GuruFocus Premium Membership

Serving Intelligent Investors since 2004. Only 96 cents a day.

Free Trial

Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Putting to Rest the Myths about Consumption

Inoculated Investor

Inoculated Investor

17 followers
It’s Labor Day Weekend. What are you doing sitting at home? Go out and spend! There are endless numbers of sales going on at your favorite retailers. Forget that your credit card is maxed out, you are late on your utility payments and that you are trying to get the bank to reduce the face amount of your mortgage. If you don’t leave the house to buy things and eat fancy dinners there is no way the US is going to recover from this recession. It is your duty as an American to help us spend our way out of the current economic malaise, irrespective of the additional debt you are forced to take on to achieve this universally desirable goal. The idea that people should save their money and live within their means only applies tothose countries over there in Asia. Americans are innovative and resilient. We are not going to let something as trivial as an excessive amount of debt (that must eventually be paid back) get in the way of living the life we have always dreamed of. Please, take your cues from the US government and borrow and spend more so we can get back on the path towards limitless prosperity. Don’t worry about those who say we cannot consume our way out of a debt-induced crisis. They are either un-American or are just jealous of our position in the world.

Forgive the hyperbole but this is disturbingly similar to the message being sent to the American public by both the corporations that rely on consumer spending to reward shareholders and pay huge bonuses and the government that seems to think that if we can just go back to 2006 everything will be fine. I think the widely popular Cash for Clunkers initiative embodies perfectly the sentiment espoused above. Have a car that is already paid off but think you could use a shiny new ride? The US government can help. In exchange for your old jalopy and a car note that only increases your debt burden, the government will subsidize your desire to drive around in style. And guess what? A wonderful side effect is that your purchase will help the struggling automakers that the US government now owns. It’s a win-win for everyone. Well, except for maybe your balance sheet that now is even more strained.

It was with all of this in mind that I came across a posting on Zero Hedge with commentary from the chief economist at Saxo Bank. An idea that I don’t think gets anywhere near as much attention as it should is the one whose premise is that the US consumer has basically hit a debt wall.


To me, it looks like the consumers have finally hit the wall where there is essentially no pent-up demand left. After decades of systematic and constant demand stimulation via artificially low interest rates and the emergence of the “demand driven economy” (as if there ever was any such thing!), we have succeeded in borrowing so much from future demand that our present GDP has been overstated by 10-30%. How many resources have been put to use in order to make American consumers push their excessive debt-financed consumption to new highs? How many malls, shopping centers, financial intermediaries, debt extension companies and SUV dealers have been set up for which there is no long-term use? And by how much has that overstated prior GDP figures, since these types of companies were mal-investments and need to be written off?


In my eyes, it wasn’t the subprime housing market that caused the crisis; that collapse was just a symptom of the consumer no longer being able to service his/her debt. In other words, this was a balance sheet and solvency crisis from the beginning. Yes, maybe that caused a liquidity freeze but that was also just a symptom. I think when historians look back on this period they will easily conclude that the Anglo Saxon world accumulated so much debt that one day that burden became unsustainable and caused a necessary but painful unwind of the economy. I also think they will look at government initiatives that pulled forward demand and induced irrational spending (such as Cash for Clunkers) kind of the way we look at the economists of influence in the 1930s. They will ask without any lack of condescension: “What in the world were they thinking?” Instead of a debt crisis our current leaders saw a liquidity freeze. Instead of encouraging frugality and debt repayment (however painful that would have been in the short run) they expected people to consume in order to prop up a failed economic system that was far too dependent on frivolous spending.Has it occurred to anyone else but me that we take the fact that 70% of US GDP is based on consumption as if that number were ordained by God? Seriously, that percentage is quoted so much you almost start to believe that it is etched in stone or is the secret code that leads to sustainable prosperity. What if it really means our economy was incredibly imbalanced? What if it means that Obama’s attempts to make us spend more are actually making things much worse? No company ever fixed its over-levered balance sheet by engaging in even more debt fueled spending. So, how is that the US consumer is going to achieve this miracle? From the piece by Saxo Bank:


The Keynesians never get tired of telling us that 70% of GDP is consumption. This is obviously a misleading statement as if we can consume ourselves rich. If we want growth in the Western economies, this percentage has to come down and investment and savings should be higher. This is the only long-term solution to the extreme difficulties that we are confronted with. Only by growing our capital base will we be able to increase production and growth. It is time we learn from the Chinese or simply look in the history books and be inspired from how the economy of our ancestors could grow even though they didn’t consume 70% of their income immediately. (Emphasis mine)The future economy of the Western countries will be investment-driven if driven at all. Unfortunately, it also means that the companies that are most dependent on consumption will be underperforming in the years to come. Demand is permanently impaired and will not come back to 2007 levels soon.


What this implies is that the underlying demand for consumption that existed during the boom years may be reduced or limited for a long time as people repair their balance sheets. As I continue to stress, the US has an incredible amount of excess capacity of businesses that depend on an unsustainable amount of spending. We built too many malls, too many restaurants, too many drug stores, and made the conscious decision that convenience trumped economic realities. Why else would there be a drug store, bank, nail shop, and convenience store on every single major intersection of every city and town in the US? These amenities were built to cater to peak demand (that may never be revisited) and were based on the idea that supply and demand did not matter because the consumer was always willing to spend for proximity and convenience. Now these ideas are being turned on their heads as people are forced to spend less, eat at home more often, eliminate discretionary purchases and go out of their way to save money. This is a particularly toxic combination of incentives from the perspective of those companies that relied on a complete lack of fiscal restraint in order to prosper.Based on all of this, what can we conclude about the potential impact on stocks of this excess capacity and reduced consumption? Well, it can’t be good for restaurants that need people to eat out as opposed to cooking at home or for retailers that offer goods whose purchase can be foregone without much of a detriment to an individual’s lifestyle. Powershares Dynamic Leisure and Entertainment (PEJ) is an ETF that holds stocks such as Carnival Corp (CCL), Darden Restaurants (DRI), Cheesecake Factory (CAKE) and Starbucks (SBUX). From a low of $6.15 in November 2008 this ETF has just about doubled and trades around $12. Call me naïve, but based on the evidence of an increasing and perhaps prolonged consumer retrenchment, the recent appreciation of this stock seems a bit out of line with the fundamental realities. Or how about Powershares Dynamic Consumer Discretionary (PEZ)? Betting on companies such as Ralph Lauren (RL), Bed Bath and Beyond (BBBY) and Gap (GPS), this ETF has rallied from a low of $11.79 in March and now trades at more than $18. This is despite the fact that retail sales numbers continue to be absolutely terrible and the number of analysts voicing concerns about the upcoming holiday shopping season is a bit startling.Therefore, for investors looking to profit from the consumer being increasingly tapped out, there are a number of options. Here are a few that make sense but of course involve the risk of the thesis being wrong or for the market to remain exuberant and disconnected from the fundamentals for longer than anticipated. Keep in mind these are just some suggestions presented in order to stimulate further thought.


1. SZK is the Proshares Ultra Short Consumer goods inverse ETF. It is levered in that it seeks “daily investment results, before fees and expenses, which correspond to twice the inverse of the daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Consumer Goods index.” The problems with levered ETFs are well documented so beware of the possibility that the returns will not track twice the inverse of the index over longer periods of time. Having said that, from a high of over $125 in November 2008 the stock is trading not much above its 52 week low of $51. This ETF has been a casualty of the recovery trade and if an when the recovery peters out, this one could explode to the upside.For investors who are inclined to short individual stocks, I would look for companies that offer products that are very discretionary in that cash-strapped and over-levered people can live easily without their goods. Specifically, a company such as Pool Corp (POOL) that has more than doubled off of its 52 week low could be compelling on the short side. I know the company derives a good deal of revenue from sales of pool maintenance supplies but it is easy to imagine homeowners and builders not installing many new pools for years to come and cutting back on maintenance expenses. Or what about ATV and snowmobile supplier Polaris (PII)? The stock has rallied to almost $38 from its 52 week low of about $14.50 in March of this year. It’s tough to believe that there is a whole lot of consistent demand for off road vehicles that are often used for enjoyment as much as utility. Obviously, more research would be required in order to short either of these companies. I am just using them as examples of businesses that I see as constantly battling to overcome an increasingly more frugal and cautious consumer.

2. Finally, investors can look for companies that will benefit within an environment in which people are looking to save money. Two of my favorite companies that fit this description are Jack in the Box (JACK) and Safeway (SWY). Neither of these solid companies with very stable balance sheets has participated very much in this rally. Both are still way off of their 52 week highs despite the fact that they have much more resilient business models than the companies whose stocks have run up so much recently. JACK has one of the best value menus of all of the fast food restaurants, is in the middle of a prudent re-franchising initiative and owns the fast growing Qdoba concept. SWY offers one of the best private label assortments of products of all of the large food retailers and will benefit from the very promising Blackhawk gift card subsidiary. Even better, according to Capital IQ, both trade at under 10x trailing 12 month earnings per share. Given that valuation, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which these companies that should see additional demand for their moderately priced products (or at very least just hold up better) will not prosper even in sour economic conditions.


Inoculated Investor

http://inoculatedinvestor.blogspot.com/

About the author:

Inoculated Investor

My name is Ben C. and I am 2nd year MBA candidate at the Anderson School of Business at the University of California- Los Angeles. I have a BS in Economics from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. Before coming to Anderson I worked as a generalist equity research analyst for Right Wall Capital, a long-short equity hedge fund located in New York City. Prior to working at Right Wall I worked as an analyst at Blue Ram Capital, another long-short equity hedge fund located in Rye Brook, NY. This past summer, I worked for West Coast Asset Management as a research analyst. West Coast, which was co-founded by Kinko’s founder Paul Orfalea, is run by well-known value investors Lance Helfert and Atticus Lowe.



Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes)

Comments

tkervin
Tkervin - 4 years ago
My guess is that we will see on a national scale what I am seeing locally in my business. We are a ornamental iron manufacturer. Business has been bleak. Recently a number of my competitors have finally gone under. Now my scaled back operation is moving back towards the black. Smaller pond.....with fewer fish. Those remaining can be profitable.
batbeer2
Batbeer2 premium member - 4 years ago
>> Now my scaled back operation is moving back towards the black.


Congratulations !
Sivaram
Sivaram - 4 years ago
I respect Inoculated Investor's writing but I have to strongly disagree with this piece.

I think the critics don't really understand what the government is doing. It is not trying to make things go back to what they were. I don't think anyone can do that and I'm sure everyone realizes that. What the government policies are doing is to cushion the blow. All the government is doing is to off-set the contraction. Instead of the GDP dropping 20%, govt policy is to reduce that to, say, 10%. Another way of looking at it: instead of unemployment rising to 25%, govt policy attempts to keep it closer to, say, 10%.

Most people who are Keynsian-types, including me, favour the current approach. But those that follow other ideologies don't. For instance, extreme libertarians and AustrianEcon followers don't. The latter I feel simply don't have a good grasp of politics and blindly follow economics only. There is a reason what passes for economics was once called "political economy" or what I call "econopolitics". It's difficult to run a country with 25% unemployment rate. It isn't a coincidence that AustEcon-types have continuously kept losing power since the Great Depression and probably won't ever gain power anywhere except in a little island.

However, having said all that, there is a price to pay for all this. There is no free lunch in economics after all. When the economy does recover, taxes will rise, growth will be less than it was when it was "hot", and so forth. I'm ok with those things (we are just smoothing out the prosperity and moving the future high consumption to the present when it's badly needed) but those who criticize the government policies generally wouldn't agree to the price.


As a side note, I don't know about Inoculated Investor but I wonder if the analyst at Saxo Bank ever criticizes the central bank policies. Keeping interest rates near zero distorts the market far more than "cash for clunkers" or any other Keynesian-type policy. Super-low interest rates can create all sorts of debt-driven bubbles, more so than targetted government spending. Yet, I rarely hear those criticizing fiscal spending ever say anything about monetary policy. Of course, if central bank started tightening, banks would get killed and so will other highly-leveraged entities. The biggest losers, other than the indebted borrowers, will end up being the bankers and the investors.

As for investment bets, one needs to be careful about consumption trends. US consumption was something like 60% in the 60's, versus around 70% now. It will contract but it's hard to say how far down it will go. The problem is not consumption per se. Rather, it is debt-fuelled consumption. What is sustainable is heavily dependent on interest rates. In fact, if you look at consumer or corporate debt, it started skyrocketing after 1980 or so. Partly it's because of de-regulation of financial services, but mainly it is likely due to the declining interest rates. If interest rates stay low for another 15 years, debt levels will be higher than many anticipate.

If debt levels are brought down to manageable levels, it's possible consumption will be higher than it was in the 60's (although aging population may counter this.) Consider a restaurant. Nowadays a lot of people eat out, whether at a fast-food restaurant, or a sit-down, or even a quick lunch-on-the-way type place. It's not certain that restaurant sales will drop materially in the next decade. Sure, the "luxurious" eating might decline but the structure of society has changed. Due to both spouses working (if you are a typical couple), or the loss of cooking skills (hardly anyone, including women, can or want to spend time cooking), and so on, it is unlikely that you will see a huge shift towards people eating at home. Yes, there will be some shift for those struggling financially, but otherwise, it's hard for me to see a shift away from eating out.

Finally, some consumption-oriented industries, like retailers, entered a bear market long before the financial crisis in 2008. It's difficult to say how much downside is already priced in. The bear case on consumption is well known so I'm not sold on the merits of shorting companied related to it.
Sivaram
Sivaram - 4 years ago
tkervin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My guess is that we will see on a national scale

> what I am seeing locally in my business. We are a

> ornamental iron manufacturer. Business has been

> bleak. Recently a number of my competitors have

> finally gone under. Now my scaled back operation

> is moving back towards the black. Smaller

> pond.....with fewer fish. Those remaining can be

> profitable.


Yeah... congratulations on surviving... if you guys can get through this, you will come out much stronger in the end. I don't know about your business but some buy out the failed ones and become more dominant when the economy turns..


Unfortunately, my company is struggling and I might be laid off :( So things aren't looking good here but we'll see. I needed to find another job and figure out what to do with my life anyway... it's just that I would rather not do it during a severe recession. The situation is nowhere near as bad in Canada as the US (unless you were in distressed industries like autos) but it's still not pretty...
tkervin
Tkervin - 4 years ago
Siv

Hope you make it through o.k.

The reason I got in business in 1985 was a layoff.......so sometimes good can come of it.....:-)

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK
Email Hide