Saturday March 20, 2010 10:22 AM ET
SmartMoney
Published May 21, 2009  |  A A A
SmartMoney Magazine by Russell Pearlman and Jonathan Dahl

Why Jeremy Grantham Changed His Mind

If people had paid attention to veteran investor Jeremy Grantham over the past two years, their investment portfolios would be looking much better than they likely are. While many investors were caught up in bull-market euphoria in 2007, Grantham, who oversees $85 billion for Boston-based institutional money-management firm GMO, told anyone who would listen there was a global bubble: “It’s everywhere, in everything.” Then, in early March of this year, when the market looked its worst, he wrote that people needed to get over their fears and invest, because U.S. stocks were cheap and foreign stocks even cheaper.

Grantham’s disregard for the conventional wisdom has brought him grief at nearly every point of his 40-plus-year investing career. But more often than not, the often grumpy Grantham, 70, has been right over the long term. The irony of all his remarkable forecasting is that few ordinary investors can invest with him. The funds GMO runs are mostly geared toward institutions, such as pension funds or school endowments, although the Evergreen Asset Allocation fund invests exclusively in funds managed by GMO. GMO investors lost money last year because many of its funds dictate a substantial degree of stock holdings even when the boss is decrying the market. Still, GMO’s U.S. stock funds lost only about half what the S&P did during the crash, and some other GMO funds did much better.

Grantham, 70, has an opinion for everyone about the best investment strategies in these uncertain times. Sitting in his office lined with giant Buddhas and relics of civilizations long gone, Grantham talked to SmartMoney about the stock market and the current financial mess.

SmartMoney: In 2007 you were worried the global financial market could fall apart, and you said a market downturn was probably coming. Okay, say it: “I told you so.”

Jeremy Grantham: That seems so long ago. I felt like saying that a few months ago, but now onward and upward, and wait for the next unexpected twist.

SM: Why were you so certain things were going to get so ugly?

JG: There wasn’t a whole lot of doubt where I was coming from. I thought the fair value of the S&P was 925; the S&P went to 1500. And by 2006 the housing bubble was at a 100-year peak. This was the 32nd asset bubble that we’ve tracked, and all but the U.K. housing bubble have popped.

SM: Why didn’t you just put all the money in GMO’s funds into cash?

JG: Every quarter, we do our best to tell our clients the truth. We were comfortable with telling our clients there was a major bubble in every asset class, everywhere. Then they go to investment committees and decide what to do with their money. They don’t want to do anything that looks eccentric and costs them their jobs. It’s a miracle that any of our advice perks up the pipeline.

SM: Why did your own funds lose so much money when you were confident the market would fall apart?

JG: Most of our mandates require us to be nearly 100 percent invested. But even when you had to be at least 45 percent equity, then you couldn’t help but to go down. There was nowhere to hide. Everywhere and everything got hit.

SM: Yet now, for the first time in years, you like U.S. stocks.

JG: We think a fair price for the S&P 500 index is 900. By sheer divine intervention we bought into the market on Mar. 6, the day it hit the recent low of 666. It’s likely, but far from certain, that we’ll go back and make a new low. You aren’t going to get to buy at the absolute low unless you have a time machine.

SM: Anything else besides U.S. stocks?

JG: U.S. stocks were nicely cheap, and frankly, the rest of the world was even cheaper. In early March, when we bought, we invested only in stocks we thought would have a 10 to 14 percent average annual return after inflation. That’s magnificent. We haven’t seen anything like that in 20 years. It was somewhat disappointing that prices moved up so fast in just a couple of weeks. The odds are a bit more than 50-50 that we will go back and test that low.

SM: So you’ve made a quick buck. Now what?

JG: You have a set of possibilities. First, if the market nosedives, it’s easy: You buy. The second is confusing, when the market just goes sideways, between 700 and 800. The market is irritatingly cheap then, but not supercheap. The longer that goes on, the less probability we will set a new low, so we’ll ultimately put money each month into the market.

SM: What if stocks keep rallying?

JG: If the market goes higher, above 950, and then starts moving sideways, between 950 and 1050, we probably do very little. Then the market is moderately overpriced.

1
2
Next

Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
User Comments
Posted by: ohsilly
New ideas keep on coming up no matter how bust or boom our economy is.. We finally realize that we are spending too much bucks on Big Oil products by guzzling oil, gas, etc.. Cloud computing is coming into reality. Crocs may be the coming shoe revolution, first for a shoe revolution in history of footwear that traditionally are made of smelly leather and stitches... We will probably build more electrical cars than gasoline cars in ten years. Things are changing . Some ideas will grow big and help propel the economy forward while old ideas will just plateau and sometimes go out of favors. Capitalists are quickly finding their own limits. It is ok to ignore as long as you find something new to try ...as long as it is workable for you. If not, find something else or start paying attention again. We will slowly realize that we cannot bring firewood up in the space orbit or KABOOM!
sovestor

6 Comments
We are in agreement with Jeremy Grantham.
Based on various economic and market data and graphs we analyzed, we consider the following scenarios are likely to happen in Q2 and Q3-2009:
•Higher unemployment rates
•Higher credit card default rates
•Higher foreclosure rates
•Higher bankruptcy rates
•Lower housing prices
•Lower housing starts
•Lower commercial building occupancy rates
•Lower retail sales and income
•Stagnant or lower wholesale price index
•Stagnant or lower mortgage rates
•Stagnant or lower aggregate corporate earnings
•Stagnant or lower inflation rates

US (as well as other cash-strapped developed countries) economic recovery will mimic emerging markets' economic recoveries. It is a well-known fact that US relies more and more on cash-rich emerging economies to finance US deficits and bailout packages. If many key cash-rich emerging countries were to decide that they are too busy dealing with their own internal e...(Read more of this comment)
Posted by: DKP50
" We are mandated to be 100% Invested"...

I think this is the biggest problem..
Using Older methods that don't include New Investing Options for Investors ( ETF's, Leveraged, Hedge funds, Derivitives) and lax regulations are not included in thsoe older methods and when Wall Street was Much fairer..and run by Much more Honest people..

And they didn't have Computer Trading, not just by Pro's but by Millions of Private Investors> Day Trader's to circumvent and make the markets Alot more Volatile..

Mr G.? If oyu saw a Train comming and your Car is on the tracks, your going to just sit there and let it hit you? And do you really think, you would have lost your Job if you Took your Investors $ out and put it into Treasuries? and violated your Rules/Regulations?

I think not.. You blew your Chance at Really Making a Difference before you die.. Your Depth of conviction was not enough and your Conservative & Passive attitude defeated you..

Y...(Read more of this comment)
BackType
Comments From Around the Web
Posted by: GA on Investment Postcards from Cape Town

Jeremy is the end-all-be-all in investements. It is too bad he is 70 and I raise my glass high in hopes he lives to be 170!

Posted by: Dax Speculator on Investment Postcards from Cape Town

“If the problem is that we consume too much and borrow too much, does it make sense to borrow more and spend more? It doesn't make sense to solve alcoholism by giving an alcoholic a quart of whiskey, but everyone believes that we must stimulate. So that's why we feel this is a temporary cure. This is like when you revive the drunk, he staggers down a few blocks, then falls down again.” It is those kind of comments that makes Jeremy Grantham a valuable reading. Thank you, Dax Speculator

Advertisements
 
Retrieving data...