Stock Watch

Why the Market Doesn't Have Obamania

Millions celebrated the 44th President's inauguration, but the euphoria didn't rub off on Wall Street. Here's why.

By Jeffrey R. Kosnett, Senior Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

January 23, 2009
Text Size T T

Advertisement

Nearly two million people celebrate Barack Obama's inauguration in person, and billions more across the globe watch on TV during one of the most extraordinary days in U.S. history. Meanwhile, a relative handful of stock traders throw a tantrum -- or maybe a pity party -- and contribute to the biggest Inauguration Day selloff ever.

The next day, the markets snap back, but two days later the losses resume. On January 23, the final day of inauguration week, the indexes meander and finish mixed. Total it up and the U.S. market is already down 8% in 2009 -- about two bad days away from sinking below its November 20 low. What gives?

Maybe the week's unpromising start represented a final opportunity for ticked-off investors to give George W. Bush and his unpopular government a final kick in the rear. But Obama's ascension to the presidency at noon on January 20 did little to dispel the misery on Wall Street, and by the end of the day, the major indexes were down 4% or more.

A drop of that magnitude typically produces a lot of media hand-wringing. On this day, though, the nation's newspapers, TV networks and Web portals preferred to focus on the euphoria on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., rather than the gloom on Wall Street.

Most financial advisers see no reason why stock indexes would track presidential approval ratings. The market is clearly focusing on other matters. "The economic news will be frightening the next few months," says Gregg Fisher, president of Gerstein, Fisher & Associates, a New York City investment advisory firm.

The current news is frightening enough. For starters, there's the plight of the nation's banks. Their balance sheets wrecked by gobs of devalued mortgage securities, many more banks may need government assistance to remain afloat. Investors are becoming increasingly worried that some banks may be nationalized -- that is, taken over by Uncle Sam-a development that would likely wipe out most shareholder equity. Even if banks manage to remain independent, they may be forced to cut dividends further, putting additional pressure on share prices.

You may find trading opportunities in Citibank (symbol C) at a bit more than $3, Bank of America (BAC) at $6 and Wells Fargo (WFC) at $16 if Obama's economic team persuades what's left of Wall Street that the administration won't seek to take over the banks. But even if the shares of these major banks recover a bit, you're unlikely to see the Dow Jones industrial average at 10,000 or Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at 1,000 this year.

General Electric, American Express, oil companies and retailers are caught in the same economic quicksand as the banks are. Sure, IBM issued good numbers on January 21, but the next day Microsoft erased any confidence that had crept into the tech sector by releasing disappointing results and announcing thousands of layoffs, and stocks sank. There simply aren't enough points of light among blue chips -- or anywhere else -- to sustain a broad stock-market rally.

Investor attitudes also impede a rally. People feel deflated, bordering on uninterested. David Speck, an adviser with Wachovia Securities in Alexandria, Va., says that although this is a good time to invest because stocks are down, he has to spend a lot of time giving his clients "therapy" rather than portfolio advice. Expectations are so low for stocks, he says, that it's unlikely investors will jump back into the market, as they did after big setbacks in 1982 and 2003.

Another camp holds that investors have lost their enthusiasm because the rally after Obama's election has already fizzled. Fisher says the 20% advance from late November through the end of 2008 priced in the excitement of Inauguration Day and that neither that gain nor the subsequent January retreat is particularly significant -- just the normal comings and goings of a trendless market.

Expectations are so low that even the mutual fund business is hunkering down. Instead of promoting their managers' ability to recover their clients' losses, fund bosses are rethinking the premise that able managers add value. Putnam has just created a series of "absolute return" funds, which are designed to provide annual returns that are precisely one, three, five or seven percentage points more than what Treasury bills offer.

If the funds work as advertised, says Putnam chief executive Robert Reynolds, they will make those anticipated returns over a three-year period no matter how positive or challenging the markets. The most aggressive fund is Putnam Absolute Return 700. Because Treasury bills essentially yield nothing nowadays, this fund presently aims to return 7%.

It will own aggressive stocks, foreign investments, real estate investment trusts and the like -- stuff that could easily gain 25% or better in a bull market. Meanwhile, you can get close to the taxable equivalent of 7% by buying investment-grade municipal bonds. You can find more about the line of funds at www.putnam.com.

Reynolds, a former Fidelity executive, says people have lost interest in relative returns. No wonder. It's hard to get excited about beating the market by five percentage points when the S&P 500 loses 37%, as it did last year.

Instead, investors want an assured gain, such as what they can get from a certificate of deposit. Reynolds predicts that absolute-return funds will catch on big-time in 2009 and 2010 and that other companies will come out with their own versions. If so, the hottest new fund idea will be something that often pays less than a CD and charges annual expenses of 1% to 2%, but carries no deposit insurance and no guarantees. This isn't exactly a concept born from confidence.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is under pressure to recharge the economy -- and sooner rather than later. Its next moves, which will likely include a proposal to spend money on creating temporary jobs or offering mortgage relief, will help consumers repay loans and buy gas and groceries.

This is hardly the fuel to fire up the stock market -- and it's not intended to be. America will be a happier nation for the foreseeable future because there's always a honeymoon when a new president assumes office. But it's premature to think that the cheers in the streets of the capital will spread to the capital markets anytime soon.

Topics:

Discuss

Reader Comments (16)

Posted by: Marilyn Ambrosini at 01/23/2009 05:57:19 PM

Maybe Wall Street is not the answer, especially since the average American worker was scammed. Maybe average investors will settle for a lesser return with a guarantee that they will not loose their principal and still earn some money. P.S. Why is it the CEO of Lehman is not asked to "give back" money to the government to help the bailout since he has so much of it that he took off the backs of average workers and investors? No prison time, give up the money and real estate and live like everyone else. That's justice!!!!

Posted by: RB at 01/24/2009 12:19:39 PM

In reposnse to Marilyn's comments...I agree there is justification for "jail time" for some unethical individuals. But with all th whinning going on I can only conclude that the Democrats are correct that the average American citizen is just not smart enough to think for themselves. As the Democrats have imnplied many times over the years, the voters need to be protected from their own stupidity.

Posted by: WFL at 01/26/2009 12:58:59 PM

Response to Marilyn and RB...The people get the government they deserve. That goes for the people in Cuba, Iran and (yes) the USA. Everybody seems to think that there is going to be a massive give away program that will resolve all the financial ills of this country. This president is going to try to spend us out of this situation...that didn't work back in the 30s and it won't work now. This is why the stock market doesn't like Obama.

Posted by: Adam at 01/26/2009 02:10:47 PM

"Democrats are correct that the average American citizen is just not smart enough to think for themselves....voters need to be protected from their own stupidity." Right... Let's go ahead and just scrap this silly Capitalism thing and "protect" those that cannot think for themselves. More Government!! More Government!! Go President Barack "Big Brother" Obama!

Posted by: Joe Williams at 01/26/2009 02:49:20 PM

Marilyn, The CEO will not be asked to give back money because he has already given a payoff to his Democrat buddies. Get It! Obama team wants to spend a trillion dollars, but make no commitment when the economy will get better. Now that is having your cake and eating it too!

Posted by: Bob at 01/26/2009 02:49:38 PM

I see nothing to cheer about while 90% of our elected officials and business leaders responsible for this mess are still in office.

Posted by: E R Stevenson at 01/26/2009 03:02:58 PM

Sooner or later someone needs to point a finger at the American consumer and say "a lot of this is your fault!" With people having mortgages on 2 or 3 houses, 3 new cars, and having a plasma screen in every room, a lot of what's wrong is in the average home, as much as on Wall Street. People are working at jobs they hate to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like.

Posted by: Hanrod at 01/26/2009 03:40:26 PM

RB, it is difficult to take your comments seriously...Take a look at the very smart professional financial people (and even organizations) that were taken in by Madoff. In our market schemes generally, "average" citizens were no more "stupid" than these. It was all merely a matter of deregulation leading to extreme competetion, leading to destruction; and which, eventually, leads to criminality and even violence. You are...not smarter than most of us...I hope that you got your share, and more, of the National pain.

Posted by: Adele at 01/26/2009 04:07:49 PM

According to my portfolio and past experiences Wall Street loves a Republican president. Even though I consider myself a conservative Democrat my portfolio has always risen after a Republican was elected but fell after the election of a Democrat. By the way RB, I have never depended on anyone but myself to protect my savings.

Posted by: Dave Kean at 01/26/2009 04:23:38 PM

In reply to Marylin: I say take everything from Lehman's CEO; leave his family a 1200 sq ft house and a 4 cylinder car, and put the sucker in prison for 25 yrs. Do it now baby!!

Posted by: SDT at 01/26/2009 04:27:36 PM

In response to RB where does that leave the above average American who can think for himself? The more people rely on the their government the worse it will get.

Posted by: Dan at 01/26/2009 05:36:41 PM

That is exactly what the Democrats want you to think, that you are too stupid to think for yourself and surrender your ability to make decisions to them. They (Rep.&Dem.) will not do anything but suck more money from MY earnings. We all need to wake up and get these people who are spending this country into oblivion out of office!

Posted by: Julie at 01/27/2009 05:46:54 AM

I see most comments talking about the "stupidity" of people. I don't think it's so much stupidity as greed and an attitude of entitlement. For some strange reason, people in the U.S. seem to believe that if a neighbor or co-worker has something, they are entitled to have it, too. And the housing bubble was nothing more than greed, on the part of banks AND homeowners. I've heard over and over again, how people took mortgages they "knew they couldn't really afford, but the house was just so great!" Learn to live within your means, and stop looking for a quick and big return on your investments!!

Posted by: PennySeeds.com at 01/27/2009 08:49:24 AM

Sooner or later someone needs to point a finger at the American consumer and say "a lot of this is your fault!" With people having mortgages on 2 or 3 houses, 3 new cars, and having a plasma screen in every room, a lot of what's wrong is in the average home, as much as on Wall Street. People are working at jobs they hate to buy things they don't need to impress people they don't like. " Every single day I tell myself, I don't need that...I don't need two cars, I don't need three houses, and I only have one TV.

Posted by: Mark at 01/29/2009 12:01:54 PM

this President made promises that are impossible to keep. When he campaigned in Detroit and promised them a turnaround I knew he was full of beans. Detroit has created their own problems and it's not the taxpayers, nor the government's, responsibility to fix it. The media is clearly absent...no surprise there. It will be interesting to see how long this honeymoon lasts I'm telling all of my friends the same thing: throw out ALL incumbents in the House and Senate. Too much priviledge for too few. Some of those folks have never held a job ala Bill Clinton

Posted by: Bill at 02/02/2009 10:28:11 PM

This economic downturn is like a divorce. Everyone has to accept some responsibility. The market hates the unknown and Obama is about as "unknown" as it gets. Unfortunately the people who elected him don't have the funds or confidence to buy stocks. As long as fear overcomes greed the market will go nowhere. We need to return to the values and conservative spending policies of the 50's to return the U.S. to solvancy. Till then we can only hope and pray that the change that was promised will be a positive one. We all need to focus on our family values and budgets as a first step.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Extra Cash for the Holidays

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement