Economically, is Obama America’s Greatest Modern President?

With the stock market hitting new highs, some people have
already forgotten about the Great Recession.  If you recall 2009, things looked pretty bleak
economically.  But the outlook has changed dramatically in just 4 years.  And it has been a boon for investors, as even the safest indices have yielded a 250% return (>25% annualized compound return:)

Growth of $1,000 ChartSource: Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box at Facebook.com

Meanwhile, trends have reversed direction with unemployment falling, and consumer confidence rising:

Confidence-Unemployment Chart

Source: Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box at Facebook.com

Since this coincides with President Obama’s first term, I asked the authors of “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box,” (available on Amazon.com) which I reviewed in my October 11, 2012 column, to capture their opinions on how much Americans should attribute the equity
upturn, and improved economic prospects, to the President as we enter his second term.

Interview with Bob
Deitrick
, co-Author "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box" (BBBB):

Q– Bob, how much credit should Americans give President
Obama for today’s improved equity values?

BBBB – Our research reviewed American economic performance
since President Roosevelt installed the first Federal Reserve Board
Chairman
– Republican Marriner Eccles.  We observed that even
though there are multiple impacts on the economy, it was clear that policy
decisions within each administration, from FDR forward, made a clear difference on performance. And
relatively quickly. 

Presidents universally take credit when the economy does
well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does
poorly (such as Carter.)  But there
was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance. 

Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration
taking credit for record index highs, they should.   Because the President deserves
significant credit for how well this economy has done during his leadership. 

The auto rescue plan has worked.  American car manufacturers are still dominant and employing millions directly and in supplier companies.  Wall Street reform
has been painful but it has re-instated faith amongst investors. 
The markets are far more predictable than they were four years ago, as VIX numbers demonstrate greater faith and less risk. 

Even for small investors, such as thoughs limited to their 401(k) or IRA investments, the average annual compound
return on stocks under President Obama has been more than
24% since the lows of March, 2009. 
This is a better result than either Clinton, Reagan or FDR who were the
prior winners in our book. 

Q– Bob, what policies do you think were most important
toward achieving today’s new highs?

BBBB – Firstly, let’s review just how bad things were in
2009.  In 2000 America was completing the longest
bull market in history. But by
the end of President Bush's tenure the country had witnessed 2 stock market crashes, and the DJIA had fallen 58%.  This was the second worst market decline in history (exceeded
only by the Great Depression,) and hence the term “Great Recession” was born.

In 2000, at the end of Clinton’s administration, the
Consumer Confidence Index was at a record high 140. 
By January, 2009 this index had fallen to an historic low of 25.3.  Comparatively, when Reagan took office
at the end of the economically weak Carter years the Confidence Index
was still at 74.4!  Today this
measure of how people feel about the country is still nowhere near 2000 levels,
but it is almost 3 times better than 4 years ago.

Significantly, in 2000 America had a budget surplus.  By 2009 surpluses were long gone and the
country was racking up historic deficits as taxes were cut while simultaneously
outlays for defense skyrocketed to cover costs of wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.  Additionally, banks
were on the edge of failing due to unregulated real estate speculation and massive derivative losses.

Today the Congressional Budget Office is reporting a $200B decrease in the deficit almost entirely due to increased revenue from a growing economy and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush's administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.)  America's "debt problem" seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.

We can largely thank a fairer tax code, improved regulation and consistent SEC enforcement.  Also, major strides in health care reform – something no other President has accomplished – has given American's more faith in their future, and an increased willingness to invest.  

Q– To which President would you compare Obama’s economic
performance?

BBBB– By all measures, President Obama has outperformed
every modern President. 

The easiest comparison would be to President Reagan, who’s
economic performance was superb.  Even though Obama's performance is better.

Reagan had the enormous benefit of two major factors:

  1. a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
  2. and his two terms coincided with the highest performing
    demographic years of the Baby Boomer generation.

Today's demographics have shifted dramatically.  The country is much older, with fewer
young people supporting a much larger near-retirement age group.  This inherent demographic fact makes
creating economic growth monumentally harder than it was 30 years ago.

Few people think of Reagan as a stimulus addict.  Yet, his administration’s military
build-up added $1trillion of stimulus to the national debt ($2.3trillion adjusted for
inflation) – the opposite of what is happening during the Obama years.  Many like to think
that it was tax cutting which grew the economy, but undoubtedly we now know
that this dramatic defense and infrastructure (highways, etc.) stimulus had more to do with igniting economic growth.  Reagan's spending looked far more like FDR than Herbert Hoover!

Ronald  Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure, creating what today's Congressional austerity advocates might have called "a legacy of unpayable debt for our grandchildren.” But, as we saw, later growth (during Clinton) resolved that debt and created a budget surplus by 2000.

Q– Bob, President’s Obama detractors liken the Affordable
Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) to an Armageddon on business, sure to kill economic
growth and plunge the country back into recession.  Do you agree?

BBBB– To the contrary, ACA levels the playing field and will
be good for economic growth.  Where
previously only large corporations could afford employee health care plans, in
the future far more employees will have far more equitable coverage.  Further, today employees frequently are unable to leave a
company to start a new business because they would lose health care, which in
the future will not be true.

One leading indicator of the benefits of ACA might be the performance of healthcare and biotech stocks, which are up 20-30% and leaders in the current market rally.

Q– What policies would you recommend the Obama
administration follow in order to promote economic growth, more jobs and
greater returns for investors during the second term?

BBBB-  Obama needs to make the cornerstone of his second term creating new job growth.  That was the primary platform of his candidacy, and it is a platform long successful for the Democratic party.  If President Obama can do this and  govern effectively, this could be his real legacy.

 

 

You really wouldn’t consider buying that, would you? Ford new stock offering

"Invest in America – but Savings Bonds."  I grew up seeing those signs.  Of course, I'm over 50.  They came from the World War era, when America asked people to buy "war bonds" to pay for involvement.  At the time, pre-Bretton Woods, America was still on a gold standard.  The country couldn't tust print all the money it wanted.  To pay for war goods, Americans were asked to buy bonds.  Not for the  rate of return – nor even for the eventual gain on principle.  It was pure patriotism.  Buy bonds to pay for the war.  As the clock turned, this patriotic thinking migrated to buying government bonds to help pay for highways, bridges, dams and other projects to help grow America. 

I was reminded of this when I saw the Marketwatch.com headline "Ford raises $1.4billion in stock offering".  I thought to myself, why would anyone on earth buy newly issued shares in Ford?  It's hard to conceive of buying shares in the company as it exists, what with its very long history of weak profits, tepid product lines, limited innovation and lack of attachment to market trends.  But to give the company new money, in form of equity with guarantee of a return on or of your principle…. Why that is simply befuddling.  This money is not intended to go for new products or improving the company's links to customers.  Rather, it all is intended to pay for part of a health care trust that might assuage growing total labor costs.  Sort of like paying for part of a clean up on a previous toxic spill.  Not something that makes money.

Ford is a company in the Whirlpool.  It's odds of surviving are low.  It's odds of making high rates of return and being globally competitive are almost nonexistent.  Ford wants people to help management defend its past actions – which won't even extend past horrible perfornce – much less improve it.  None of this mone is for White Space to do anything new.  There is nothing in this offering to make you think Ford will ever be able to repay your investment – or even ever pay a dividend on it.

So I was left thinking that I guess you could buy this offering because you are patriotic.  Sort of "Defend America by Defending Ford" and it's management ability to keep running a company that doesn't meet customer, investor or employee expectations.  Henry Ford advanced civilization with his ideas for automation and how he applied them at his company – so we need to keep his namesake company alive, I guess (and conveniently forget he was opposed to civil rights, opposed to women's rights and opposed to all forms of organized labor.)  And perhaps you want to invest in defending & extending America's involvement in auto production – even though we have a long history of being #1 in making something before exiting it - like shipbuilding, steelmaking and television set production.  And maybe you just feel like its your duty to give money to Ford because it represents a great American brand – like RCA, Woolworth's, Studebaker and Hotpoint once did.

Or we can realize this is simply an investment intended to keep Ford alive for another year or two.  A form of corporate life support hoping something new comes along to save the patient.  For most of us, we're better off with the mattress.  There are pension funds out there that receive cash quarter after quarter.  They are always looking for investments.  Some have billions of newly arrived dollars to invest.  And for many, investing that money is done by "rules" rather than analysis.  They have to invest x% in equities, and that's allocated Y% and Z% and A% into specific categories.  And they will probably buy these shares, after their fund managers have some greatly expensive steak dinnbrs courtesy of the underwriters.  Unfortunately, that doesn't make our pensions funds any healthier – but we have little or nothing we can do to affect those decisions.

Keep your money in companies that have White Space.  Companies that don't fear Disruption in order to keep themselves aligned with market shifts.  Invest in companies that talk about the future, and how their new products will open new opportunities for their customers to accomplish new things.  Pay attention to those with long track records of above-average performance – like Google, Apple, Cisco – or Nike, GE and Johnson & Johnson.  Invest in the Disruptors that are going to grow the new economy, not those hoping to suck off its benefits with no innovation or other contribution.  That will more likely get your 401K back where you want it.

PS – for regular readers – I opologize for being offline without comments for a few days.  Computer gremlins attacked me and it's been a struggle to regain control of the machine.  Hopefully I'm back on track.