Home » How To, Special Reports

THE MARKET IS A HEARTLESS BEAST

11 January 2011 by Cullen Roche 58 Comments

Markets do not care about you.  They don’t care about your family, your feelings and they particularly don’t care about your wallet.  With record deficits, QE2, 9.4% unemployment, continuing stimulus and 0% interest rates many are still baffled by a surging stock market.  What gives says the Main Street investor?  Clearly, there’s still an enormous disconnect between the market and reality.  I know, there are a lot of positive signs out there, but the fact remains – Main Street still doesn’t feel like the recovery is headed their way.  But the market isn’t the economy.  Main Street isn’t Wall Street.  And the market is a heartless beast that desires one thing and one thing only- PROFITS!

Although we live in a world of the Bernanke Put and endless government bailouts the markets remain the last bastion of natural selection in the modern world.  When allowed to truly function on its own capitalism is a cruel, heartless, but remarkably efficient bitch.  The weak ultimately perish and the strong survive.  For the strong the rewards are great.  For the weak the losses are insufferable.  And in this world of cruelty you must never forget that the system has no sympathy for you or your emotions.

The equity market is priced based on future profit expectations that are often right, but more often than not prove to be wrong.  As we saw in 2007 those expectations were high, investors believed economic downturn would be thwarted and the environment ultimately surprised substantially to the downside.  As the waterfall decline ensued we experienced the inverse reaction in 2009.  Markets and expectations overshot to the downside.  Expectations for profit growth became far too low and classic mean reversion ensued.  As the economy stabilized in 2009 the economy remained stagnant at best.  But the economy’s loss had become corporate America’s gain.  The massive cost cuts made these corporations lean and mean.  Corporate America’s diverse revenue stream kicked in as the global economy strengthened and leveraged up these lean balance sheets.  Despite persistent weakness in the US economy profits continued to rebound through 2009 & 2010 even as US unemployment continued to climb.  That heartless bitch did not care about the unemployed, stagnant wages or l-shaped recoveries.  She cared only for the bottom line and the bottom line was robust – particularly when compared to expectations.

Over the years I have attempted to measure this disconnect between perception and reality using my Expectation Ratio.  The metric was bearish since 2007 and was then bullish throughout the majority of the recent bull market. If I have made one mistake in recent years it has been focusing on what should be good for an economy (job growth, fair markets, organic growth, etc) as opposed to what the market desires (higher profits no matter how they come). But much like an approach to trading, your approach to conducting research must be unbiased, flexible and mechanical.  Ultimately, the purpose of research is to generate investment profits.  Connecting the dots between this research and actionable ideas is vital to success.  If you allow the emotion of a macro outlook to infect your work your results will suffer.   Remember, the market is not the economy.  The market does not care about the emotions of the unemployed or the suffering.  In fact, she feeds off the negative emotion and it is often not until you have become comfortable and complacent that she will turn her back on you and break your heart again.

As investors we are always learning, evolving and honing our skills in order to avoid the pitfalls that cause so many to self destruct. Few investment cycles have been as great a learning experience as this one.  We live in a renaissance for economic thought, economic theory and investment.  It’s unlikely that we will experience as many beneficial learning experiences as the most recent cycle.  And while this environment continues to cause great pain there are also great lessons to be learned.

From an investment perspective, there has been no greater lesson than the fact that has been burned into my soul from the last 24 months – the market is not the economy and the market has no sympathy for you, your family or your emotions.  She desires one thing and one thing only – profits.  And those profits will often come at the expense of everything we wish for in this world.  That’s the cruel reality of the capitalist system in which we reside.  It might not be fair, it might not be right, but it is what it is.  In the end, capitalism continues to be the most dynamic, innovative and productive system in the world.  But make no mistake – that system does not care about you and anyone who forgets that will be devoured by it.

Cullen Roche

Cullen Roche

Bio - Coming Soon.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterYouTube

Disclosures - Unless otherwise noted, authors have no positions in any securities mentioned and readers should never consider this to be investment advice. Always consult your financial advisor before acting on any ideas. Comments Guideline - Readers who denigrate authors or other readers will be banned without warning. This site does not tolerate any sort of reader abuse. The goal of this site is to create an environment that is conducive to learning and better understanding of the monetary system and the investment world. We expect readers to behave maturely and responsibly. We welcome and encourage intense and intelligent discourse, but the site adheres to a strict 1 strike policy. While it is your right to speak freely, it is not your right to behave childishly. Above all else, please enjoy the site. It is intended to be used as an educational tool and we hope the intelligent and mature debate will further that purpose. We hope readers will make an effort to respect that goal. Comments with excessive linking or foul language will be moderated before posting.
Comments
  • phsmith

    You think this is capitalism? Bahhhaa! Capitalism does not involve massive gov’t bailouts, pomos, suspension of accounting rules, etc… This is not capitalism – this is central planning and “wealth effect” manipulation. Capitalism involves failure, pain, clearing of the system – this ain’t capitalism, not even close.

    • SS

      This is the never ending excuse made by bears. How can you honestly say there have been no losers? I’m so tired of hearing that. We’ve seen more banks fail since the S&L crisis. Look at corporate profits. Tell me this isn’t capitalism at work. This system doesn’t care about your free market propaganda.

      • Anonymous

        The guys who deserve mostly to fail (Citi, ML, BoA etc.) not only did not fail but got record bonuses. It is capitalism for the poor and powerless and communism for the elite.

  • LVG

    The USA has always had some level of central planning. It was the breakdown of government regulations that caused this crisis in the first place so spare us with your central planning fear mongering.

    • Anonymous

      The central planing or deregulation both served one purpose – make the elite more money at the cost of everone else. It is not regulation or deregulation that is the problem, but capture of government by special interests.

    • Joe Johnson

      You’re confusing central planning with central conniving. You’re talking about the central planning where public funds are used for the public good or benefit. The central planning that actually exists is one in which public taxes are stolen by government officials-some elected and some appointed- and given to government connected businesses. Hell, Abe Lincoln’s Civil War was all about this 2nd from of central planning. The US system of government as laid out by the constitution was already a sham by then. The Civil War as anyone knows wasn’t about slavery, Lincolm himself did not believe blacks were equal to whites. That murdering of 500k Americans was all about Federal control over states. Control to tax centrally and use those funds to dole out to favored businesses, at that time in building out the rail system and other infrastructure. At least then the public recieved some benefit. Today federal taxes represent a giant coroprate piggy bank raided by corporate owned legislators to buy reelection.

  • jeff

    Why can’t I borrow interest free “reserves” from the Fed to repair my personal balance sheet? And than buy long bonds with the proceeds.

    If that is capitalism…please sign me up Ben!

  • As much as I wish we had a purely capitalist market (lord knows I’ve complained about govt intervention to no end in the last few years) we have to accept that the USA has a long history of intervention in markets (via interest rates or other mechanisms) and we’re widely considered to be the epitome of capitalism in the world.

    We can either quibble over the level of capitalism or accept that we might never be a pure capitalist economy and move on. I’d love to get rid of the Fed as much as most people, but there’s reality and there’s dreams….

    I think referring to it as central planning or otherwise is more politically driven than anything else. If this is central planning then we’ve always been central planners. The facts don’t lie. Just look at the growth (or lack of) in govt employees and govt expenditures over the last 60 years. We’re not doing anything that out of the ordinary right now:

    • eludog

      Cullen, that is the first time I have seen those graphs. I’m really shocked. Thanks for posting those.

    • dimm Dimm

      Thanks for posting these. They deserve a separate post though.
      It seems that TPC finally provides data about “Obama’s big government”.
      What the graphs are missing is an overlay of the population growth …
      After all that big bad government hires teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc. and surprisingly(for some) you need more of those to govern a bigger population.

    • blacklotus

      I’d be interested to see how the first figure changes when overlaid with US population growth over the same period. That way you can tell if the size of the government has been growing faster (bad) or slower (good). For example, if the US population had been shrinking over the past 50 years, then an average ~3% change of the number of government employees isn’t all the spectacular.

      http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population+growth+rate

      Eye-balling the chart from the link above, it looks like the % change has been around 1-2% each year. I guess it’s in the same ball-park…

  • The market would thrive on 99% unemployment in the us since americans are too expensive. Corporate profits would explode and per mmt the govt can just do 2 or 3T tax cuts and stimulus plans every year to keep money in the pockets of the unemployed so they can consume. Well I guess with 99% unemploym/ent tax cuts wont be so useful. But 750B a quarter stimulus works fine ..our gdp would be roaring and without demand for loans we could QE forever, get the stock market to dow 45000 and everyone could just shop rather than workl.

    • Anonymous

      Sounds like the idea of communism, only that they tried to use their own population to work (too expensive) instead of cheap Chinese.

  • i agree with ph, this isn’t capitalism, it’s bells and whistles smoke and mirrors make your way through the dark maze to find the cheese capitalism, and it gets only harder as the age of info continues to unfold because your sources become so varied.

  • RL44

    TPC, surely “capitalism” is, as you kind of imply, where the strong survive and prosper and the weak fall by the wayside?

    How can we call this “capitalism,” in any form, when the weak get bailed out and prosper yet the strong miss out on the opportunity to bury the weak, those who made all the mistakes?

    (Otherwise, good read. To trade the market you need to be, now more than ever, a psychologist rather than a genius).

  • Martin S

    Please Mr Cullen,

    http://pragcap.com/where-does-all-the-money-flow

    We are a few still confused on the flow front!

    When I-bankers are talking about NET in- and outflows from equties etc… how does is fit in the picture there is always a buyer behind a seller and vice versa (even if they agree on the trade on a much higher or lower price)

    Many thanks

  • goodfriend

    basic reminders yet even though i know them i still have intellectual issues to go l ong when real economy is not so well…i need a cure !

  • Capitalism is self correcting mechanism inspite or despite of anything or everything.
    I for once am in complete agreement with you TPC.
    “Price is Right” if you think its not then earn the arbitrage, if it is, please gracefully accept it. Market has humbled many a great pessimist, optimist, I-know-all beings.
    And if you get a familiar feeling that fed is the one behaving i-know-all , before long, it will too be humbled or humiliated.

  • GLH

    In a democracy government is supposed to protect the weak against the strong. Unfortunately, our government is owned by the strong.

  • chris

    interesting that you post this commentary today, at the beginning of another earnings season that promises to be one largely of outperformance; as one frets about the “wrong” macro moves, it’s always good to keep one’s investing eyes on the prize: improving profits, balance sheets and earnings visibility.

  • phsmith

    The article suggest the market is cruel and heartless. In reality, this market is managed and quite predictable. We have a Fed which is telegraphing every pomo offer for explicit profiting of primary dealers (they even sent out a survey to the PD’s to see what would be “just the right amount of QE2″). We have an explicit Bernanke “put” that makes the Greenspan “put” seem too restrictive. Its a warm, fuzzy, low volume drift up market that feels confident in its gentle climb under Bernanke’s guiding hand. The Fed’s all out push for the “wealth effect” via stock market influence is now explicitly stated as a policy tool. Its not a Bear vs Bull debate. We are only a thin veneer away from the Fed simply buying this market outright. With the Fed’s unlimited balance sheet (in theory), why don’t they just come out reveal what’s behind curtain #3 – open and outright massive purchasing of indexed futures in a bold bid to make everyone feel better. Go long America! Ben’s got your back.

  • br

    If the Fed had not been bailout and supporting the market, and the Govt. stops meddling in the so called “free markets”, the stock market would have already collapsed by now. And we would be celebrating the first or second anniversary of the crash (to be followed by more crashes). Calling it Capitalism is perhaps the best way to “hide” all this deception. Call it Bailoutism. In a truly free market, people (economy) decides what the best price should be that is “fair” to everyone involved. So their emotions, fear etc are all “included” and not ignored like the way capitalism, as you describe it, works. Enough said.

  • rhp

    Martin S.

    I believe the answer lies in where the boundaries are established. “Sidelines” implies a playing field. Hussman and TPC establish a “playing field” that is an aggregate of the entire system. If the “playing field” is subdivided, then “eagerness to buy” (Hussman’s term) may change the relative amount of cash devoted to each sub-playing field, while the aggregate remains unchanged. At least that’s what I think……..

    rhp

  • Pete

    I agree with your post 100%. right or wrong, we are looking at the market to make money. The market is corrupted, so is the system. this is the world we live in. we have to do what we have to do. In a bigger picture, this is how we walk toward a cliff, and this is how the American journey will be. Ballot box won’t change a thing. We have got to a point that nothing, nothing matters.

  • quark

    A few thoughts:

    The Market is doing this…the market is doing…these are phrases I and many others used while I was a young floor trader in order to label a mysterious entity that moved the markets. It is a convenient transfer of responsibility that is prevalent in our capitalistic system. Ownership for any wrongdoing isn’t to be placed on individuals, it is the ‘system’ that made decisions to prevent deregulation, it was the system that refused to regulate use it’s governing power to regulate the mortgage market, it was the institution that defrauded countless millions across the globe, it is the institutions that are now enforcing austerity measures on citizens across the globe.. when if fact it is individuals who make these decisions. We have no issues with showering billions on those who achieve their goals through these means. More and more individuals have control over large and concentrated sums of capital that are making these decisions yet no one is paying attention real time. All this of course allows us to shift damage from real time to a time in the distant future.

    “It might not be fair, it might not be right, but it is what it is. In the end, capitalism continues to be the most dynamic, innovative and PRODUCTIVE system in the world.” Cullen, I is not only ludicrous but I believe your statement supports my thought in my previous paragraph where responsibility is shifted from individuals to institutions. If stockholders/companies were held responsible for the public damage they have inflicted through fraud, the environment, our health and these damages were recorded on the B/S and flowed through the I/S of our corporations…then we would have the most efficient we would have a much more efficient market, institution.

    So much waste, so much loss of quality of life.

  • Jonnyblaze

    Good thoughts and a reminder to remain vigilant… But what strikes me as ironic is that this so-called last bastion of natural selection is ultimately founded on a currency that most of us agree is subject to the whims of a few policymakers. How can we call this true capitalism when money itself is not subject to the same market forces in the same way that all other elements are? There always has been and always will be an element of central planning so long as the currency itself is not a truly market-determined currency. It’s like running an experiment on which strains of a compound will be more resilient and able to survive, but allowing the scientist to discretionarily determine the various levels of food, water, air exposure, etc. Are the results of that experiment really reflective of natural selection?

    Coincidentally, this also relates to my main gripe with the implications of MMT and the way that most people seem to apply it. The logic that currency is not a “special” asset class is taken too far. Yes, it’s always still involved in transactions as an asset swap with a different term structure, but this particular asset DOES have special properties in that all other assets are viewed through the lens of the currency. It’s the foundation, the zero bound, the limit, the asymptote — however you want to think about it. There is only one direction that market participants can move when they hold the currency and that is further out the term structure. At all other points, participants have the option of moving in two directions. This is a reality that I believe is not adequately contmeplated by most MMT’ers.

  • Detroit Dan Detroit Dan

    Jonnyblaze– I don’t really understand your gripe with MMT.

    Money is a government creation.

    The markets may be heartless as TPC says, but they are also extremely responsive to politics, and politics are responsive to all sorts of human emotions. And as much as profits may seem to be disconnected from real economic activity, over the longer run there is no tighter correlation.

    • Jonnyblaze

      My point is simply this: if a market participant wants to express his belief of increased risk aversion, he can move further toward the short end of the term structure. Likewise, increased confidence can be expressed by moving out toward riskier assets. However, what does one do when they have reached the point where they are in cash, but still want to express further risk aversion? He can no longer move toward the less risky end of the spectrum, so his only real option is to jump ship entirely on the basis that it is better not to have assets denominated in that currency at all (I guess we have seen this in the rise of gold prices). The idea is that all of a sudden it becomes a binary event — either you’re in or you’re out in terms of the monetary unit. Without being able to express an opinion to varying degrees, market inefficiencies are inevitable and fiat, government-controlled currency is fundamentally flawed.

      As it relates to this discussion on capitalism vs. central planning, I’m saying the game is rigged in favor of the currency itself, since the government can and does require some transactions to be made using the legal tender of their choosing. The “I’m out” crowd is severely limited in their ability to express that opinion (unless they’re willing to go to jail or move to a different country). So, my question becomes is the dollar really a survivor in the natural selection process or is there a considerable exogenous force that always props it up? If you really want PURE capitalism, don’t build your house on a foundation of a centrally-planned currency…It’s like the old Rothschild quote “Give me control of the currency and I care not who makes the laws.” Same thing applies to the economic setting IMHO — capitalism, central planning, neo-mercantilism… the big winners will always be those who control the currency itself or have access to/power over those that do.

      • Detroit Dan Detroit Dan

        Jonnyblaze,

        I guess evolution has taken us to the point we are at with regard to the monetary system. Clearly, the precious metal standard doesn’t work. See this article by Marshall Auerback — “The Federal Reserve wasn’t able to stop depressions. It was going off the gold standard that did the trick.

        So I believe that your concerns about the currency and the power that the central bank has are better addressed through reform than by a return to the gold standard…

  • kayman

    Throwing in the towell Cullen ??? interesting timing for this post. Must say that with this , Hussmans latest Mia Culpa and Barton Biggs saying the next move is up…… I’m inclined to go long some more puts.

  • Obsvr-1

    If capitalism was based on free and efficient markets, transparency of information, accurate (honest) accounting and auditing, equally applied rule of law, ethical behavior and a civil moral compass then you can call it capitalism, but the markets have strayed far off course with respect to those principles.

    What we have is corporatism, oligopolies, fraud and corruption perpetrated and manipulated by a plutocracy, spreading like a cancer through our system of checks and balances.

    pulling just one example of this from cesspool of corruption:

    Today’s POMO Confirms Fed Continues To Shower Primary Dealers With Billions In Commission-Based Profits
    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/todays-pomo-confirms-fed-continues-shower-primary-dealers-billions-commission-based-profits

    • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

      Power has always ruled.

      Get used to it.

      • Obsvr-1

        history is full of power crumbling and empires collapsing brought to the demise by those who don’t get used to it.

      • quark

        “Get used to it”…you must not have children.

        • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

          Yes – as any parent learns quickly – children rule, particularly daughters rule their dads from day one!

          And yes, all power, to the extent it is abused becomes its own undoing.

          What I refer to is that the wealthy of this nation is quite effectively running the tables. They own Congress and nothing else matters.

  • George H

    Thanks for the post Cullen.

  • kayman

    Cullen, didn’t mean to imply that you are a permabear and I’m quite familiar wih your work….you are righteous, thats why I read your blog

    call me mister misunderstood.

    BUT I meant to note that those permabears are less bearish and Biggs (Mr mostly wrong) suggesting a burst higher…..this might all be implying something.

    by the way an interesting article about research done on forecasters (not implying anything bout you :-)

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/09/that_guy_who_called_the_big_one_dont_listen_to_him/?page=full

    • Gotcha. Thanks. I often get lumped in with some of these guys because I tend to focus on the macro risks and the not the happy talk….My actual investment approach is more bullish than most would ever assume. In fact, my main strategy (which I don’t discuss here) is strictly long only….Plus, I didn’t call the big one. I was just appropriately positioned for it because of my approach in recent years….Nothing enormously prescient there. Just good risk management. Of course, the downside of good risk management has been not capturing all of the upside. But that’s kind of the point….

      • Bill

        so is your track record better than hussman? are the strategies really comparable?

  • michael

    Cullen,

    Re: the ER expectation

    If indeed that your ER expectation continued to point to robust growth by corps, then as a sell side analyst would it not behoove me to continue to downplay the earning estimate to continue to beat expectation. Apple’s analysts got it down to a science so why can’t the rest of the community do the same. In this way, expectations will never be exuberant and the market can continue to power higher on better than expected results. Is there something wrong with this picture?

  • You better write that damn book. Jealous of this writing!

  • Anonymous

    You think the markets a heartless beast? The. You haven’t seen my gf on her period when she doesn’t have her way. Who dat who dat!?

  • RSDallas

    I’m curious to see if you support the views offered by Porter Stansberry in the paid advertisement noted at the bottom of the article? What motivates you to give him access to your readers? He is a crook.

  • The market is what it is, you are right that the market is not the real word economy, it is a crazy future estimation game based off a crazy herd of anticipators feeding off an endless drip of market news and events. We need to stop trying to predict or guess what the next move is and stick to a disciplined plan across a few asset classes, and ride trends while they ride. When one trend ends another soon emerges, so get there and get out before the rumbling herd catches up to trample you.

  • Dan Dell

    “the market is not the economy”

    Great read, but this is the most important thing to remember.

  • billw

    TPC,

    Great post and I agree with most of what you said. The only take away that I have is that when you speak about the market it is not a single entity. It is who controls the market that decides how it functions. Right now the market is controlled by the banksters who are doing everything in their power to make profits from a dying beast as long as they can. They use their power and influence over the liberals to get the banks bailed out, and continue to get BB to feed them profits through QE. As Dylan Grice, Albert Edwards, John Hussman, Jim Rogers, William Black, Steve Keen, and numerous others have said “this will end badly”. Yes the market can put it off by digging the hole deeper, but they can’t stop the inevitable.

  • okl

    oh well… more than once i’ve wondered if capitalism (law of the jungle) is really compatible with democracy lol… sad to say, this is not a question that is answerable at this period in time…

  • Ron

    And this is news? Few in 1929 needed to told this.

  • Bill

    This is capitalism with all power concentrated in the hands of the financial-industrial elite. Bush-Obama/Bernanke-Geithner are merely the instruments of their political power. The rest of us subsist on less and less of the pie as the most massive transfer of wealth from the less fortunate to the elites started under Reagan continues unabated. Buying power has stagnated since 1979 even with 2 wage earner families. The current bailouts and QE-1,2 reinforce this trend forcing more and more working people into poverty conditions. The only welfare is that which Wall Street receives with $multibillion bonuses. The anti-immigrant hysteria is a slight of hand to misdirect people’s anger. In the end, the elite will use the police power of the state against working people in the same way that they use the military forces against other peoples of the world.

  • Czeslaw

    Let me just toss this out, off the cuff: In natural selection, it’s not precisely the strong that survive; it’s those that adapt to their environment. In the current environment, there is greater government involvement than many would like. Those who have benefited from the bailouts are referred to in some comments here as the “weak” (in that they have failed and have been rescued). But in fact they have simply learned how to exploit their environment, and that’s why the wealth continues to concentrate in their hands. Even so, there is no reason an individual cannot exploit this environment as well. One could argue that an individual could also be fleeter of foot when the environment changes again.