Last week the Federal Reserve decided to hold rates steady. The uncertainty as to when they will raise rates has been extended to at least October and, if not then, to December or beyond. A Fed rate hike has been in the air since March when the Fed removed the word “patient” from its press release, signaling it could increase rates for the first time in nine years. Rates were reduced to zero in 2008 during the financial crisis and haven’t moved since.
This uncertainty has made markets very skittish. After a January and February when all asset classes were up, March through July was flat overall. Since the week after July 4th, the S&P 500 has alternated between weekly declines and gains for 11 consecutive weeks. China’s devaluation of the yuan in August (see the DWM blog) and the related concerns about its growth and that of emerging markets, caused a 6-7% pullback in stocks in August.
As we have pointed out previously, investors hate uncertainty. It’s interesting though. History shows us that equities typically do well during the tightening cycle (raising of rates by the Fed) and a year after the initial rate rise. (This is based on results in seven different time periods from 1983 to 2004). Hence, the uncertainty may be more disruptive to the markets than the actual tightening (raising of rates).
It’s valuable to look at the Fed’s decision and related statements in greater detail. They did acknowledge the U.S. economy is expanding at a “moderate pace” with “solid job gains and declining unemployment.” There is concern, however, about global growth. China, which has been growing at double digits, is now expected to be 6.8%. And other emerging market countries are struggling, particularly those whose income comes from oil and commodities. A decade ago, China accounted for 9% of the world GDP, now it’s 16%. Emerging markets overall now account for 57% of world GDP, up from 46% in 2004. We’re all interconnected, so lower worldwide economic growth impacts business earnings and stock valuations.
The other key factor is that inflation has failed to reach the 2% Fed target the last three years. Furthermore, the Fed doesn’t expect it to get there until 2018. What the Fed is trying to do is gradually raise rates at just the right time(s) before inflation hits 2% such that there will be a nice “soft landing” near 2% without the economy heating up and pushing inflation up too much and too quickly. At the same time, if the Fed raises rates too quickly and causes the economy to cool down, inflation could decline or even move to deflation, which we want to avoid.
Based upon the statements from the Fed officials last week and other recent data, it appears likely we may have lower worldwide economic growth and low inflation for at least a few years. Plus we will need to continue to endure the uncertainty of when the Fed will raise rates. October? December? Next year? What does all of this likely mean for investment returns?
First, nominal investment returns are likely continue to be lower than historical values. Historically, since 1970, stocks have grown at an annual rate of almost 9% while inflation has been a little more than 4% per year. Hence, there has been a 5% real return earned by risking money and investing in stocks. For the same time period, bonds returned 6%, or a 2% real return.
Mathematically, therefore, if inflation is 2%, it is very likely that a diversified all-equity portfolio might earn 7% and returns on a diversified bond portfolio might be 4%. And, if economic growth is low or stagnant, that pushes valuations down and lowers returns as well.
Nominal returns for all of us are under pressure from three sources; low inflation, slowing global growth and Fed uncertainty. We can’t control any of those. What we need to do is focus on real returns, not nominal returns. And, we need to make sure our financial planning and investment return expectations for the next few years are based on lower inflation and lower nominal returns.
We’re happy to chat about this important topic at any time. Give us a call.