Dow+17.46up+0.17%
10,023.42
Nasdaq+7.12up+0.34%
2,112.44
S&P+2.67up+0.25%
1,069.30

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player. Click here to download.
More video on MSN Money . . .
Jim Jubak

Jubak's Journal4/24/2009 12:01 AM ET

5 rules for post-recovery investing

Once the Great Recession is over, it will be a long march back to a fully functioning economy. Here's how to tell which companies are adapting to the emerging world.

By Jim Jubak
MSN Money

The Great Depression was long enough and painful enough to form the habits of a generation. The members of that generation became dedicated savers, avoiding debt, paying in cash and keeping both eyes focused on the long run.

The current downturn, what I call the Great Recession, since it is already the longest recession since World War II, will do the same. In the new world that emerges after the recovery, people will save differently, spend differently, look at debt differently and think about the future differently.

Differently how? Well, no one is exactly sure. It's awfully hard to figure out a change like this in the midst of it. But be sure of this: Every company in the global economy that doesn't have its head stuck in the sand is trying to figure out this new world. And for investors, getting it right -- owning shares in the companies that are in tune with this emerging world and avoiding the shares of those that do business as if nothing has changed -- will be the difference between profit and loss in the decade ahead.

How long down, not how far

In this column, I'm going to summarize some of the evidence pointing to the emergence of a new world and sketch out some of the current attempts to define how that world will be different. I'll end with five rules of thumb for finding the stocks that will do best in the post-recovery world.

The case for a new post-recovery world hinges on a simple argument: It's the duration, rather than the absolute magnitude, of a downturn that produces changes in habits like those seen in the Great Depression.

There's no way that the Great Recession can match the Great Depression in terms of the severity of the downturn. Official unemployment in the Great Depression peaked at 25% of the work force. Right now it looks like official unemployment in the Great Recession will top out at 11% or so.

Great Depression's drawn-out recovery

At first glance, the Great Recession doesn't look like it holds a candle to the Great Depression on duration either. The current downturn officially began in December 2007. That puts us now, in April, in month 17. That's long as recessions go.

As you can see from the chart below, the Great Recession would be the longest recession since World War II even if it ended tomorrow.

MSN Money
That's still much, much shorter than the Great Depression. But then, the Great Depression was itself shorter than most people think. By many accounts, the U.S. economy had plunged into a depression by 1930 and moved to recovery by 1933.

Long enough, thank you. But the Great Depression seemed much longer than that because the recovery was so anemic and was punctuated by huge setbacks. The U.S. economy may have resumed its growth in 1933, but gross domestic product didn't recover to the 1930 level of $97 billion until 1940.

The recovery was so slow that, even though the economy was growing, to many people in the United States it seemed like the Depression stretched on and on and on.

Back on its feet in 2015 -- but not sprinting

And, many economists project, that's exactly how we're going to feel about the recovery from the Great Recession. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the U.S. economy won't return to full-trend growth until 2015. And full-trend growth -- sustainable economic growth without rising inflation -- even then isn't going to be what it was before the global financial crisis.

The Federal Reserve, which I'd place among the optimists on this issue, says full-trend growth isn't going to be the 3% annually of the pre-crisis economy but more like 2.5% or even as low as 2%. Harvard University economist Dale Jorgenson, who taught Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, projects just 1.6% annual growth through 2030.

If Jorgenson is anywhere near correct, the Great Recession would make the Great Depression seem like a picnic to many people.

You need Flash player 8 or above to view this content
Is there any reason to think these projections might be right? Unfortunately, a lot of evidence argues in favor of a very slow and tepid recovery:

  • In the boom, the economy got the benefit of the wealth effect as families spent part of the gains in the value of their houses and investment portfolios. Now the economy is facing a negative wealth effect as lower home values and smaller investment portfolios cut into household spending. Household net wealth was down 20% from mid-2007 to the end of 2008.

  • Like U.S. businesses, American families are going to have to deleverage their balance sheets by paying down debt. That means having less to spend on consumption. Household debt had climbed to 130% of income by the end of 2008.

  • Losses in the financial sector of an estimated $2 trillion (only $1 trillion realized to date) will cut the amount of capital available for lending and raise the price of that capital.

  • Any recovery will send the price of oil and other raw materials higher, which will act as a drag on the economy. Taxes will climb as governments around the world try to repay some of the debt they had piled on to end the crisis. In the United States, interest rates will climb as overseas investors demand a better return on all the U.S. debt they hold.

  • Finally, many companies used cheap money to offer incentives to keep their customers buying. Even in a recovery, sales won't bounce back to boom-year levels.

Spending shift already under way

All this is important because economic trends of long duration change consumer behavior -- and change it for long periods. The boom years before the 1929 stock market crash saw an expansion of consumer borrowing much like what we saw before the current financial crisis. The Great Depression ushered in a long period of low and slowly growing debt. That finally gave way to another period of rapid growth in debt -- which now is likely to have come to an end.

It's not just how much money consumers spend but what they choose to spend it on. Pick just about any industry you want and you can find anecdotal evidence of long-term trends in the way consumers define value that reflect underlying long-term economic trends.

Video on MSN Money

Politics and money © Steve Allen/Jupiterimages
Will the government take over banks?
Earnings reports that showed good news for banks may actually be bad news. Citigroup and Bank of America have pulled out all the stops to show profits, Jim Jubak says, in what look like attempts to ward off government takeovers. (April 23)

Credit card use is down, but debit card use is up as consumers move to paying with plastic cash rather than adding debt. At supermarkets, national brands are losing share to store brands that cost less. Even families earning more than $100,000 annually are using coupons more, surveys show. Other surveys show a rise in the positive response to such terms as "community," "hard work" and "taking responsibility."

Continued: A trend in search of a name

 1 | 2 | 3 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowYou rated 1
Thank you for rating.
High

Stock Picks

Search for a Jubak's Journal article by topic or stock symbol.

MSN Money Video

Talk about investing on the MSN Money message boards.

Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 60
Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:26:40 PM

I think most people would completely disagree with the idea that it is going to take a long time to get back to sustainable growth. It is not that it will not happen that way, but people are hoping and praying that it will end sooner or they are not going to be able to hold on that long. A recovery that slow would be a jobless recovery and could tip us and the world into the feared Depression. The good will and patience the new President is enjoying would be replaced with criticism and doubt. This would likely become a polarizing political standoff where no solutions would be even entertained. Not a pleasant scenario !

 

Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:49:08 PM
How old are you and how much do you drink; this is a new world and either embarce it of die Pooooor.
Friday, April 24, 2009 7:14:04 AM
It's not a question of optimism or the lack thereof.  It has nothing to do with "bears" or "bulls".  It has everything to do with the fact that this is a strange new world.  I argue with some that we've not been in this position before.  When we learn lessons from the "bubbles" we find ourselves in, learn to make lemonade out of lemons and realize it will take patience and perseverance (which is part of the American Spirit!) we will thrive financially again.  Psychology of investors and our own quirky attitudes about investing (read "Jubak's Picks) show us there is no clear and easy solutions.  Jim is right!  CEO's are going to have to find a better way to do business in our world.  Time will tell...as it has in the past...as it will in days to come.  I intend to squeeze the lemons and use wisdom of those more knowledgeable than I.
Friday, April 24, 2009 8:48:21 AM

I have a question for Jim Jubak:

Current stock P/E ratios seem very high, especially with the low growth scenario presented in this article and the expectation of higher interest rates.  Can we expect a significant drop in P/E's and a significant drop in stock prices? I would like to have this addressed in your column in the near future. 

Thanks for all your help with understanding this market.

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:01:22 AM
Why is Jubak ignoring the other obvious pressing issues.   How are we supposed to get back to long term growth when Obama's punitive tax structure will take more capital out of the market than will have ever been seen in US history?  How can we re-gain growth when things like cap and trade, higher minimum wage, rampant federal spending, federal take over of private industries, etc etc etc is going to make the cost of doing business astronomically higher and utterly kill all risk taking.  Since profits will be low, and taxed at a huge rate, no business is going to take any risky capital ventures.  Plus, with this 4 trillion dollar budget (we're spending 3.2 million a SECOND people), HOW in the world will there be ANY growth.  I really am tired of these economists burying their heads in the sand to protect these awful economic and business killing policies being put into place by the savior.  How does the economy grow when unemployment keeps rising?  GET REAL !!  The death blow has been dealt to the economy, it's just hasn't exsanguinated yet.  How many businesses are going to re-locate to friendlier nations?  I suspect that within the next 2 years we will see a mass exodus of business and successful individuals.  Paul Rogers was ahead of his time.
Friday, April 24, 2009 9:08:53 AM

CEO's will find a better way to do business by re-locating to India or Singapore where labor is cheap, tax structures allow for capital ventures and encourage entrepreneurs.  Why in the world would a big bank NOT start looking at moving over seas when the gov't is about to nationalize all banks?  These newly created "stress tests" are thinly veiled guises to further "justify" federal take over of banks.  Sorry folks, look at socialist nations.  Name the great companies and products you've bought from them.  Name the biggest and best company in Sweden.  How about Russia.  Socialism does not favor free market capitalism.  We have centuries worth of data to back this up, but that's where we are going, and some how we expect growth when Obama has increased gov't spending to 26% of GDP ?!?!  That's a level only matched during WW2 !!  He think the deficit will not be the 1.5 trillion that the CBO states because there will be 3.6% growth in the next 2 years.  ANY economist who has even a sliver of intellectual honesty will tell you that that figure can only be reached if you've eaten too many "hope and change" mushrooms.  Be ready for the change.  Hello, India, this is <insert big US company name here>, how do we go about re-locating to your country?

 

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:16:13 AM

Well said Bobisgreen. You'll be dismissed as a Pollyanna, but I know that you're right and history will prove it.

 

Todavine - Spoken like a man that has neither lived nor done business in India.

 

Can someone please point me toward where Dr Jorgensen warned of 1.6% growth? I'm familiar with his work (particularly fairtax) but have not seen this. Thank you.

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:17:59 AM
Why would most people disagree?  Because the higher individual tax rates, corporate tax rates (highest in the world, go USA !!), and capital gains tax increases are going to add capital to the system and encourage investing?  Not a CHANCE !!  Because cap and trade policies, forced costly green technology (which has been shown to not be the environmental panacea it was promised to be) are going to make the cost of doing business cheaper?  Get REAL !!  It's time to stop basking in the media glow of the savior and actually look at his policies, figures, and methods and think for yourselves.  the NYT isn't going to be honest, they're already looking for a federal bail out themselves.  These Keynesian economists need to wake up and smell the socialism and the stench of the dying US economy.  Can an individual spend themselves out of debt, but a gov't can?  Unemployed people are going to be buying goods and services?  This whole scenario would be hilarious if it weren't all too real.  We have the emperor wearing his new clothes, and people wearing their "hope and change" glasses not seeing a thing.  It's CRAZY !!
Friday, April 24, 2009 9:20:15 AM
Would you prefer Costa Rica, New Zealand or Singapore?  Now would you care to actually address the numbers and issues rather than offer a snide quip?
Friday, April 24, 2009 9:23:51 AM
By the way Bobisgreen, you do understand that if we had NO federal Reserve at ALL, the housing bubble would have never taken place, right?  The Reserve artifically lower interest rates to levels FAR FAR below what the free market would have allowed gave rise to the bubble and allowed it to swell.  It's economics 101.  As the bank cash supply starts to decrease as it lends out money, the cost to gain access to those fewer dollars comes in the form of higher interest rates.  It's a beautiful natural check and balance on rampant borrowing that was completely sabotaged and side stepped by the Federal Reserve.  Thanks Greenspawn.
1 - 10 of 60
To add a comment, pleasesign in