Feeling a Bit Better…

That’s odd. Writing about the recent death of two friends somehow improved my mood. I have the mental energy now to get back to the gloomy subject of my last two blog posts.

Last week, I told you what I think about the state of the US economy. And I made some predictions, none of which were good. I predicted:

* Higher inflation

* A deeper recession

* Deflation of real estate

* The collapse of NFTs and most cryptocurrencies

* At least one more major stock market plunge – as much as an additional 30%

* And, possibly, the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency

The CPI index, which is now 8%, will move towards double digits next year. The negative GDP growth we’ve experienced over the last two quarters will continue. And those “robust” job reports that the Biden administration has been touting – they will soon be inverted into massive layoffs and record-breaking unemployment.

The stock market will drop at least another 30%, bringing investor assets down to half of what they were a year earlier. Government bonds and savings accounts will offer paltry returns of less than 5%, while inflation passes 10%. Gold might go up. Some commodities might go up. Energy stocks might do well. But none of that seems certain.

What does feel certain is that, because of the size of the problem this time, the US economy is not going to spring back to pre-2022 levels in a year or two, as it did in past corrections.

It’s foolish to try to predict both the level and the timing of a future economic event. But I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the stock market (and other financial markets) will not regain the losses they will be suffering in 2023 for at least five, and possibly as many as 10, years.

And that will all happen even if the dollar somehow manages to hold its place as the world’s reserve currency. But there are many reasons it may be toppled this time. And if that happens, things may get even worse than the grim picture I’ve just painted.

Why trust me? 

You shouldn’t take what I’m saying here as gospel. But you should take it seriously. Because if I’m right, it’s going to affect your life in a very substantial way. It’s not as though I’m an economic analyst who has won a Nobel Prize. (See last week’s bit on Bernanke.) I did predict the last big market crash prior to 2008. And I have been able to manage my investments in such a way that they have always gone up. But I could be wrong going forward. Keep that in mind as you read on.

As you probably know, I’ve been in the investment publishing business for 40 years. During those four decades, I’ve had a catbird’s seat to watch all the major corrections. I was watching and writing about the stock market on Black Monday in 1987. I was managing a crew of market analysts during the eight-month drop that took place three years later. I was supervising a larger group of analysts during the dot.com crash of 2000.

I was also there when the sub-prime bubble burst at the end of 2007 and ushered in the Great Recession. That led to the $10 trillion sell-off of 2015 and 2016, the cryptocurrency crash of 2018, and the 20+% correction (so far) this year.

If you were reading my thoughts about the economy and investing during that time, you know that my position has always been to leave the money I already had in stocks in stocks. There were some minor positions I had in speculative companies. But for 90+% of my stock portfolio, my position was to hold on and wait.

There is, by the way, a ton of research that supports that position. Investors that diversify their stocks and hold onto them through down periods have always done much better than investors that have tried to sell high and buy low.

And until now, I’ve felt the same way. For good reason…

Since the stock market was created in 1792, the US economy has been in a state of non-stop growth. We’ve had recessions, and even the Great Depression. But the economy has always bounced back from every downturn and then gone on to achieve new heights. The stock market has followed suit. Despite minor corrections every two years or so, and major corrections every eight to 10 years, the overall trend has been upwards for 230 years.

So, yes, the US stock market has always recovered from its dozens and dozens of crashes and corrections. And there are good reasons to believe that it will recover from the current correction. The question is: When? How long will it take?

This time, things just may be different. The big problems we are facing – in terms of federal debt, private debt, and corporate debt, combined with so many negative political issues, such as the war on fossil fuels, the cost of mass immigration, the likelihood that the US will get even more involved in Ukraine or Taiwan (or elsewhere) – loom large. And the very real possibility that the dollar will be abandoned in favor of national digital currencies could mean we won’t recover as before.

These challenges could be how things are for another five to 10 years. Maybe longer. So, here is how I’m changing the advice I’ve been giving for anyone that expects to tap into their stock account inside the next 10 years. If you are counting on the value of your stock portfolio to stay, more or less, at its current level into the 2030s, you should seriously consider converting some of your stock positions to financial assets that will not be diminished by falling stock prices.

Click here for an article by John Csiszar that identifies eight places you can put your money that will keep it safe from stock market dips and crashes: Treasury bills, CDs (Certificates of Deposit), high-yield savings accounts, TIPs (Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities), fixed annuities, money market accounts, high-dividend stocks, and preferred stocks.

Kleo 

Netflix series – 8 episodes

Premiered Aug. 19, 2022

Starring Jella Haase

Someone whose opinion I value recommended Kleo to me. Was it one of my sons? He described it as “great but quirky.” As in: “You may not like it. If you don’t, it’s because you are not sophisticated enough to appreciate its subtleties.”

I was not disappointed.

Kleo is a German spy/revenge thriller/comedy TV series. It is smart. Stylish. And clever.

It is also unique. I’ve never seen anything exactly like it. Yes, Killing Eve was an inspiration. So was Kill Bill. Ultimately, Kleo is sui generis.

 It takes place in the late 1980s. Kleo, the lead character, is an agent working for the Stasi, the East German secret police. On the eve of the collapse of her country, she is arrested and imprisoned by her own people without an explanation. After the wall comes down, she is released. And she wants to find out why she was targeted. The series is about her mission.

Kleo works as a spy thriller. It has the necessary twists and turns and the suspense. It also works as a revenge drama. She has the motivation. And all her killings are well deserved. It provides plenty of references for movie buffs and TV enthusiasts. And, finally, it works as a parody – a likeable spoof of what I assume was German pop culture in the 1980s.

 Critical Reception 

* “There has been a litany of revenge thrillers over the years, especially those told from a female perspective. From Kill Bill and Hard Candy through to Carrie and Killing Eve, this genre has been mined to death. This automatically puts Netflix’s new German thriller, Kleo, on the backfoot. Somehow though, this show manages to both feel refreshingly new and overly familiar at the same time, taking a simple but effective formula and spinning that into a bloody, twisty-turny thriller.” (Greg Wheeler, The Review Geek)

* “The series is a definite watch. Jella Haase completely owns the show and is the main reason behind the captivating drama. Her acting with diverse expressions really humanizes the character and makes the audience relate & empathize with her. Unlike many spy revenge drama leads, she is equally scary & dangerous as a lethal assassin but also displays deep emotions & vulnerability.” (Ameen Fatima, Leisure Byte)

You can watch the trailer here.

Sui generis (soo-wee-JEN-uh-ris) – from the Latin for “of its own kind” – is a fancy way of saying “unique.” As I used it in my review of Kleo, above: “Yes, Killing Eve was an inspiration. So was Kill Bill. Ultimately, Kleo is sui generis.”

Looking for a different way to spend the holidays?

Consider Rancho Santana, ranked one of the 100 best resorts in the world! This year, we will be celebrating our 25th anniversary. Lots of fun things planned. Check it out here!

Re this series of essays I’ve been writing about the current state of the economy (see #3 in the series, above): 

“You really nailed it! Our economy is in deep trouble. What I honestly fear is war. We are as poorly prepared to defend ourselves as we have been in our lifetimes, not only militarily but psychologically. I am not sure our children believe our country is worth defending. I pray I am wrong.” – JM

 

“Good blog today, I expected you to go conservative/republican when you addressed the cost-of-living issue. You stayed pretty neutral. Good job.” – AF

More on the Long, Hard Road Ahead

We received a lot of responses to Tuesday’s essay about the seriously bad state of the US economy. Most were versions of “I think you’re right! What can I do about it?” But a few were along the lines of “What do you know?” and “Why should l listen to you?”

I will give you my thoughts on “What to do” next week. Today, I want to tell you what I know and why you should, or shouldn’t, listen to me.

First, I am not an economist or investment analyst. In fact, I have no academic interest in either discipline. But since I began making an above-average income, I’ve been very much interested in understanding enough about the economy and the financial markets to build my wealth.

It started in the early 1980s, when my partner (at the time) and I began to sell financial newsletters. We built a sizable business selling the advice of the analysts and economists that wrote for us. But I noticed that their success in making money year after year fluctuated for many reasons.

And then I read that, although the stock market has returned, on average, about 9% to 10% over 100 years, individual investors that tried to beat the market (by taking advice from experts like those that worked for us) fared much worse than that. Trying to outsmart the market, it turned out, was a risky game.

Eventually, I developed my own investment philosophy. Rather than hoping to outsmart the market, I would find the safest way possible to get each submarket’s average historical rate of return. And by weighting the assets I invested in according to their historical volatility patterns, I was able to increase my family’s wealth, without a single down year, for more than 40 years.

It wasn’t rocket science. It was quite the opposite. I stuck to a few simple rules that the world’s most successful investors had recommended. And I did not deviate from them when I got scared or greedy.

That’s how I’ve always explained it. And that’s what I always believed. But a friend of mine, an autodidact economist, said something to me recently that challenged my confidence. He pointed out that my track record, however impressive, was only 40 years long. I began investing in earnest in 1982, when I started making an above-average income. It was the year that Paul Volcker broke the back of the stagflation that the US had been suffering from during the prior decade, and the beginning of the biggest bull market in equities in history.

That was then. This is now. Will my investment strategy continue to work? Or could the economy have changed in some fundamental way?

Back then, the federal debt was one trillion dollars. We had Ronald Reagan in the White House and Paul Volcker as head of the Fed. Today, the federal debt is an unbelievable $31 trillion. Our president is Joe Biden and the head of the Fed in James Powell.

As I said Tuesday, I’m preparing for a long, tough road ahead – with double-digit inflation and low-to-negative economic growth. I’m expecting rising unemployment and a larger gap between personal income and inflation. I’m expecting the stock market to take another serious dive and stay down for many years. I’m expecting to see many areas of the real estate market decline. I’m expecting cryptocurrencies to be outlawed in favor of the digital dollar, which will guarantee the continuance of both higher income taxes and inflation.

I could go on. You get the picture.

And I think it’s all going to happen very soon. In fact, I think it’s already begun.

I had a conversation with one of my builders last week. This is a man I’ve worked with for 30 years. He’s been continually employed doing multimillion-dollar projects since the day I met him. He always had much more work than he could handle. It was always hard to persuade him to take on another one of my projects. Last week, he asked me if I had anything for him. I didn’t.

What am I going to do? I’m not 100% sure. But I’ll try to have a definite answer for you next week.

The Haunting of Hill House and Their Eyes Were Watching God 

If the book we choose to read is thin – say, less than 350 pages – the Mules will often read a second book. I don’t get it. It seems to me that one book is more than sufficient to fuel a good discussion. But I don’t complain. The elder Mules, those that make these decisions, are wise. I trust them.

In October, we read two books, neither of which I had even heard of before: The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, and Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. Usually, when we read two books, there is something that connects them. (In November, for example, we are going to read From Russia With Love and a biography of Ian Fleming.)

This time, as near as I could tell, there was no connection. The subject matter was different. So were the themes, styles, and genres.

But there was one thing that was true of both of them: They are superbly written.

 

The Haunting of Hill House (1959)

By Shirley Jackson

246 pages

The Haunting of Hill House is the story of six people that spend time in a supposedly haunted house. They include Dr. Montague, an occult scholar looking for solid evidence of a “haunting”; his wife, a believer in spirits; Theodora, a feisty young woman; Luke, the future heir of the house; and Eleanor, a fragile young woman that supposedly had experiences with poltergeists when she was young.

As the days pass, odd and scary things begin to happen. Mostly to Eleanor, who is the central character through which we come to understand the others.

We began our discussion by trying to identify the book’s genre. Was it a gothic horror novel? Or a psychological thriller? We could not agree. And so, we went on to discuss other matters. The novelty of the story, the development of the characters, the quality of the writing – and we disagreed about all that too.

That is not exactly right. Nearly all the assembled Mules, and those attending by Zoom, felt that it wasn’t a good book. The plot was not surprising. The characters were cliché. There were none of the twists and turns and surprises they wanted from a story of this type. It was just not interesting. There were, however, two Mules (GG and yours truly) that felt differently. We thought it was a very good book. And we thought it was very well written.

In support of our argument, I accused my fellow Mules of being dense. GG, averse to ad hominem attacks, made a case for the literary quality of the novel by reading the first paragraph out loud…

“No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.”

Everyone had to admit: That was damn good writing.

 

Critical Reception 

Although outnumbered at the meeting, GG and I weren’t the only critics that recognized the quality of this book. In The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Damon Knight selected it as one of the 10 best genre books of 1959 and declared it to be “in a class by itself.” In 2018, The New York Times polled 13 respected horror novel writers to choose the scariest book of fiction they had ever read. Two of them, Carmen Maria Machado and Neil Gaiman, chose The Haunting of Hill House.

But the ultimate praise came from the ultimate horror fiction writer of our time, the one and only Stephen King. He called it “one of the finest horror novels of the late 20th century.”

Interesting 

Shirley Jackson decided to write the book after reading about a group of 19th century “psychic researchers” who had studied a “haunted” house and reported their supposedly scientific findings to the Society for Psychic Research. After the book was published, she said, “No one can get into a novel about a haunted house without hitting the subject of reality head-on; either I have to believe in ghosts, which I do, or I have to write another kind of novel altogether.”

 

Their Eyes Were Watching God (1937)

By Zora Neale Hurston

 219 pages

After defending The Haunting of Hill House for an hour or so, it was to GG’s and my relief that the Mules were unanimous in liking Their Eyes Were Watching God. They liked the story. And the main character. And the minor characters. And the themes. And the book’s literary qualities.

An example of the writing – the first paragraph:

“For some they come in with the tide. For others they sail forever on the horizon, never out of sight, never landing until the Watcher turns his eyes away in resignation, his dreams mocked to death by Time. That is the life of men.”

Their Eyes Were Watching God is the story of Janie Crawford’s life, from “a vibrant, but voiceless, teenage girl into a woman with her finger on the trigger of her own destiny.” It is, from what I’ve been told, a standard text for high schools today. It’s considered important in its exploration of feminism and the African American experience in Florida in the early 20th century.

Critical Reception 

Initially, the book was slammed by Richard Wright and other leading figures of the Harlem Renaissance for perpetuating a stereotypical view of African Americans that, in Wright’s words, “eat and laugh and cry and work and kill; they swing like a pendulum eternally in that safe and narrow orbit in which America likes to see the Negro live: between laughter and tears.”

Hurston’s reputation was restored in the Black community in 1975 when Alice Walker published an essay in Ms.magazine (“In Search of Zora Neale Hurston”) that is largely credited with reviving interest in her work. “A people do not throw their geniuses away,” Walker is famously quoted as saying. “And if they are thrown away, it is our duty as artists and as witnesses for the future to collect them again for the sake of our children and, if necessary, bone by bone.”

The book was reissued two years later and has since appeared on many “100 best” lists.

Feisty describes someone who is lively, determined, and courageous. The word was originally applied to scrappy little hunting dogs. It also, oddly, seems to have something to do with farting. As I used it in my review of The Haunting of Hill House, above: “[The characters] include Dr. Montague, an occult scholar looking for solid evidence of a ‘haunting’; his wife, a believer in spirits; Theodora, a feisty young woman; Luke, the future heir of the house; and Eleanor, a fragile young woman that supposedly had experiences with poltergeists when she was young.”

Zacatecas, Mexico 

This article on Zacatecas, a relatively remote Mexican city, has piqued my interest in visiting it one day. In addition to the usual for old Spanish Colonial cities – majestic buildings, handsome squares, and winsome parks – Zacatecas is said to have an impressive number of museums and galleries of art, 19th century, Modern, and contemporary. Read about it here.