Trusts & Estates About our expert panel Submit a question View All Trusts and Estates related Questions Rep. Newsletters Sign up for one of Registered Reps. complimentary eNewsletters. // uncomment lines to override default form size // var AccelaFormWidth = 338; // var AccelaFormHeight = 212; Back to Top In This Issue: November 2010 Cover Story The Unretiring GenerationWith few assets and plenty of debt, investors in their 20s are not on many wealth management firms' or advisors' radars. Yet they haven't written them off entirely....
View the full issue
Back Issues Select an Issue November 1, 2010 Special Supplement: The Independent Life October 1, 2010 September 1, 2010 September 1, 2010 August 1, 2010 July 1, 2010 June 1, 2010 May 1, 2010 April 1, 2010 March 1, 2010 February 1, 2010 January 1, 2010 December 1, 2009 November 1, 2009 October 1, 2009 September 1, 2009 August 1, 2009 July 1, 2009 June 1, 2009 May 1, 2009 The Next Move April 2009 April 1, 2009 The NextMove March 2009 March 1, 2009 The NextMove February 2009 February 1, 2009 January 1, 2009 December 1, 2008 November 1, 2008 Special Supplement : The Independent Life 2008 October 1, 2008 September 1, 2008 August 1, 2008 July 1, 2008 June 1, 2008 May 1, 2008 April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 20But because I distrust the accuracy of the CPI (the government has such a stake in its consequences), I use gold as a deflator. Using this measure back to 1973, and the total return on the S&P 500, investors have had yearly real returns of 15 percent on average for all split governments, and yearly real losses of -10 percent when government is unified with the same party controlling the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. For example, the S&P 500 Index is up 35.7 percent from the end of 2008 through November 5, 2010, but gold is up 61.3 percent, so investors are losing about -10 percent annualized in real terms with our recent unified government, which is consistent with unified government by either party. In fact, since 1973, gold has gone up at an annual rate of 28.8 percent when government is unified, which explains in part its recent giant rally. Conversely, when government is split, gold has gone up at an annual rate of only 3.4 percent, which suggests it's best to be careful about the quality of this gold rally, at least in the short term.
The RatchetEven though the historical record for real returns with gridlock is great, I am worried that history will not repeat itself in the near term because there is a difference between benign gridlock, when economic times are “normal,” and malignant gridlock, when they are not. We are in an economic crisis which may be aggravated by having Congress itself split and the growth in government subject to a ratchet effect making it difficult to make government smaller.
While Reagan had a split Congress and a fabulous run, Hoover had a split Congress during his last two years, and the market lost 63.4 percent. In times of crises, a Congress that cannot undo its mistakes is not good. Could you imagine using your computer without an undo button? What concerns me is that the United States had in some ways more relative positives in those times than we do now, and the market still suffered enormously. For example, the dollar was strong, we were net creditors to the world, and government was a relatively small component of the economy.
And that certainly isn't the case now. Against this background, some of the initial indications coming out of Washington do not appear to be favorable for seriously reducing the size of government, which is essential to long-term economic health. Fed Chairman Bernanke's Treasury is printing an additional $600 billion to fend off deflation, and Congress has yet to even produce a budget for the fiscal year that has already started and may not even settle our tax rates until after the New Year.
The Republican Minority Leader, Senator McConnell, said that he would work with the Democrats to fund electric cars and coal projects, and Speaker Pelosi is determined to be the House Minority Leader, notwithstanding losing over 60 seats in the House.
If it turns out to be a “business-as-usual” Congress afraid of being branded “do-nothing” while the dollar is slipping closer and closer to a run due to excessive quantitative easing; it will not be good for real investment returns.
The acid test of this Congress will be whether it can rein in spending, and drastically reduce our borrowing and regulatory burden, immediately, if not sooner. As many economists note, we now face a liquidity trap, where additional injections of money into the economy fail to stimulate demand. Interest rates cannot be reduced below zero, although we are trying to do that with TIPs.
A key driver of this liquidity trap is what I would call the “regulatory trap” where government harbors the illusion that additional regulations have no cost. In fact, some have estimated the regulatory drag on the economy at roughly $2 trillion. Think of the regulatory drag as deflationary because it freezes business and Bernanke's Fed as inflationary, and you will understand better why we're all feeling so bipolar.
To give you some perspective, I believe Sarbanes-Oxley was the main straw that broke the back of small business job growth in the United States. This bipartisan law passed 99-0 in the Senate and 421-3 in the House. It had only 16 regulations. That was enough to be an important factor in systemically raising unemployment from 5.9 percent when it passed at the bottom of the last recession to 9.6 percent last month.
Between health care and financial regulation reform, there are over 1,400 new regulations in the works. The American investor is like a skier at the base lodge watching an avalanche start at the top of the mountain. Who can be optimistic that this Congress can stop the regulatory avalanche, or get control of our budget or our debt? There are just too many permutations, and too many opportunities to play good cop, bad cop, and really bad cop. It's not your father's gridlock.
Eric Singer, principal of Congressional Effect Management, runs the Congressional Effect Fund (CEFFX), which only invests in equities when Congress is on vacation. For more, see congressionalfund.com.
Market quotes are real time except where noted
Market index values delayed 15 min
advertisement
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
advertisement
A panel of experts answers your questions on all things trusts and estates related.
Subscribe to RSS headline updates from: Powered by FeedBurner
With few assets and plenty of debt, investors in their 20s are not on many wealth management firms' or advisors' radars. Yet they haven't written them off entirely....
View the full issue
Subscribe today to get the news you need and information you want from our e-newsletters. To preview the current issue click on the newsletter below. Subscribe Today!
Read Full Article »
