It certainly is true that a rising stock market, over a long period of time, is a good thing.
But does that mean it is always a good development if the stock market has a big jump in one day? Or is it unambiguously bad news if there’s a significant one-day drop in financial markets?
I’ve been pondering this issue because recent stock market gyrations have triggered predictable finger pointing by politicians and pundits. Indeed, the past few days have been somewhat similar to the blame game that took place during the TARP bailout fight. Republicans and Democrats often have the same message: Any upward blip in markets is because “my side” did something good and any fall is because “your side” did something bad.
But so what? I certainly don’t pretend to be anything other than a policy wonk, so maybe people with real experience in financial markets can tell me that I’m way off base, but here are a couple of reasons why a short-term jump in the stock market might be a sign of bad news.
1. What if the Federal Reserve suddenly reveals that it intends to pursue an aggressive, easy-money policy? One likely result of such an announcement is that investors will pull money out of bonds, because of an expectation in the short run of lower interest rates (and therefore lower returns), and put that money into stocks.
Would that rising stock market be a sign of good economic policy, or would it just be a result of portfolio shifting, probably followed by weaker economic performance?
2. What if the Treasury Department announces that it will pay every underwater mortgage in the country. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was followed by a big jump in the stock market, led by financial companies such as banks.
Would that jump in stocks be a sign of good economic policy, or would it simply measure the value of a one-time wealth transfer from taxpayers to bank shareholders, probably followed by weaker economic performance?
My gut instinct is that these are examples of bad economic policies leading to short-term jumps in stocks. And this is why I try to avoid predicting markets when being interviewed.
But, if nothing else, I try to unleash a good one-liner during every interview. Here are two recent appearances, where I mention the “Sword of Damocles of big government” and “another Keynesian who’s been rattling around the revolving door of Washington and Wall Street.”
.
[…] on investing money, but I definitely won’t be surprised if financial markets (including the investors who want bad policy so they can be bailed out) react negatively to this latest faux […]
[…] on investing money, but I definitely won’t be surprised if financial markets (including the investors who want bad policy so they can be bailed out) react negatively to this latest faux agreement. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); […]
[…] This is why short-term blips in the stock market are not necessarily a good indicator of the economy’s lon…. […]
Also, as much as people love to see the value of their portfolios rising, if they’re buying stocks or index funds that are overvalued, while such a decline hurts them in the short term, such a decline is a good sign because those stocks will have returned to what they should be worth (or at least will have gotten cheap enough so that those patient people with cash can buy them).
Much pain as the Internet stock bubble caused, the bursting of it was certainly a good thing, as the valuations prior made no sense. Microstrategy at $3,130 a share in Mar 2000? Absolutely ridiculous. Somewhat the same with the likes of Microsoft and Cisco back then (also explaining by investing in them since 2000 has been frustrating – the businesses were growing, but the valuations were too expensive, so they didn’t perform well). And since social media seems to be that sort of bubble, redux, a popping of that bubble will also be a good thing.
Unfortunately, people don’t like to hear that sort of thing.