Dear God, Please stop talking about 1994-95

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 | 08:37 AM

Last night, the comparison came up with recent selloff action and 1987. But the more frequent relative comparison from the perma-Bullish camp is 1994. That's the year that gives some folk -- most notably, Don Hayes and James Cramer -- comfort in the belief that the market is safe from a major correction at this time.

Ryan Fischer destroys that argument. I thought his observations on this frequent Bullish comparo between 1994 and today were  very astute. Since he does not publish anywhere else -- and I liked his piece a great deal -- I offered Ryan the Big Picture as a platform to publish this.

As always, feel free to comment . . .

Dear God, Please stop talking about 1994-95
The Winds of Cost of Capital

By Ryan Fischer, 5-20-06

Please, please, I beg of you:  quit talking about 1994-995. 2006-07 has no similarities whatsoever -- except in your hope.

Does anyone remember what the bond market did in 94-95? Anyone? The yield on 10 yr treasuries went from basically 5.5% at the beginning of 94 to 8% by year end. That being the number the bond market erroneously thought the FED would go to. By the end of 1995 the yield on the  10 yr was back at 5.5% a dramatic easing of financial conditions. And, on cue, assets went wild, housing and consumption caught the wind in their sails coming off the bond market and off Risk ran.

Consider: For us to experience the same winds of easing of financial costs today yields on 10 year Treasuries (currently 5-5.2%) would have to decline to 3.5-3.7%. What kind of macro environment would we be in if 10 year Treasuries were yielding 3.5-3.7% six to twelve months from now? Hello deflationary soup!! That or some crisis that has convinced Helicopter Ben to deploy the "Unconventional Measures" he talked and wrote about during his emergence. Friends, if the Fed is buying 10 year Treasuries and causing a 3.5-3.7% yield we might as well take the stars off our flag and replace them with a hammer and sickle.

A forewarning: Whenever you hear or read about Unconventional Measures from the Fed or the Treasury think State Interference in Free Markets. And we all know where that leads and ends.

But, I digress, as this missive is primarily about the cost of capital, its percentage change and the effect that has on risk assets.

Whenever you hear someone mention historically low interest rates while supporting their bullish argument for whatever risk asset they are buying, holding or selling, immediately mark them down in your book as financially illiterate. (Note, this argument is often heard from the CEOs of public builders, their real estate brethren and the sheep who follow, plus equity pushers.)

Let me say this: It is not the absolute level of the rate of interest that matters to those who allocate capital, it is the relative rate of change.

Let me elaborate: Everyone likes to pull the grandpa "I remember 15% interest rates in 1982, so 5% today is really historically nothing to be afraid of" (Again note; This is another favorite of anyone selling, holding or pushing real estate). Lets think about that intellectual construct for a second and see if, as a person who allocates capital, if it would sway where I push my dollars.

Because interest rates were around 12-15% in 82-84 and today they float around 5-5.2% (ten year Treasury yields on both) I therefore should be more willing to employ my capital in risky assets because money is so much cheaper today than some 22-24 years ago.

First, let me say I will not even touch on the subject of valuation, though the argument about then vs. now should be clear to any open seeing eyes.

Rather, let us focus on the cost of capital. As a speculator, entrepreneur, investor, etc..etc..those absolute levels mean nothing to me. For all I care, interest rates could have been 80% in 82 and the argument about historically low interest rates today still will not sway me. In fact, I'll tell you I'm more excited about a 10%, 9%, or a 8% rate of interest in 85, 86 and 87 than I am about a 5% rate of interest in 2006.


Its obvious, isnt it? 16% in 82 to 9% in 85 is a huge, huge tailwind at the sails of risk assets. This is a dramatic easing of financial conditions. Also, trust that asset prices failed miserably for many, many years to reflect this change. Such are the effects of psychology and the enhancing fruits of under-valuation. The world is nearly without clouds when interest rates fall so dramatically (kind of like 2000-2003). Is the world equally not dark vs. 85(15% in 82 to 9% in 85) or as sunny as 94/95 (again, 8% to 5.5%) now that rates have gone form 1% to 5% on the short end and 3.5% to 5-5.2% on the long end.

Based on the cost of capital, when are you a buyer? When interest rates decline by 40% (15% to 9%) or increase by 45% (3.5% to 5.07%)?

To risk assets, the cost of capital is like the wind. It is the change from the start of the race that matters, the more headwind the more trouble, and the more wind one can summon to their back, the faster the ship sails.

God what I would give if this was the mind frame today. Imagine if after an ever bullish provocateur sighted historically low interest rates as part of their argument if the financial journalist queried them with Sir/Madam, are you saying you are more of a buyer when the cost of capital has gone from 3.5% to 5% than you are when the cost of capital has gone from 15% to 9%?  Imagine.

But always know which way the winds of the cost of capital blow.

-Ryan Fischer
Red Fisch, LLC



Ryan Fischer manages assets and capital for his family and a few private clients out of Denver, Colorado. He is long physical commercial real estate, short paper commercial real estate, long gold and short IWM. He can be reached at [email protected].


Tuesday, May 23, 2006 | 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0) add to | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dear God, Please stop talking about 1994-95:


I remember Don Hayes back during the 2001-2002 bear market. He kept on citing how the ARMS index (I call it the ARM PIT index) was so oversold and that was very bullish for the market. He tried calling bottoms way too early. As far as I am concerned, he totally discredited himself during the bear market. Better to fade his opinions.

Posted by: FY | May 23, 2006 8:57:46 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™