by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2014 | Current Affairs, Leadership
The S&P 500 had a great 2013. Up 29.7% – its best performance since 1997. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) ended the year up 26.5% – its best performance since 1995. And this happened as economic growth lowered the unemployment rate to 6.7% in December – the lowest rate in 5 years. And overall real estate had double-digit price gains, lowering significantly the number of underwater mortgages.
But if we go back to the beginning of 2013, most Wall Street forecasters were predicting a very different outcome. Long suffering bear Harry Dent predicted a stock crash in 2013 that would last through 2014, and ongoing cratering in real estate values. And bear Gina Martin Adams of Wells Fargo Securities predicted a market decline in 2013, a forecast she clung to and fully supported, despite a rising market, when predicting an imminent crash in September. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Parker also predicted a flat market, as did UBS analyst Jonathan Golub.
How could professionals who are paid so much money, have so many resources and the backing of such outstanding large and qualified institutions be so wrong?
An over-reliance on quantitative analysis, combined with using the wrong assumptions.
The conventional approach to Wall Street forecasting is to use computers to amass enormously complex spreadsheets combining reams of numbers. Computer models are built with thousands of inputs, and tens of millions of data points. Eventually the analysts start to believe that the sheer size of the models gives them validity. In the analytical equivalent of “mine is bigger than yours” the forecasters rely on their model’s complexity and sheer size to self-validate their output and forecasts.
In the end these analysts come up with specific forecast numbers for interest rates, earnings, momentum indicators and multiples (price/earnings being key.) Their faith that the economy and market can be reduced to numbers on spreadsheets leads them to similar faith in their forecasts.
But, numbers are often the route to failure. In the late 1990s a team of Wall Street traders and Nobel economists became convinced their ability to model the economy and markets gave them a distinct investing advantage. They raised $1billion and formed Long Term Capital (LTC) to invest using their complex models. Things worked well for 3 years, and faith in their models grew as they kept investing greater amounts.
But then in 1998 downdrafts in Asian and Russian markets led to a domino impact which cost Long Term Capital $4.6B in losses in just 4 months. LTC lost every dime it ever raised, or made. But worse, the losses were so staggering that LTC’s failure threatened the viability of America’s financial system. The banks, and economy, were saved only after the Federal Reserve led a bailout financed by 14 of the leading financial institutions of the time.
Incorrect assumptions played a major part in how Wall Street missed the market prediction for 2013. All models are based on assumptions. And, as Peter Drucker famously said, “if you get the assumptions wrong everything you do thereafter will be wrong as well” — regardless how complex and vast the models.
Conventional wisdom held that conservative economic policies underpin market growth, and the more liberal Democratic fiscal policies combined with a liberal federal reserve monetary program would bode poorly for investors and the economy in 2013. These deeply held assumptions were, of course, reinforced by a slew of conservative commentators that supported the notion that America was on the brink of runaway inflation and economic collapse. The BIAS (Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies) of the forecasters found reinforcement almost daily from the rhetoric on CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox News and other programs widely watched by business people from Wall Street to Main Street.
Interestingly, when Obama was re-elected in 2012 a not-so-well-known investment firm in Columbus, OH – far from Wall Street – took an alternative look at the data when forecasting 2013. Polaris Financial Partners took a deep dive into the history of how markets perform when led by traditional conservative vs. liberal policies and reached the startling conclusion that Obama’s programs, including the Affordable Care Act, would actually spur investment, market growth, jobs and real estate! They had forecast a double digit increase in all major averages for 2012 and extended that same double digit forecast into 2013 – far more optimistic than anyone on Wall Street.
CEO Bob Deitrick and partner Steven Morgan concluded that the millenium’s first decade had been lost. Despite Republican leadership, the eqity markets were, at best, sideways. There were fewer people actually working in 2008 than in 2000; a net decrease in jobs. After a near-collapse in the banking system, due to deregulated computer-model based trading in complex derivatives, real estate and equity prices had collapsed.
“Fourteen years of stock market gains were wiped out in 17 months from October, 2007 to March, 2009” lamented Deitrick.
Polaris Partners concluded the situation was eerily similar to the 1920s at the end of Hoover’s administration. A situation which was eventually resolved via Keynesian policies of increased fiscal spending while interest rates were low, and federal reserve intervention to both expand the money supply and increase the velocity of money under Republican Fed chief Marriner Eccles and Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt.
While most people conventionally think that tax cuts led to economic growth during the Reagan administration, Polaris Financial turned that assumption upside down and put the biggest positive economic impact on the roll-back of tax cuts a year after being pushed by Reagan and passing Congress. Their analysis of the 1980 recovery focused on higher defense and infrastructure spending (fiscal policy,) a massive increase in debt (the largest peacetime debt increase ever) coupled with a more balanced tax code post-TEFRA.
Thus, eschewing complex econometric models, elaborately detailed spreadsheets of earnings and rolling momentum indicators, Polaris Financial focused instead on identifying the assumptions they believeed would most likely drive the economy and markets in 2013. They focused on the continuation of Chairman Bernanke’s easy monetary policy, and long-term fiscal policies designed to funnel money into investments which would incent job creation and GDP growth leading to an improvement in house values, and consumer spending, while keeping interest rates at historically low levels. All of which would bode extremely well for thriving equity markets.
The vitriol has been high amongst those who support, and those who oppose, the economic policies of Obama’s administration since 2008. But vitriol does not support, nor replace, good forecasting. Too often forecasters predict what they want to happen, what they hope will happen, based upon their view of history, their traing and background, and their embedded assumptions. They believe in the certainty of long-held assumptions, and forecast from that base.
But as Polaris Financial pointed out, in beating every major Wall Street firm over the last 2 years, good forecasting relies on looking carefully at historical outcomes, and understanding the context in which those results happened. Rather than relying on an interpretation of the outcome,they looked instead at the facts and the situation; the actions and the outcomes in its context. In an economy, everything is relative to the context. There are no absolute programs that are universally the right thing to do. Every policy action, and every monetary action, is dependent upon initial conditions as well as the action itself.
Too few forecasters take into account both the context as well as the action. And far too few do enough analysis of assumptions, preferring instead to rely on reams of numerical analysis which may, or may not, relate to the current situation. And are often linked to assumptions underlying the model’s construction – assumptions which could be out of date or simply wrong.
The folks at Polaris Financial Partners remain optimistic about the economy and markets for the next two years. They point out that unemployment has dropped faster under Obama, and from a much higher level, than during the Reagan administration. They see the Affordable Care Act opening more flexibility for health care, creating a rise in entrepreneurship and innovation (especially biotechnology) that will spur economic growth. Deitrick and Morgan see tax programs, and rising minimum wage trends, working toward better income balancing, and greater monetary velocity aiding GDP growth. Their projection is for improving real estate values, jobs growth, and minimal inflation leading to higher indexes – such as 20,000 on the DJIA and 2150 on the S&P.
Bob Deitrick co-authored, with Lew Goldfarb, “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box” in 2012 analyzing Presidential economic policies, Federal Reserve policies and stock market performance.
by Adam Hartung | May 16, 2013 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership
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:)
Source: Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box at Facebook.com
Meanwhile, trends have reversed direction with unemployment falling, and consumer confidence rising:
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:
- a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
- 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.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 10, 2012 | Books, Current Affairs, Leadership, Lock-in
There was a time, before primaries, when each party's platform was really important. Voters didn't pick a candidate, the party did. Then voters read what policies the party planned to implement should it control the executive branch, and possibly a legislative majority. It was the policies that drew the most attention – not the candidates.
Digging deeper than shortened debate-level headlines, there is a considerable difference in the recommended economic policies of the two dominant parties. The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.
Right?
Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, as Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done in a great, easy to read book titled "Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box" (available at Amazon.com) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America's dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression.
Gary Hart recently wrote in The Huffington Post,
"Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable
falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion
refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject
events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a
biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often
difficult search for truth."
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is attributed with saying "everyone is
entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." So even though we
may hold very strong opinions about parties and politics, it is
worthwhile to look at facts. This book's authors are to be commended for spending several years, and many thousands of student research assistant man-days, sorting out economic performance from the common viewpoint – and the broad theories upon which much policy has been based. Their compendium of economic facts is the most illuminating document on economic performance during different administrations, and policies, than anything previously published.
Startling Results
Chart reproduced by permission of authors
The authors looked at a range of economic metrics including inflation, unemployment, growth in corporate profits, performance of the stock market, change in household income, growth in the economy, months in recession and others. To their surprise (I had the opportunity to interview Mr. Goldfarb) they discovered that laissez faire policies had far less benefits than expected, and in fact produced almost universal negative economic outcomes for the nation!
From this book loaded with statistical fact tidbits and comparative charts, here are just a few that caused me to realize that my long-term love affair with Milton Friedman's theories and recommended policies in "Free to Choose" were grounded in a theory I long admired, but that simply have proven to be myths when applied!
- Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
- Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
- Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
- Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
- Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
- The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
The "how and why" of these results is explained in the book. Not the least of which revolves around the velocity of money and how that changes as wealth moves between different economic classes.
The book is great at looking at today's economic myths, and using long forgotten facts to set the record straight. For example, in explaining President Reagan's great economic recovery of the 1980s it is often attributed to the stimulative impact of major tax cuts. But in reality the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared. So in 1982 Reagan signed (TEFRA) the largest peacetime tax increase in our nation's history. In his tenure Reagan signed 9 tax bills – 7 of which raised taxes!
The authors do not come down on the side of any specific economic policies. Rather, they make a strong case that a prosperous economy occurs when a president is adaptable to the needs of the country at that time. Adjusting to the results, rather than staunchly sticking to economic theory. And that economic policy does not stand alone, but must be integrated into the needs of society. As Dwight Eisenhower said in a New Yorker interview
"I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center."
The book covers only Presidents Hoover through W. Bush. But as we near this election I asked Mr. Goldfarb his view on the incumbent Democrat's first 4 years. His response:
- "Obama at this time would rank on par with Reagan
- Corporate profits have risen under Obama more than any other president
- The stock market has soared 14.72%/year under Obama, second only to Clinton — which should be a big deal since 2/3 of people (not just the upper class) have a 401K or similar investment vehicle dependent upon corporate profits and stock market performance"
As to the challenging Republican party's platform, Mr. Goldfarb commented:
- "The platform is the inverse of what has actually worked to stimulate economic growth
- The recommended platform tax policy is bad for velocity, and will stagnate the economy
- Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services
- Economic disaster happens in America when wealth is concentrated at the top, and we are at an all time high for wealth concentration. There is nothing in the platform which addresses this issue."
There are a lot of reasons to select the party for which you wish to vote. There is more to America than the economy. But, if you think like the Democrats did in 1992 and "it's about the economy" then you owe it to yourself to read this book. It may challenge your conventional wisdom as it presents – like Joe Friday said – "just the facts."
by Adam Hartung | Jun 18, 2009 | Uncategorized
Yesterday we heard announcements about reforming the federal regulators and the systems they use to manage money and banking, and now the Treasury Secretary is out selling the program to Congress "Geithner Fields Revamp Queries" Marketwatch.com. It's touched off a big debate, as some people think the project has gone too far – and others think it hasn't gone far enough. That's interesting, because most people think something needs to be done so the events of last summer — a near melt-down in the banking system and a near collapse of the monetary system — are not repeated. So we might want to think about what was announced through the lens of The Phoenix Principle to see if we can expect much change.
Bruce Nussbaum is billed as "the innovation guru" on Businessweek.com. He reports "President Obama Failed At Redesigning the Financial System." Interestingly, his biggest complaint is that the President "didn't do what FDR did in the 1930s" and then attributes FDR with significantly Disrupting the government apparatus at the time.
I would agree with that assessment. FDR attacked a bevy of Lock-ins currently then in place. His attacks caused people to reconsider the approach then being used, which had remarkably high unemployment and long bread lines, and opened White Space to try all kinds of programs broadly referred to as "The New Deal." Ronald Reagan 50 years later was similar. He attacked what had become the conventional wisdom of the time, and his Disruption opened White Space which led to the greatest tax code reform ever, as well as significant changes in labor relations and government deregulation of industry. Both are examples of Presidents that first Disrupted, and then used White Space to develop new solutions.
President Obama has not Disrupted. He's definitely whacked the chicken coop a bit, ruffling a lot of feathers, by doing things such as pushing for the firing of GM's Chairman/CEO. But so far, even though he espouses change, his administration hasn't attacked any old Lock-ins. He keeps talking about changes "within the system." As The Phoenix Principle would predict, this sort of approach to change usually aggravates everybody – even your own supporters – and results in little significant change. Perhaps some marginal adjustments, but since the underlying Success Formula is not attacked all the recommendations lie within it – and the Status Quo is largely preserved.
Mr. Nussbaum, in an interview on BusinessWeek.com entitled "What Should A.G. Lafley Do Next?", recommends the President appoint the former head of Proctor & Gamble to be the nations Chief Innovation Officer. Although a novel idea, it won't make any difference. Mr. Nussbaum's consultant-style recommendation is the kind that gets a lot of executives in trouble who end up with lofty goals, but no chance of success. Such a move would put an embarrassing end on Mr. Lafley's career, and be an embarrassment for the President.
The federal government is a series of silo fiefdoms controlled by individual secretaries. Mr. Nussbaum would like Mr. Lafley to use "design theory" to cut across fiefdoms in order to innovate. Mr. Nussbaum gives Mr. Lafley credit for reorganizing P&G this way to success. But, how exactly is someone who works for the President supposed to re-organize the administrative branch of the federal government? Fiefdoms with their own individual mandates, leaders, staff and budgets. Especially without a dramatic Disruption that forces everyone to agree on such a massive reorganization. No commitment from the President will matter when the silo kings are allowed their silos. Probably a lot of recommendations – long the domain of Presidential commissions – that say there should be more cross-departmental work. But without a Disruption, something that rocks the apparatus to its core, there's no hope of this happening.
Despite the President's lofty goals and ambitions, he risks becoming somebody who talks about change – but doesn't accomplish much. This may upset you, or you may be happy, depending upon your point of view. But as a practical matter, should we expect that health care reform will be something radical – like social security and medicare were – or something much less dramatic? The answer is now clear. Lacking Disruptions, and when we look at the financial services reform proposed yesterday, we should expect something that will be an extension of the current system. A bit of tweaking to how things are currently done, but largely the same. Financial system reform left 95% of the players and their products untouched – and focused on small changes to a few institutions and a few products that are identified as central to the problems last summer. We should expect that health care reform would leave 95% of the system and products unchanged as well. Despite whatever rhetoric is extolled from politicians and pundits of either party.
This is not to say that the federal government does not adapt. When attempting to do more of what it has always done better, faster, or cheaper we regularly see that such sustaining innovations are picked up quickly and used effectively. And this was demonstrated this week when we learned that the State Department and other federal agencies were relying substantially on Twitter to receive information from Iran, and communicate with people in Iran.
For years the government apparatus relied on journalists for lots of two-way international communications. This often created a somewhat cozy relationship between very large newspapers with feet on the street in remote and unfriendly locations with people in government. This coziness had the really bad side effect of causing America's enemies to think most journalists were American spies working for the CIA, etc. So what worked for journalists all too often got them jailed and sometimes killed. But this system completely broke down the last 2 years as traditional journalism, and the newspapers, started going broke. The journalists were laid off in droves, and the government lost its primary info feed from offshore.
What's replaced journalists for readers has been a market shift to the internet. People have turned to bloggers, media sites and social networking for information. This dramatic shift has wiped out the profits at newspapers, and shut down a lot of properties. For media companies this represents wholesale change.
But government users quickly adapted. In their effort to Defend & Extend their roles, they became quick users of these sites as well. And when Iran refused to allow traditional journalists outdoors – or even to report on uprisings – the government officials turned to Twitter. And, just like the government used to ask the newspapers for help, they had no trouble asking Twitter – as reported in "U.S. asks Twitter to stay on line because of Iran vote" on MSN.com. And, much like how The Washington Post or The New York Times responded in the past, Twitter obliged. It was a remarkable example of "business as usual" for the government agencies – just done a little faster, better and probably cheaper. And this, of course, reinforced to international leaders their claims that Twitter and social media sites are "tools of the U.S. governement." In what appears "the more things change the more they stay the same" we see how easily the status quo can be reinforced, even amidst a dramatic change for the participants.
There can be reform in any government. There even can be innovation. But obtaining that reform requires
- Someone develop very clear scenarios about the future that describe the need for change
- A recognition that competitors will do better and we'll do worse if we don't change
- A Disruption – an attack on Lock-ins that support the Status Quo
- Using White Space to test new solutions toward which the organization can migrate as pieces are demonstrated successful.
It works. We see it work for individuals, work teams, functional groups, businesses, industries and even for governments – like exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR did a marvelous job of describing a future at risk if America didn't start working again, otherwise international competitors would take over the country. And Ronald Reagan similarly described a future that would be entirely different (free of inflation and stagnation) if changes were made – and one at risk of its long-term enemy the USSR if changes weren't made. But if you try to shortcut these steps you get only marginal change.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 6, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
"U.S. Unemployment Rate Jumps to 25 Year High" is Crain's headline today (see article here). "Payrolls sink 651,000; jobless rate soars to 8.1%" headlines MarketWatch (see article here). It's the fourth consecutive month job losses exceeded 600,000 we are reminded, as 4.4 million becomes the latest tally of those losing jobs in this recession. Those unemployed plus those with part-time-only work has risen to 14.8% of the population – a number that the labor department says may reach 1930s proportions. There are fewer people working full time in the USA today than in 2000 – a combination of the "jobless recovery" followed by a whopping recession.
I remember 25 years ago when the unemployement numbers were this high. I was graduating business school, and there was a real fear that not all graduates would find a job (a horrible situation at a place like HBS). The economy was in terrible shape after several years of economy micro-rule under President Carter. A stickler for detail, and a workaholic, Carter had implemented complex regulations to control prices of oil and other energy products, as well as most agricultural products and commodities. The oil price shocks, combined with runaway printing of money by a highly accomodative Federal Reserve during the 1970s, had sent the American economy into "stag-flation" where growth was abysmal and inflation had skyrocketed.
In 1982, things didn't look good. And the Reagan-led republicans introduced an amazing set of recommendations to break out of the rut America's economy was in. A bold experiment was set up, to test whether "supply siders" were right and if we put our resources into creating supply (capacity) would demand follow and drive up the economy. The big test was a combination of historical tax cuts combined with increased federal spending on defense projects run by industry (in other words, changing from giving money directly to people through welfare or government jobs and instead giving money to businesses to build things – infrastructure and military.)
No one knew if it would work. Smaller government and lower taxes had been a political mantra for various political parties since the days of Benjamin Franklin. But what most Americans believed when they elected Ronald Reagan was that what had recently been tried was not working – it was time to try some new things.
Today is 2009, and while unemployment rates may look similar – not much else is like 1982. Then, marginal federal income tax rates were 80%, and most states relied heavily on "revenue sharing" money from the feds back into states to pay for many progroms – like roads and schools. Today, top rates are in the low 30s, and states have jacked up (from 2x to 10x) sales taxes, property taxes and even state income taxes to cover the loss of federal dollars. Interest rates on home mortgages were 14% to 18% in 1982 – and that was on a variable rate loan with 20% down – because you couldn't get a bank to offer a 30 year mortgage (for fear of inflaction wiping out the loan's value) and no one offered low-downpayment loans. There was a housing shortage, but people struggled to afford a home with interest rates that high! And materials cost (due to inflation) was driving up construction costs more than 12-15%/year. Today mortgages are available at 5% fixed for 30 years, and the prices of homes are dropping more than 10% annually while empty properties seem to be everywhere begging for buyers at discounted prices.
The signs of an impending collapse have been pretty clear for the last few years. First, there was the "jobless recovery." While the economists kept saying the economy was doing well, the fact that there were no new jobs was quite obvious to a lot of people. There was even considerable surprise at how robust the economy was, given that it had no job creation. But it didn't take long for several economists to recognize that the source of growth was largely a considerably more indebted consumer. From the government (federal, state or municipality) to the individual. Those who did have jobs were taking advantage of low interest rates to purchase. On metrics debt/person, debt/GDP, debt/earnings dollars, debt/payroll dollars were all hitting record high numbers as lower quality debt (lower quality because there was increasingly less earnings behind each loan) provided the economic fuel. The economic research team at no less a conservative stalwart than Merrill Lynch was predicting as early as 2006 big problems – and a revisting of 650 on the S&P 500.
Although the economy in 2005-2007 looked nothing like that of the late 1970s, it was pretty clear that a declining economy and high unemployment were soon to come. The 1980s solution, which unleashed the longest running bull market in history, dealt with the problems of the 1970s. But, as the decades passed increasingly the 1980 tools had less and less impact on sustaining growth. Cutting marginal tax rates on dividends when marginal rates on income is already at 30% has far less impact than halving tax rates on everyone! Lowering SEC regulations on capital market access for new hedge funds has less impact than deregulating pricing and labor costs for whole industries like airlines and trucking! What worked well in the past, and became Locked-in to the American economy, simply had lower marginal impact. Year after year of Lock-in produced weaker and weaker results. And opened the doors for aggressive competitors to copy those practices unleashing prodiguous competition for American companies – in places like Asia, India and South America.
All Locked-in systems become victim to these declining results. It's not that the ideas are bad, they just get copied and executed by aggressive competitors who catch up. Markets shift and needs change. People that once focused on buying a new car start focusing on how to retire. People that once wanted great schools want better parking. People that wanted cheaper and better restaurants want cheaper and better health care. The old approaches aren't bad, but trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper of the same thing simply has declining marginal benefit. Results slowly start declining, until eventually they fail to respond to old efforts at all.
Comparing our unemployment rate today to that in 1982 is an interesting historical exercise. We can see similar outcomes. And what's similar about the cause is that Lock-in to outdated practices led to declining performance. That the practices were about 180 degrees apart isn't the issue. Debating the merits of the practices in a vacuum – as if only one set of practices can ever work – simply ignores the pasasage of time and the fact that different times create different problems and require different solutions. The successful practices that fired a tremendously successful business community and stock market in the 1960s ran out of gas by the 1980s. Now, the practices of the 1980s have run out of gas in the competitive global economy of 2009. In both instances, those leading the economy – the companies, economists, banks, regulators – stayed too long with a set of Locked-in practices.
Today we need new ideas. To overcome rising unemployment requires we look to the future, not the past for our recommendations. We must start obsessing about competitors in China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Brazil, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India – competitors we belittled and ignored for too long. We must be willing to Disrupt old practices to try new things – and use White Space to experiment. The Missile Defense Shield (mid-80s) turned out to be a project that wasn't appropriate for its time – but that we tried it gave a shot in the arm to all kinds of imaging and computing technologies which helped improve business. Those kinds of experiments are critical to figuring out how we will create jobs and economic growth in a fiercely competitive global economy where value is increasingly based on information (and neither land nor fixed assets - which dominated the last 2 long waves of growth for America).
