Stocks on Sale

U.S. stocks have already seen two pullbacks greater than 5% so far in 2018, as measured by the S&P 500 Index. That compares to only one pullback over 5% in the last 2 years. To say that recent stock swings have been jarring would be an understatement. While sharp declines in prices are unpleasant, equity volatility has been unusually low since the Financial Crisis ended in 2009. Unprecedented support from the Federal Reserve coupled with steady economic growth has pushed stocks steadily higher for 9 years.

As a result, investors have gotten used to smooth and steady stock market gains. But our experience since 2009, in which the S&P 500 Index declined 5% or more only 10 times, is not the norm. Going back to 1945, on average the S&P 500 Index has experienced declines of 5% or more every six months – almost double the frequency of pullbacks we’ve had since the Financial Crisis. While the recent past has been a pleasant ride, market volatility is likely to increase going forward, which may not be a bad thing.

A friend of mine and savvy stock investor once told me that she loved market pullbacks. “It’s like a sale,” she said, “…an opportunity to buy quality products at discounted prices!” Her analogy stuck with me over the years and today I view market pullbacks as opportunities rather than a reason to panic.  Granted, training my brain to think this way took some time and effort. But as an investor, it is an endeavor worth pursuing.

Consulting firm, Dalbar, provides an excellent reason to re-frame your thinking regarding market pullbacks. According to their research, while the S&P 500 Index has delivered an annualized trailing 10-year return of 6.95% through 2016, the average investor return was just 3.64%! Even more striking, the average investor earned a 4% annualized return over the trailing 30-year period compared with the S&P 500 Index’s 10% annualized return for the same period!

As the data clearly indicates and as Dalbar notes, “Investment returns are more dependent on investor behavior than fund performance.” These well-below market returns happen because investors tend to sell their stocks (and bonds) as prices are falling or bottoming. Instead of buying low and selling high – the tried and true way to grow wealth – a lack of investment discipline causes many retail investors to do just the opposite. To compound matters, after selling their stocks and funds during market downturns, many investors – scared from the market turbulence – typically sit on the sidelines as markets recover and therefore never recoup their portfolio losses.

While not all market declines present perfect buying opportunities, falling asset prices do present a chance to add to positions at lower prices. Stocks (and bonds) are on sale! Sometimes downturns are longer and more severe than we would like or expect. However, timing the market is a losing game. Research suggests that taking a long-term approach to investing, regularly rebalancing your portfolio to an appropriate target allocation, and staying invested through market downturns significantly increases the odds that you reach your long-term financial goals.

Weathering market turbulence is not for the faint of heart – which is why a financial advisor can be such a valuable asset. During turbulent market environments your advisor will guide you through market downturns, rebalance your portfolio to take advantage of lower prices, and ultimately remind you why you’re invested. On that note, we’re grateful you’re our client!

Share this:

34th Annual Crystal Ball Seminar

We are excited again to co-sponsor the 34th Annual Crystal Ball with the University of North Carolina at Asheville. This has been a long-standing tradition that we look forward to every year.

On May 3, economists David W. Berson and James F. Smith will make forecasts on the business and financial outlook for the coming year and will explore the implications of those predictions on a state, national, and international level.

To learn more about the speakers and the presentation, please visit the crystal ball website:

https://events.unca.edu/event/34th-annual-economic-crystal-ball-seminar

EVENT DETAILS

Speakers:
David W. Berson of Nationwide Insurance
James F. Smith of Parsec Financial

Location:
Lipinsky Hall Auditorium – UNC Asheville campus

Date:
Thursday, May 3, 2018

Agenda:
6:15 PM – Reception with light hors-d’oeuvres & refreshments
7:00 PM – Economic Outlook
7:30 PM – Financial Outlook
8:00 PM – Q&A

Admission is free, however, seating is limited. To register, contact UNC Asheville’s Economics Department at 828.251.6550 or email kmoore@unca.edu.

Share this:

Are We Heading Towards a Recession?

The stock market is considered one of several leading economic indicators. Since 1949 markets have turned lower on average seven months prior to recessions, with a median pullback of about 9%.  However, this includes a wide range of numbers and in six out of the last nine recessions stocks were actually positive for the preceding twelve month period. Recently, investors’ recession fears have jumped in light of increased market volatility. While these concerns are understandable, we prefer to take a broader view when gauging the health of the U.S. economy. Doing so suggests more factors are working in favor of the current expansion than against it, and we could have more room to run.

As of March 1st, the United States entered its 105th month of economic expansion – the third longest on record. If gross domestic product (GDP) remains positive through May, the current expansion will become the second longest in U.S. history. While subpar growth has helped extend the length of this economic cycle, it’s important to acknowledge that we are likely in the later innings of the expansion that started in 2009.

Despite its unusual length, our economy has several factors working in its favor. These include strong corporate earnings growth, a healthy consumer, and improving business spending. Corporate earnings have improved significantly following a decline in 2015 that was tied to lower oil prices and an appreciating U.S. dollar. Likewise, the recently passed tax law — which reduced the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — should provide a significant boost to corporate spending in the months and years ahead. In fact, we’ve already seen a pick-up in capital expenditures from businesses as they’ve been able to return more cash held abroad at lower tax levels.

Although business spending has been notably weak for most of this economic cycle, the consumer has been a major contributor to GDP growth since 2009 and remains healthy. Strong jobs growth and recent gains in wage growth should continue to support household spending. While markets are concerned that the recent gains in wage growth suggest inflation may be heating up, it’s important to remember that for the last nine years investors were more worried about deflation. We would suggest the recent increases in wage growth reflect a healthy development, one that indicates a return to more normal conditions.

To that point, U.S. inflation has been persistently below the Federal Reserve’s 2% target since the Financial Crisis.  With the recent uptick in wage growth, the Personal Consumption Expenditure Index (PCE) – what the Fed uses to track inflation – is now up only 1.7% on a year-over-year basis.  Contrary to investor concerns, this would not suggest an over-heating price environment but a return to healthy inflation levels. Gradually rising inflation will also allow the Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee (FOMC) to continue to normalize interest rates, which have been at unusually low levels. Higher yields will help support millions of retirees on fixed incomes, stabilize many pension funds, and most importantly give the FOMC wiggle room to lower rates when the next downturn occurs.

As the FOMC continues to raise rates this year, investors and economists will be closely monitoring the yield curve. The yield curve is a line that plots the interest rates of bonds with the same credit ratings but different maturities. During economic expansions, the yield curve is usually upward sloping as bonds with longer maturities typically have higher yields. However, since 1901 there have been seventeen inverted yield curves (when the yields on shorter maturity bonds exceed those on longer maturity bonds) that have persisted four months or longer, all of which have been followed by a recession. Thus, an inverted yield curve that stays inverted for at least four months has never produced a “false positive” recession reading. This stands in contrast with the stock market, which as the late Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson once said, “has accurately predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions”.

Towards the end of 2017 the yield curve began to flatten. This caused some investors to worry it would invert, indicating a recession was around the corner. Starting in late January stock market volatility and bond yields jumped, amplifying investors’ recession fears. Ironically, the stock market turbulence and higher interest rates helped push the yield curve higher. Although the recent market swings and decline in bond prices (resulting from higher yields) were unpleasant, they are helping to avoid an inverted yield curve – one of our most reliable recession predictors.

In short, we see more positives than negatives regarding the economy. At the same time, it’s evident that we are in the later innings of the current expansion and risks such as high corporate debt levels, rising interest rates, and above-average asset valuations could trigger the next recession. Accurately predicting when that will happen, however, is a difficult job for even the most astute economists and investors. Fortunately when looking at the prior nine recessions since 1957, stocks have declined just 1.5% on average and market returns one-, three-, and five-years following past recessions have been significantly positive. Granted, the stock market during any individual recession may be significantly negative, but in four out of the last nine recessions, stocks actually rose. These statistics support our belief in long-term investing and using market pullbacks as opportunities to add to positions at lower prices.

Share this:

Why Trying to Time the Market is a Losing Game

The U.S. stock market has returned 282% since bottoming in March 2009, following the Financial Crisis.  Since that time, the S&P 500 Index has delivered positive returns in seven out of the last eight years and appears poised to produce another gain in 2017.  While it’s true that valuation levels are above long-term historical averages, in this email we’ll explore why trying to time the market is a losing game.

As a client you may be concerned that higher stock valuation levels coupled with a long-running bull market could mean an imminent pullback.  If so, you’re not alone.  Many investors have noted that it’s been a while since we’ve had a major stock market correction (defined as a drop of 10% or more).  This makes sense given that historically, the stock market has averaged three pullbacks of about 5% per year, with one of those corrections typically turning into a 10% or greater decline.  While it has been twenty-two months since our last market correction, we’ve seen longer.  Since 1990, we’ve experienced three periods lasting longer than twenty-two months over which markets did not experience a 10% or greater pullback.  So although we’re not in uncharted territory, the historical record suggests we could be closer to a market decline than not.

Given the above facts, clients often ask why we don’t sell stocks and raise cash in order to avoid the next market correction.  It’s a fair question, but when examined more closely we find that it’s a very difficult strategy to implement successfully.

Research has shown that trying to time the market is a losing game.  One reason is that an investor has to accurately predict both when to get out of the market and when to get back in.  While it’s difficult enough to time an exit right, the odds of then correctly calling a market bottom are even lower.  Part of this relates to the nature of market declines.  Looking back to 1945, the average stock market correction has lasted just fourteen weeks.  This suggests that investors who correctly sell their stocks to cash may be sitting on the sidelines when equities surge higher, often without warning.  While moving into cash may avoid some near-term losses, it could come at the higher cost of not participating in significant market upside.

Another reason to avoid market timing relates to the nature of market returns.  History shows that since 1926, U.S. large cap stocks have delivered positive returns slightly more than two thirds of the time.  As a result, you’re much more likely to realize higher long-term gains by remaining fully invested in stocks and weathering some of the market’s admittedly unpleasant downturns.

At Parsec, instead of market timing, we recommend investors stay invested throughout market cycles.  While this can be difficult at times, investing in a well-diversified portfolio has been shown to help mitigate market volatility and provide a slightly smoother ride during market downturns.  This is because portfolios that incorporate a thoughtful mix of asset classes with different correlations can provide the same level of return for a lower level of risk than a concentrated or undiversified portfolio.  It also ensures that investors participate in market gains, which often materialize unexpectedly.

In addition to constructing well-diversified portfolios, we believe in setting and maintaining an appropriate asset allocation based on your financial objectives and risk tolerance.  We then rebalance your portfolio to its target weights on a regular basis.  This increases the odds that you sell high and buy low.

Share this:

How Parsec Monitors Investment Securities

Parsec invests in a variety of securities for its clients.  These may include mutual funds, exchange traded funds or ETFs, and individual stocks, among others.  All of these investments can and do experience significant price pullbacks from time to time.  While Parsec’s Investment Policy Committee (IPC) focuses on investments it can hold for the long-term and performs significant research before adding any new positions, price declines still happen.  In this email we’ll discuss how the IPC monitors investment securities and we’ll share with you our process for when a stock or fund doesn’t perform as expected.

Investment security returns are driven by a number of factors.  For individual stocks, earnings growth, competitive environment, and exogenous events can significantly affect price performance.  For mutual funds and ETFs, the general capital market environment as well as portfolio management departures or changes at the parent company can influence both fund flows and price changes.  At Parsec, in addition to reviewing all covered securities at regularly-scheduled meetings, the Investment Policy Committee continually monitors client investments for these types of factors in between our ongoing investment reviews.

We do this by reading sell-side research reports, company government filings, and the news.  Likewise, the financial software we use alerts us to any new developments on our covered securities and helps us manage the large volume of news flow in order to focus on the most important stories of the day.  When a significant event does happen that negatively affects a security, we research the development by listening to a company’s conference call, reading industry reports, and conducting our own due diligence.  We review our thesis on the fund or stock and determine if and how the latest events could affect the security’s long-term prospects going forward.  In order to gauge an investment’s upside potential we adjust our growth assumptions to reflect the new information and evaluate the security’s risk/reward profile in light of its new price level.

Oftentimes when a major story surfaces there is minimal information on which to make a decision.  At the same time, the market has a tendency to overreact to news events.  For these reasons, Parsec’s Investment Policy Committee may intentionally wait before taking action when a stock or fund experiences a significant negative development.  Although it may appear that we are not responding to the event in question, we are in fact working diligently behind the scenes to gather as much data as possible while reviewing our thesis and assumptions.  This can be a frustrating time for clients who would, understandably, prefer us to take immediate action.  However, we have found that taking a wait-and-see approach allows us to collect more information and answer important questions before making an uninformed or premature decision.

Waiting for the dust to settle while collecting additional information also allows us to better understand how a development could affect a stock or fund’s long-term prospects.  If we determine that a company or fund can recover from an adverse event and the security has fallen significantly in price, it’s often an attractive buying opportunity.

However, on other occasions it may be clear that it’s time to sell a position.  This can happen when an investigation surrounding a security is new but affects multiple divisions or aspects of the underlying company’s or fund’s operations.  Another example may include an environmental disaster or a significant product recall that could take years to resolve.  In these instances the best action may involve taking a modest loss now in order to avoid a much larger loss in the months or years to follow.

While our bias towards higher-quality stocks and funds may mean we’re more likely to hold a security or even add to positions following a negative news event, we are closely monitoring client investments and performing in-depth due diligence as new developments arise.  Our intention is to make objective and thoughtful decisions that will benefit clients and their portfolios over the long-term.

Thank you,

The Parsec Team

Share this:

What does a Weaker U.S. Dollar Mean for Companies & Consumers?

Earlier this year the U.S. dollar reached a 10-year high compared to the currencies of its major trading partners*.  However, the greenback has declined about 8% year-to-date through July.  In this email we’ll explore what drove the U.S. dollar to record levels, how dollar weakness or strength impacts corporations and consumers, and what may lie ahead for the world’s most widely-held currency.

Many factors affect a currency’s strength or weakness.  Some of these include interest rate levels, inflation, central bank policy, investor sentiment and the health of the economy.  The U.S. dollar is unique in that it is the largest foreign exchange reserve, accounting for over 60% of global reserves.  As a result, other countries’ need for reserves and investors’ fears or confidence also affect how much the dollar appreciates or depreciates.

Following the financial crisis, the U.S. dollar appreciated versus many other currencies due to its perceived safety and ultimately, a quicker U.S. economic recovery compared to its peers.  This happened despite the Federal Reserve’s ultra-accommodative monetary policy in which it pumped trillions of dollars into the economy – an action that might normally depreciate the dollar due to an increased currency supply.  Instead, the Fed’s actions helped lead the U.S. economy out of the financial crisis which helped support corporate earnings and sales growth.  This in turn led to increased foreign demand for U.S. stocks and bonds.  As U.S. dollars are required to purchase our stocks and bonds, growing foreign investment in U.S. securities led to greater demand for the greenback, and subsequent dollar appreciation.

During the last ten years of dollar appreciation, we’ve experienced both positive and negative effects.  On the positive side, a strong dollar makes traveling abroad more affordable for U.S. citizens and effectively lowers the prices consumers pay for imports.  As consumers account for roughly two-thirds of U.S. GDP growth, the savings gained on lower-cost imports due to a strong dollar can lead to significant gains in disposable income, all else being equal.

On the downside, a strong dollar may hinder tourism in the U.S. and could result in weakened demand for U.S. exports as those goods become relatively more expensive for foreigners.  Another drawback is negative foreign currency translation for U.S. multinational companies.  U.S.-based firms that earn revenues abroad will have to exchange foreign currencies back to U.S. dollars at a less favorable rate.  This acts as a headwind to sales and earnings growth, and contributed to the recent “earnings recession” we saw among companies in the S&P 500 Index in 2015 and 2016.

In contrast, recent U.S. dollar weakness has started to help boost corporate earnings growth and could be a support for stocks going forward.  While it’s impossible to know if the dollar’s strength will continue to moderate, a few factors suggest it might.  One is an improving global economic outlook relative to the U.S.  The U.S. economy was a bright spot in the early years following the last recession, but emerging market economic growth is gaining ground and European GDP growth recently outpaced U.S. GDP growth.  Another factor is that the Federal Reserve has shifted to a less accommodative monetary policy stance.  Ordinarily this would support further U.S. dollar appreciation (via a reduced supply of dollars and higher interest rates attracting foreign investors); however, investor concerns that restrictive monetary policy could slow down the current economic expansion are outweighing the shift in the Fed’s policy stance.

Considering the above factors and given several years of strong gains, recent U.S. dollar weakness could continue.  While there are pros and cons to a depreciating dollar, we would welcome the shift as this would help reduce import costs for consumers and businesses, while supporting sales and earnings growth for U.S. multi-national corporations.

*Powershares DB US Dollar Index Bullish Fund (UUP) – compares US dollar to euro, yen, pound, loonie, Swedish krona and Swiss franc

The Parsec Team

Share this:

Value Stocks May be Poised to Outperform

Since Parsec’s founding in 1980, we’ve touted the benefits of long-only equity investing.  This includes owning individual stocks, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds (ETFs).  We’ve also maintained the same investment style over the last thirty-seven years.  Regarding funds, Parsec’s investment policy committee (IPC) focuses on low fees, higher-quality holdings, and managers with long track records of outperformance.  When researching individual stocks, we take a value approach, favoring higher-quality companies that trade at a discount to history or peers.

While history shows that value stocks have outperformed growth stocks over most market periods, in recent years growth stocks have delivered higher returns.  In this email we’ll discuss what we mean by value versus growth investing and why we believe value stocks are poised to outperform going forward.

Different stock investors define “value investing” differently.  However, most agree on a few basic principles.  In general, value investors prefer stocks that trade at discounts to their intrinsic values.  Often this happens when a stock’s valuation falls below its long-term historical average or that of its peers.  Another tenet of value investing is margin of safety.  This means selecting stocks that can deliver healthy total returns even if current growth assumptions fall short of expectations.  While we consider ourselves value investors, we will add select growth stocks to the Parsec buy list when expectations look reasonable and a company has a competitive advantage.  In other words, when we think a stock has a reasonable margin of safety.

In addition to a value-based stock selection approach, Parsec’s investment philosophy also has a quality bias.  This means we prefer companies with strong cash flows, consistent earnings growth, a long history of dividends, and above average returns on invested capital.  We also favor companies with strong balance sheets that can withstand different market environments and even gain market share during difficult economic periods.

Looking back over the market’s history, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by an average of 4.4% annually from 1926 to 2016 (Bank of America/Merrill Lynch).  More recently from 1990 to 2015, value stocks outperformed growth stocks by just 0.43% annually.  The spread has since reversed and in the last ten years value stocks have lagged growth stocks by 3% annually through the second quarter of 2017*.

The shift in leadership from value to growth stocks coincided with the start and continuation of the Federal Reserve’s massive monetary accommodation programs known collectively as quantitative easing (QE I, II, and III).  Those programs put additional downward pressure on interest rates.  In the face of low or no yields and the slowest economic expansion after a deep recession in over 120 years, investors demonstrated a preference for growth stocks over value stocks.  They were willing to pay up for companies delivering higher growth in a world where growth had become scarce.  Throughout the last ten years value stocks have occasionally outperformed, but usually in tandem with a steepening Treasury yield curve and thus improving growth expectations.

Because asset prices and interest rates are inversely correlated, very low interest rates over the last decade have led to above-average asset valuation levels.  This has been even more pronounced among growth stocks as investors have been willing to pay a premium to own them in a slow growth environment.  As a result, typically higher-priced growth stocks are even more expensive today.

Sticking to our value- and quality-biased investment approach has admittedly been a headwind in recent years.  However, we believe higher-quality stocks trading at a discount are poised to outperform.  Growth stocks currently trading at premium valuation levels will have further to fall in the event of a market downturn.  As well, low interest rates have prompted corporations to take out record debt levels.  As rates begin to rise, higher-quality companies or those with strong balance sheets and robust cash flows will be better able to service their debt levels, even during an economic downturn.  While maintaining our investment approach through the current environment has been challenging, we feel confident that investing in higher-quality companies trading at discounted valuations will reward clients over the long-term.

*References the Russell 3000 Growth Index and the Russell 3000 Value Index

The Parsec Team

Share this:

Mid-Year Market Update

Now that we’re half-way through 2017, it’s time to take a look at market and economic trends year-to-date. The big picture view is that asset classes across the board have delivered strong returns through June. This is despite interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). In fact, Treasury yields have actually fallen in the face of two interest rate increases this year, pushing bond prices higher. International stocks and bonds have also risen in 2017, boosted by stabilizing global growth rates, depressed yields world-wide, and improving corporate earnings.

Looking a little more closely at the U.S., stocks continued their upward trajectory early in the year following the post-Presidential election results in November. While the new administration has not made much traction in passing new legislation, relatively healthy economic data – including good jobs growth, higher wages, and a strong housing market – have supported stocks. At the time of this writing (June 15, 2017), the S&P 500 Index is up 8.5% on a price-basis and up 9.7% on a total return basis (which includes dividends).

Technology stocks have led U.S. equity markets this year. Within the S&P 500 Index, the sector is up over 17% year-to-date given healthy earnings growth expectations for the group. The more tech-heavy NASDAQ Index is up a whopping 14% this year, almost 6% ahead of the S&P 500 Index. However, we’ve started to see some signs of weakness among tech stalwarts recently and are watching the group closely. On the flip side, energy and telecom stocks have lagged the index, with price declines of 13% and 9%, respectively. Of note, energy and telecom stocks were two of the three best-performing sectors in the S&P 500 Index last year, with prices returns of +24% and +18%, respectively. This marked turnaround in performance provides a cautionary tale on the pitfalls of market timing: last year’s leaders may well become this year’s laggards. In general we’ve found that it’s difficult, if not impossible to predict which sectors or industries will outperform in any given year. As a result, we recommend maintaining a diversified portfolio through all market cycles and rebalancing regularly.

Another wide disparity arose among growth and value stocks. Year-to-date, growth stocks (as measured by the Russell 3000 Growth Index) are up almost 14% on a price return basis versus a 3% return for value stocks (as measured by the Russell 3000 Value Index). Much of the outperformance by growth stocks stems from strong returns among technology stocks – many of which are growth-oriented and trade at higher valuation levels.

After years of underperforming U.S. stocks, international equities have outperformed year-to-date. In aggregate, developed stocks from Japan, Europe, and Australia are up 14% on a price return basis through June. While this group has lagged U.S. stocks over the past four consecutive years, improving economies in most of these regions, positive consumer sentiment, and accommodative central banks are starting to turn the tide. Likewise, Emerging Markets stocks are up over 17% on a price return basis so far this year. The marked turnaround comes as corporate earnings growth for many of these countries is starting to improve and global growth is stabilizing.

Other interesting observations for 2017 include record-low stock volatility levels, lower yields despite higher interest rates by the FOMC, and an eventful (if unproductive) six-months in Washington.

Looking forward, we see risks and opportunities. The Federal Reserve is set to reduce its bloated balance sheet later this year which could pose a risk to above-average stock valuation levels. Despite the potential for unintended consequences, we view the move as a vote of confidence in the U.S. economy and as a much needed step towards more normalized monetary policy. While a more restrictive Federal Reserve is a headwind to asset prices, interest rates remain very low (with no signs of rising) and the U.S. economy remains on stable footing. These factors, along with improving U.S. corporate earnings growth, bode well for continued stock gains over the long-term.

Share this:

What’s Ahead for Fixed Income?

After more than thirty years of falling interest rates and thus rising bond prices, yields may be moving higher.  While trends are often short-lived, this new trajectory could persist into 2017 and beyond given recent changes in the political landscape as well as a less accommodative Federal Reserve (Fed).  We’ll take a look at what this new monetary and political environment may mean for bonds and how to best-position your fixed income portfolio for the long-term.

A proxy for the bond market, the 10-year Treasury note yield hit an historical low of 1.36% in July 2016 only to jump 100 basis points (or 1%) by the end of November.  The move came as investors responded favorably to the surprise U.S. Presidential and Congressional election results, in anticipation of higher growth levels in the years to come.

Part of the optimism stemmed from the new administration’s promise to cut consumer and corporate taxes and spend on infrastructure projects.  This picture presents a mixed bag for bonds, however.  Increased fiscal spending and lower taxes are positive for economic growth and a healthy economy is generally good for lending and credit activity.  But stronger economic growth would push yields higher and thus bond prices lower.  On the other hand, higher yields would provide investors with higher current income, acting as a partial offset to lower bond prices.  Rising interest rates or yields would also allow investors to reinvest into higher-yielding bonds.

Duration is an important characteristic to consider when reinvesting at higher yields.  A bond’s duration is the length of time it takes an investor to recoup his or her investment.  It also determines how much a bond’s price will fall when yields rise.  Longer duration bonds such as Treasury or corporate bonds with long maturities experience sharper price declines when yields rise.  Likewise, shorter duration bonds are less volatile and will exhibit smaller price declines, all else being equal.  Because we can’t predict the exact direction or speed of interest rate changes, it’s important to have exposure to bonds with a mix of durations.  In this way an investor is able to respond to any given environment.  For example, when yields are rising, an investor can sell her shorter-duration bonds, which are less susceptible to prices changes, and reinvest into longer-duration bonds with higher rates.

Another factor that affects bond prices is inflation.  Inflation expectations have started to heat up in light of low unemployment, wage growth, and expectations for increased government stimulus.  Higher inflation could also put upward pressure on interest rates and thus downward pressure on bond prices.  While inflation can erode the real returns of many bonds, some bonds, such as Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), stand to benefit.  TIPS are indexed to inflation and backed by the U.S. government.  Whenever inflation rises, the principal amount of TIPS gets adjusted higher.  This in turn leads to a higher interest payment because a TIPS coupon is calculated based on the principal amount.

Finally, the Federal Reserve’s shift away from accommodative monetary policy will have an impact on bond prices.  Although higher interest rates from the Fed will likely pressure fixed income prices, overall we view this change favorably.  This is because a return to more normal interest rate levels is critical to the functioning of large institutions like insurance companies and banks, which play a key role in our society.  Likewise, higher interest rates will provide more income to the millions of Baby Boomers starting to retire and would help stabilize struggling pension plans at many companies.

Taken altogether and in light of an uncertain environment, we believe a diversified bond portfolio targeted to meet your specific fixed income needs is the best way to weather this changing yield environment.  In addition to considering your specific income objectives, our Investment Policy Committee meets regularly to assess the current economic, fiscal, and monetary environment.  We adjust our asset allocation targets in order to take advantage of attractive opportunities or reduce exposure to higher-risk (over-valued) areas.  While we may over-weight some areas or under-weight others, in the long-run we continue to believe that a well-diversified portfolio is the best way to weather any market environment.

Thank you,

The Parsec Team

Share this:

Infrastructure Spending

The next driver of economic growth and company fundamentals?

Now that the U.S. presidential election is behind us and a big unknown has become known, stocks are responding favorably.  While equities are basking in a bit of short-term certainty following the November 8th election results, key questions remain.  One of the most significant relates to future government spending, and specifically, infrastructure.  After years of unprecedented monetary accommodation that may have artificially inflated equity prices, increased investments in our nation’s roads, bridges, and airports could provide a significant (and real) boost to corporate earnings and the economy.

Regardless of your presidential preference, both Clinton and Trump promised to increase infrastructure spending on the campaign trail.  Hillary planned to spend about $275 billion over five years while Donald claimed he would double her target.  Overall U.S. infrastructure recently received a grade of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), suggesting this is one instance in which competitive campaign rhetoric may work in our favor.

Most experts agree that the U.S. has underinvested in infrastructure for nearly three decades.  As a result, many of our bridges, roads, public buildings, and ports have not had significant upgrades in 50 to 100 years.  Government officials are well aware of the problem, but lack of bipartisanship has been a hurdle to distributing needed funds to critical projects.  While historically divided government has been more favorable for stocks, in this case, an all-Republican government may enable the passage of much needed infrastructure spending bills.

Research suggests that over the long-term, every $1 spent on infrastructure has the potential to boost economic activity by $3.  This is because updated roads, bridges, and buildings improve productivity and drive efficiencies.  Increased spending on these projects would also provide new jobs, further benefiting GDP growth.

While most focus on the economic gains, modernizing key infrastructure facilities may have the added benefit of reducing the harmful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.  According to a report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, more than 60% of the world’s greenhouse gases are associated with old and ailing power plants, roads, buildings, and sanitation facilities, among others.

Finally, increased infrastructure spending may be the balm we need to escape from years of easy monetary policy that has inflated equity prices.  Stock valuations are trading above their long-term historical averages despite multiple quarters of weak sales and earnings growth.  Now with record-low interest rates poised to go higher and few tools left in the Federal Reserve’s tool box, a shift towards new fiscal policies that increase productivity and encourage corporations to invest – such as infrastructure spending – would provide companies with real sales and earnings drivers.  This in turn would help bridge the gap between currently lackluster fundamentals and elevated security prices.

To be sure, there are potential negatives associated with increased fiscal spending, including currently large labor shortages in the construction industry, dependence on prudent government spending, and regulatory red tape.  Likewise, increased infrastructure spending could add to an already elevated federal budget deficit.  However, taken altogether the positives appear to outweigh the negatives.  And new fiscal spending could be just what we need to keep the economy on track while supporting stock prices.

Share this: