Jeremy Grantham

It appears that when it comes to mocking consensus groupthink emanating from lazy career 'financiers' who seek protection from their lack of imagination and original thought, 'creation' of negative alpha and general underperformance (not to mention reliance on rating agencies, only to jump at the first opportunity to demonize the clueless raters), in the sheer herds of other D-grade asset "managers" (for much more read Jeremy Grantham explaining this and much more here), David Rosenberg enjoys even more linguistic flexibility than even us. Case in point, his just released trashing of the latest Barron's permabull groupthink effort titled "Outlook: Mostly Sunny." And just as it so often happens, no sooner did those words hit the cover of that particular rag, that it started raining, generously providing material for the latest "Roasting with Rosie."

"You apparently can survive betting against bull market irrationality if you meet three conditions. First, you must allow a generous Ben Graham-like “margin of safety” and wait for a real outlier before you make a big bet. Second, you must try to stay reasonably diversified. Third, you must never use leverage."...It is the classic failing of value managers (and poker players for that matter) to get impatient and bet too hard too soon. In addition, GMO was not always optimally diversified. We are generally more cautious (or, if you prefer, “more experienced”) now than in 1998 with respect to, for example, both patience and diversification, and at least we in asset allocation always stayed away from leverage. The U.S. growth and technology bubble of 2000 was by far the biggest market  outlier event in U.S. market history; we had previously survived the 65 P/E market in Japan, which was perhaps the greatest outlier in all important equity markets anywhere and at any time. These were the most stringent tests for managers, and we were 2 to 3 years early in our calls in both cases. Yet we survived, although not without some battle scars, with the great help that we did, in the end, win these bets and by a lot. Hypothetically, resisting the temptation to invest too soon in 1931 may have been a tougher test of survival in bucking the market. Luckily we, and all value managers, were not around to be tempted by that one.

The coming years will be marked by a seismic change in the economic landscape in the US. Firstly and most importantly, we are going to see economic growth slow down dramatically. The reasons for this slow down are myriad but the most important are: 1) Age demographics: a growing percentage of the population will be retiring while fewer younger people are entering the workforce. 2) Excessive debt overhang.

This situation just can't last. Or can it?

In his most recent quarterly letter titled appropriately enough "The Longest Quarterly Letter Ever" GMO's Jeremy Grantham literally kills it. Well, maybe not literally but certainly metaphorically.

To picture how a cutback in social programs will impact the US populace, consider that in 2011, 48% of Americans lived in a household in which at least one member received some kind of Government benefit. Over 45 million Americans currently receive food stamps. And 43% of Americans aged 65-74 are Medicare beneficiaries. Consider the impact that even a 10% reduction in these various programs would have on the US populace.

While we will leave readers alone when reading what the GMO head has dubbed the "shortest quarterly letter ever", we want to emphasize one point, namely Grantham's projection of how the market will perform in the next 10 years. The squeamish may want to look away: "No Market for Young Men.” Historians would notice that all major equity bubbles (like those in the U.S. in 1929 and 1965 and in Japan in 1989) broke way below trend line values and stayed there for years. Greenspan, neurotic about slight economic declines while at the same time coasting on Volcker’s good work, introduced an era of effective overstimulation of markets that resulted in 20 years of overpriced markets and abnormally high profit margins. In this, Greenspan has been aided by Bernanke, his acolyte, who has continued his dangerous policy. The first of the two great bubbles that broke on their watch did not reach trend at all in 2002, and the second, in 2009 – known by us as the first truly global bubble – took only three months to recover to trend. This pattern is unique. Now, with wounded balance sheets, perhaps the arsenal is empty and the next bust may well be like the old days. GMO has looked at the 10 biggest bubbles of the pre-2000 era and has calculated that it typically takes 14 years to recover to the old trend. An important point here is that almost no current investors have experienced this more typical 1970’s-type market setback. When one of these old fashioned but typical declines occurs, professional investors, conditioned by our more recent ephemeral bear markets, will have a permanent built-in expectation of an imminent recovery that will not come. For the record, Exhibit 1 shows what the S&P 500 might look like from today if it followed the average fl ight path of the 10 burst bubbles described above. Not very pretty."

Just released from Jeremy Grantham, who has gone, for all intents and purposes, "balls to wall" bearish. "I do not feel the same degree of confidence that I did, which was considerable, that the Fed could carry all before it until October 1 of this year. A third round of quantitative easing would very probably keep the speculative game going. But without a QE3, there seem to be too many unexpected (indeed unexpectable) special factors weighing against risk-taking in these overpriced times. I had recommended taking a little more risk than was justified by value alone in honor of Year 3, QE2, and the Fed in general. Risk now should be more reflective of an investment world that has stocks selling at 40% over fair value (about 920 on the S&P 500) and fixed income, manipulated by the Fed, also badly overpriced. Although the taking of some “extra” risk by riding the Fed’s coattails has been profitable for six months, I admit to being a bit disappointed: I really felt the market had the Fed’s wind in its sails and would move up deep into the 1400 to 1600 range by October 1, where it would be, once again, over a 2-sigma 1-in-44-year event, or, officially, a bubble. (At least in a world where GMO is the official.) At such a level, I was ready to be a real hero and absolutely batten down the hatches, become extremely conservative, and be prepared to tough out any further market advance (which, with my record, would be highly likely!). The market may still get to, say, 1500 before October, but I doubt it, especially without a QE3, although the chance of going up a little more by October 1 is probably still better than even. And whether it will reach 1500 or not, the environment has simply become too risky to justify prudent investors hanging around, hoping to get lucky. So now is not the time to float along with the Fed, but to fight it. Investors should take a hard-nosed value approach, which at GMO means having substantial cash reserves around a base of high quality blue chips and emerging market equities, both of which have semi-respectable real imputed returns of over 4% real on our 7-year forecast. The GMO position has also taken a few more percentage points of equity risk off the table."

And so another one joins the commodities craze: "The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value. We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly." No, not Malthus. Grantham.|

In Jeremy Grantham’s 4Q Letter, he summarizes what went well and not so well in 2010, then looks ahead to 2011, sharing what he believes to be critical issues for investors to focus on.He also continues his series of Letters to the Investment Committee with a piece called “On the Importance of Asset Class Bubbles for Value Investors and Why They Occur.” Must read.

“As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. [Emphasis added.] We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.” Wow! How is it possible that we collectively seem to have forgotten this clear warning? I have not once seen it referred to...All in all it appears that Eisenhower’s worst fears have been realized and his remarkable and unique warnings given for naught. From now on, we should tread more carefully. Honoring President Eisenhower’s unique warnings, we should perhaps not take this 50-year slide lying down. Squawking loudly seems preferable. - Jeremy Grantham

The Federal Reserve has been manipulating the economy for the last 20 years through the “wealth effect.” When the wealth effect gets given back, plus interest, the markets crash. The Fed is now using quantitative easing to trick us into buying one overpriced asset, stocks, because the alternative, bonds, is even more overpriced. Long term US trend growth is only 2% a year. We’re going to have another crash. The recent moves in American stocks have been purely speculative. While the S&P 500 went up 20%, the junky part went up 120%. Cash is the only hiding place.

To those who have read GMO's last letter bashing the Fed, "Night of the Living Fed", there will be little new in Jeremy Grantham's interview with Bartiromo to be aired later today. For those who haven't, the GMO strategist does a terrific summary of how the Fed's economic central planning (a function it should not have, and should merely focus on monetary policy) has destroyed the stock market: "The Fed has spent the last 15, 20 years manipulating the stock market. I think they know what they do has no direct impact on the economy, the only weapon they have is the so-called wealth effect: if you can drive the market up 50%, people feel richer, they feel a little more confident, and the academics reckon they spend about 3% of that. The problem is they know very well how to stimulate the market, but they step away when the market gathers steam, and resign any responsibility for moderating a bull market that may get out of control, and I fear that the market will continue to rise, it will be continuously speculative. As a consequence you get a boom and bust... I think the Fed should settle for just controlling the money supply, not controlling the economy." Unfortunately, it is now too late, and the Fed, which in addition to lender of last resort, is the economic "controller" of only resort, now that fiscal policy is moot, will soon have to be overthrown for its disastrous effect on the US economy to be finally eliminated.

A most welcome summer gift by Jeremy Grantham, who discusses:

1 Portfolio Outlook and Recommendations
2 Finance Goes Rogue (But Volcker Wins a Round!)
3 The Fearful, Speculative Market
4 Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes
5 “Seven Lean Years” Revisited
6 Aging Populations, Pensions, and Health Costs

The ever-contrarian Grantham is... contrarian, with a twist. From Robert Huebscher's Advisor Perspectives: "Jeremy Grantham, the investor celebrated for his ability to spot and exploit bubbles in asset classes, guaranteed yesterday that the current bull market in gold will end. His proof? He bought some – for his own account – at the end of last week."