Monday March 22, 2010 10:23 AM ET
SmartMoney
Published October 14, 2008  |  A A A
Stocks by Lawrence C. Strauss (Author Archive)

Jeremy Grantham: Don't Buy Too Soon

Barrons

For three years, he's cautioned investors to avoid risk. Jeremy Grantham, chairman of institutional money manager GMO in Boston, was early, but eventually right.

Grantham told Barron's in February of 2006 that "housing is a classic bubble" and that "this feels like the end of a cycle." Known for his insights on global investing, Grantham, 70, co-founded GMO, which has a value framework combining quantitative and fundamental analysis. It oversees assets of about $120 billion.

For Grantham's latest views on the fallout from the financial crisis and what investment opportunities he sees, please read on.

Barron's: How much will the recent $700 billion bailout plan approved by Congress help stabilize the economy and the financial markets?

Grantham: It certainly doesn't hurt. It is an amazingly complicated situation. But I do believe we have passed the point where we have to worry about moral hazard. When Bear Stearns was in trouble, I used to worry about moral hazard.

What is your sense of how this crisis has been handled by those in charge?

It's been a haphazard response, and the next time something happens, you can't be sure what will happen. In one deal they protect the bonds, while in the next deal the bonds go. Then in the next deal they protect the foreign bonds but not the domestic bonds. My guess is that people will be nervous that they will be at the bad end of one of the tough deals, rather than one of the more gentle deals.

Everyone is shaking in their boots. The awareness of risk has come back with a terrifying surge, and it is not going to go away too quickly.

With the Fed and other central banks lowering rates last week, are you worried about inflation?

My view is, "Forget inflation, guys." This is serious, the real McCoy, and you don't have to worry about little things like inflation. Global growth will slow down, commodities will be weaker for a while, and inflation is a thing of the past. Now we are talking about getting the financial machinery to work and just keeping [gross domestic product] grinding along.

What was at the core of what got the financial system into this crisis?

It was the belief by a lot of people who counted that financial bubbles did not have to addressed. The thinking was that...you could step in and, by scattering a bit of money around, ease the downside consequences. Therefore, you could let the tech bubble run amok and wait for it to burst and step in. And you could let the housing bubble run amok and step in.

At the center of this crisis was a bubble in risk-taking. The risk premiums dropped off the cosmic scale, the lowest ever recorded. On our seven-year forecast data, we reckoned that between June of '06 and June of '07, people were actually paying for the privilege of taking risk. Our constant theme for the last three years was avoid risk, avoid risk, avoid risk.

How much further do we have to go to get through this downturn?

Great bubbles like the one in 2000 take a long time to wash through the system, and you shouldn't really expect a low much before 2010. The fair value on the [Standard & Poor's 500 index] is about 1025 [versus 910 late last week].

This was not only a monetary event, but it coincided with the first truly global bubble in all assets. You had inflated housing in almost every country in the world, except for Japan and Germany. You had overpriced stocks in every country in the world. And you had too much money and too-low interest rates. I was confident about very little, but I was confident that this would be different from anything we had seen before, and potentially more dangerous. It should have been treated with more care.

Is this crisis playing out the way you thought it would?

No. I threw in the towel three months ago, and wrote a quarterly letter saying I thought I was the bear around this joint.

But this is much worse than I thought. All the fundamentals are turning out worse than I thought they would. All the competencies of the senior people at the Fed, Treasury and [firms like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers] have turned out to be much less than I had expected; that's very disappointing.

And, therefore, how could one's confidence that the senior people would get us through the storm be very high? Prior to three months ago, we were investing in emerging-market equities. Then we battened down the hatches, and I changed my view from avoid all risk except emerging markets to avoid all risk, period.

The terrible thing — after all this pain — is that the U.S. equity market is not even cheap. You would imagine that, given the amount of panic, that it would be. But it started from such a high level in 2000 that it still has not yet worked its way down to trend, although it is getting close. But the really bad news is that great bubbles in history always overcorrected. So although the fair value of the S&P today may be about 1025, typically bubbles overcorrect by quite a bit, possibly by 20%. That is very discouraging.

What about equities outside the U.S.?

Things are getting cheaper. We score the EAFE [the Europe, Australasia and Far East Index] as absolutely cheap, and it's offering a 7% real annual return over seven years. Emerging-market equities are a bit cheaper, and we see a 9.5% annual real return over the same period.

The problem, though, is that we have so much downside momentum, so many financial problems and so many interlocking relationships, that it is hard to imagine this crisis subsiding because stock prices are digging in their heels and approaching fair value.

More From Barron's

1
2
Next

Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
User Comments
Posted by: edtower
Here is a working paper of mine which evaluates the predictions of Grantham's company, GMO. His predictions are looking lots less good over the last year. Ed Tower

http://www.econ.duke.edu/Papers/PDF/GMO_Predictions1.pdf
Posted by: hayekcapitalist
To iterate bruceartwick posting: Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Of course Grantham looks sage now, how much upside did he miss in the last five years and is the psychology better to have missed the upside and enjoy the downside, even though both end up at approx the same place with vertigo? There are major systemic risks such as out of control deficit spending financed by China, et al resulting in trade deficits and an unsustainable dollar whose decline will ultimately accelerate its decline due to the socialistic nostrums being recklessly thrown at the symptom not the cause of our financial malady; too much government, not too little! It would be better if Grantham expended his energy on the real problem.
Posted by: bruceartwick
From a Smart Money interview of Aug. 20, 2002 near the bottom S&P 797, on the subject of forcast for 2003, Jeremy Grantham said: 'I'm more confident on a longer horizon that we'll hit 670 and lower'. 'I suspect 2003 will end up being the fourth consecutive down year for the first time since 1932.' 'So my single guess would be that this time next year we'll be down only 5% from here'.
Instead of sinking from the mid 800s that summer we rallied for a 30% gain in 2003 to end at 1150 instead of 670, on a steady climb up to 1500 a few years later in a good cyclical bull market. I think the comments of guys like Grantham, Bill Fleckenstein, James Grant and other perennial bears are highlighted far too often at times like these.
Advertisements
 
Retrieving data...