Rams Butting Heads: Rosenberg vs. Paulsen
Courtesy of Wade Slome at Investing Caffeine
Source: Photobucket
After a massive decline in financial markets during 2008, followed by a significant rebound in during 2009, should it be a surprise to anyone that economists hold directly opposing views? Financial markets are Darwinian in many respects, andBloomberg was not bashful about stirring up a battle between David Rosenberg (Chief Economist & Strategist at Gluskin Sheff) and James Paulsen (Chief Investment Strategist at Wells Capital Management). The two economists, like the equivalent of two rams, lowered their horns and butted heads regarding their viewpoints on the economy. Rams butt heads (two words) together as a way to create a social order and hierarchy, so depending on your views, you can determine for yourself whom is the survival of the fittest. Regardless of your opinion, the exchange is an entertaining clash: [click here]
Paulsen’s Case (see also Unemployment Hypochondria): Paulsen makes the case that although the recovery has not been a gangbuster, nonetheless, the rebound has been the strongest in 25 years if you look at real GDP growth in the first year after a recession ends. He blames demographic atrophy in labor force growth (i.e., less job growth from Baby Boomers and fewer women joining the workforce relative to the mid-1980s) for the less than stellar absolute number.
Rosenberg’s Case: Rosenberg explains that the last two recoveries bear no resemblance to the recent recovery. The recent recession was one of the worst of all-time, therefore we should have experienced a sharper V-shaped recovery. All the major economic statistics are at dismal levels, and nowhere near the levels experienced in late 2007. He goes on to add that the stimulus, monetary policy, and bailouts have not produced the bang for our buck. Rosenberg says he will put on his bull hat once we enter a credit creation cycle that allows the economy to grow on an organic, sustained basis without artificial stimuli.
Like other pre-crisis bears who have floated to the top of the media mountain, Rosenberg has had difficulty adjusting his doom and gloom playbook as markets have rebounded approximately +80% from March 2009. Rosenberg maintained his pessimistic outlook as he transitioned from Merrill Lynch to Gluskin Sheff and has been wrong ever since. How wrong? Let’s take a look at Rosenberg’s first letter at his new employer, Gluskin Sheff (dated May 19th 2009):
Statement #1: “It stands to reason that this was just another counter-trend rally.” Reality: Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 8,475 then, and 11,114 today.
Statement #2: “It now looks as though the major averages are about to embark on the fabled retesting phase towards the March lows.” Reality: Dow never got close to 6,470 and stands at 11,114 today.
Statement #3: “It is unlikely that we have crossed the Rubicon into new bull market terrain and that the fundamental lows have been put in.” Reality: Dow just needs to fall -42% and Rosenberg will be right.
Statement #4: “[Unemployment] looks like we will likely get back to that old peak of 10.8% in coming quarters.” Reality: We peaked at 10.1% in October a year ago, and stand at 9.6% today.
Statement #5: “Deflation risks continue to trump inflation risks, at least over the near- and intermediate-term.” Reality: Commodity prices are dramatically escalating (CRB commodity index skyrocketing) across many categories, including the four-Cs (copper, corn, cotton, and crude oil).
I don’t pretend to be whistling past the graveyard, because we indeed have serious structural problems (deficits, debt, unsustainable entitlements, high unemployment, etc., etc., etc.), but when was there never something to worry about? See 1963 article? Like the endless “double dip” economists before him (see also Double-Dip Guesses). As the evidence shows, Rosenberg’s anything-but-rosy outlook is a tad extreme and has been dead wrong…at least for the last 1 and ½ years or almost 3,000 Dow Points. Just a few months ago, Rosenberg raised the odds of a double-dip recession from 45% to 67%.
Perhaps the sugar high stimulus will wear off, the steroid side-effects will kick in, and the Fed’s printing presses will break down and cause an economic fire? Until then, corporate profits continue to swell, cash is piling higher, valuations have been chopped in half from a decade ago (see Marathon Investing), and money stuffed under the mattress earning 0.5% will eventually leak back into the market.
I do however agree with Rosenberg in a few respects, and that revolves around his belief that banking industry will not be the leading group out of this cyclical recovery, and housing headwinds will remain in place for a extended period of time. Moreover, I agree with many of the bears when it comes to government involvement. Artificially propping up sectors like housing makes no sense. Why delay the inevitable by flushing taxpayer money down the toilet. Did you see the government running cash for clunker servers and storage in 2000 when the tech bubble burst? Does incentivizing capacity expansion with free money in an industry with boatloads of excess capacity already really make sense? Although media commentators and gloomy economists like Rosenberg paint everything as black and white, most reasonable people understand there are many shades of gray.
Gray that is…like the color of two rams butting heads.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
