Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy on the Next Dip

There’s an old Wall Street saying that goes, “Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.” No one really knows who originally said it, but its meaning is clear. You can make money in a rising market or a falling market if you’re disciplined. But if you hunt for stocks to buy while being greedy, sloppy and impatient, things might not work out as you hope.

This is a time to be patient. We’re more than a decade into a truly epic bull market that has seen the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index appreciate by well over 300%. While value investors might still find a few bargains out there, the market is by most reasonable metrics richly valued.

The S&P 500’s trailing price-to-earnings ratio sits at a lofty 21. The long-term historical average is around 16, and there have only been a handful of instances in history in which the collection of blue-chip stocks has breached 20. It’s expensive from a revenue standpoint, too — the index trades at a price-to-sales ratio of 2.1, meaning today’s market is priced at 1990s internet mania levels.

The beauty of being an individual investor is that you reserve the right to sit on your hands. Unlike professional money managers, you have no mandate to be 100% invested at all times. You can be patient and wait for your moment.

Here are 13 solid blue-chip stocks to buy that look interesting now, but will be downright attractive on a dip. Any of these would make a fine addition to a portfolio at the right price. And should this little bout of volatility in May snowball into a correction or proper bear market, that day might come sooner than you think.

To read the remainder of this article, see 13 Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy on the Next Dip

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Blue-Chip Stocks to Buy on the Next Dip

Do the Millennials Need More Mojo?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that the number of American live births dropped to 3,788,235 in 2018. That’s a 2% drop from 2017, and a 12% drop from the 2007 high. It puts us back at levels last seen in 1986.

But the numbers look worse when you drill down.

The population today is around 330 million. It was around 240 million in 1986. So, we’re producing the same number of babies despite having a population nearly 40% larger.

Our birth rate is now approximately 1.7 children born per woman, which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1. We still have a steady flow of immigration, and immigrants tend to be relatively young. They help balance out the workforce with lower birth rates. But unless something changes — which is difficult given that the largest cohort of Millennial women are aging out of peak childbearing years — we’re looking at a lost generation.

Why the Decline?

It’s certainly hard to start a family of your own when you still live with your parents. A Pew Research study found that 35% of Millennial men still lived with mom and dad, whereas only 28% lived with their wife or significant other.

And Millennial women aren’t much better. About 35% of Millennial women live with a partner, whereas about 29% still live with their parents.

These aren’t college kids, by the way. The largest chunk of Millennials are now in their late 20s to mid 30s.

We could blame student debt or the high cost of housing. We could blame the low starting salaries for young people, or a college educational system that produces graduates without much in the way of technical skills. We could blame smartphones, the addiction to social media, and the change in day-to-day communication and relationships.

Whatever the reason is, the result is that Millennials do have a distinct lack of mojo. Various studies have shown that Millennials have less sex and with fewer partners than Gen X or the Baby Boomers did at similar ages.

And this isn’t just an American phenomenon. Japan is essentially becoming asexual at this point. A recent study found that 70% of unmarried men and 60% of unmarried women aged 18-34 were not in a relationship, and over 40% in that age group had never had sex at all.

The world seems to be losing its animal spirits, and we’re going to feel the impacts.

Rodney Johnson wrote about this Economy & Markets, focusing on the effects it has on workforce growth and government funding. And he’s right. A social welfare system needs a steady supply of young people to support the elderly in retirement, and businesses need young workers.

But of all the consequences of a low birthrate, I’m least concerned about labor. Our economy has been replacing workers with machines for my entire lifetime.

I’m far more concerned with who’s going to be swiping the credit cards of the future.

It’s More Than Just the Loss of Labor…

Ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the economy has been an exercise in producing more goods and services for more people. Whether we’re talking about cars, houses, simple jeans or complex iPhones, the story is the same: an ever-growing population consumes a growing production of “stuff.”

But what happens when the population stops growing? There’s not much point in building new homes or offices if there are fewer people to put in them. Where do new flat screen TVs go if there are no new walls to hang them on?

At some point, the economy starts to look like an enormous Ponzi scheme that needs a continuous flow of new people to keep it afloat.

Now, I’m not one for all the doom and gloom. And I’m not predicting any kind of zombie apocalypse. Life will go on. But it’s not going to be the kind of economy we grew up in.

It’s going to be an economy with slower growth, one with much less dynamic, and will likely resemble economies like Japan or Europe rather than a “traditional” America economy. One that will be marked by chronically low inflation and even occasional bouts of deflation.

It’ll be an economy that favors a different kind of investing. One where income strategies will thrive and growth will fail. With periods of slow inflation and low growth, a steady stream of cash is a lot more attractive than times of fast revenue and earnings.

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Do the Millennials Need More Mojo?

Advice to a Young Graduate

Today is a day to remember those who have fallen in the line of duty.

For most of us though, it’s an excuse for the office to be closed and kick off the summer by lounging around the pool, or grilling up some burgers with friends and family.

There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. I like to think that fallen warriors look down in approval knowing that our way of life is made possible by their sacrifice. But we shouldn’t take it for granted.

If you have children, take a minute to explain why today is significant. They need to hear it.

And if you run into any veterans, give them a hardy pat on the back and thank them. If they look thirsty, offer them a cold beer. It would be uncivilized not to.

With the markets closed today, there’s not much to report. But I thought I would share parts of a letter I wrote to my younger cousin who just graduated from college with a degree in engineering.

I’ll refer to him as “W” to keep him anonymous. He starts his new job at Lockheed Martin next month, and we’re all really excited for him.

W,

Congratulations on finishing your degree and on getting the Lockheed job. That first job and getting your career started on the right foot is really important. And you’re getting yours starting right!

At any rate, let me give you a few parting words of advice.

  1. With your first paycheck, have fun. Treat yourself to something frivolous. Blow it. Enjoy it. And then, after that, it’s time to get serious and be an adult. But blowing the first paycheck on something stupid is a nice way to reward yourself for finishing your degree.
  2. I don’t know what your living plans are, but living with your parents for six more months will allow you to pad your savings. You should move out pretty quickly, as that’s important to being a real adult. But another 6-12 months at home won’t kill you, and it will allow you to save up enough cash to buy a car or even make a down payment on a modest house. Just make sure you actually save it and don’t just blow it all.
  3. Open two checking accounts. One will be the account your paycheck goes to and the account you use for your regular expenses. The other should be for saving. You can tell Lockheed to split your check across two accounts. They’ll do that. You can put 90% in the main account and 10% in the secondary account, or whatever makes sense. But keeping that cash separate makes it harder to spend.
  4. Put AT LEAST enough of your paycheck into your 401(k) in order to get the free employer matching. It’s literally FREE money. Ideally, you should put a lot more. You can put up to $19,000 into a 401(k) annually at your age. But at a bare minimum, put whatever you need to put to get the employer matching. It’s just stupid not to.
  5. Don’t get a credit card. Use a debit card or pay cash.
  6. Avoid debt on anything other than a house or car, and even on the car try to keep it minimal. Debt has ruined far more lives than drugs or alcohol ever have.
  7. Learn how to cook. Or, if that is a lost cause, find a girlfriend who likes to cook and treat her right and never let her go. Going out to eat all the time will bankrupt you, and it’s terrible for your health. This is a lesson best learned while you’re still young.
  8. Try to exercise at least a couple days per week. You’ll regret it when you’re 30 (and more when you’re 40) if you don’t.
  9. If your boss yells at you, don’t be a typical thin-skinned Millennial and get offended. Keep the stiff upper lip and use it as an opportunity to learn something and improve your marketability as an employee. I learned FAR more from the mean bosses than the easy-going ones. The boss who is your buddy isn’t going to get you anywhere. It’s the mean bosses that toughen you up who help you advance.
  10. Try to attach yourself to a manager that is really going somewhere in the company. If you do good work for them, they’ll take you with them. If you attach yourself to a manager who’s not really going anywhere, neither will you.

And that’s it. This is the only real wisdom I’ve managed to acquire in the 20 years since I graduated.  

Good luck in the new job, and let’s get the families together for some grilling this summer!

Take care,

Charles

Happy Memorial Day, folks.

Do yourself a favor and turn off your smartphone. The office is closed, and whatever it is you were going to check can wait until tomorrow. Our fallen soldiers didn’t fight tyranny only to have you enslaved by your iPhone.

So, put the phone away and be present with the people you love.

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Advice to a Young Graduate

This Time It’s Different

The late Sir John Templeton once commented that “the four most expensive words in the English language are ‘this time it’s different.’”

No truer words have ever been spoken.

It’s true for degenerate gamblers, drug addicts and serial womanizers. It’s true for politicians peddling failed policy ideas. And it’s true for ne’er-do-well employees or business partners who can never quite seem to get it together. No matter how many times they tell “this time it’s different,” it never is.

But perhaps nowhere is the quote more appropriate than in finance. This seems to be one area of human endeavor where people seem constitutionally incapable of learning from past mistakes.

Making loans to uncreditworthy borrows? Banks seem to do that about once every ten years like clockwork. In fact, they’re doing it now. Delinquent auto loans recently hit a new all-time high.

Lend money to perpetual basket cases like Turkey or Argentina? Bond holders seem to do that once per decade or so as well.

And getting caught up in the latest, greatest bubble?

Sigh…

Yes, that seems to be a rinse and repeat cycle as well.

I pondered this as I read Barron’s last Saturday, [CS1] as is my weekly ritual. I wake up and play with my kids for an hour before making an espresso and unrolling my issue of Barron’s.

Writing for Barron’s, Adam Seessel of Gravity Capital Management, commented that “reversion to the mean is dead.”

In other words, the classic value trade of buying beaten down, out-of-favor stocks and selling expensive hype stocks is over. Value investing no longer works:

As for returning to normal, does anyone really believe that is going to happen, for example, to Amazon.com or Alphabet? E-commerce and digital advertising still have only a small share of their global market, despite nearly a generation of growth. Other industries—ride-sharing, online lending, and renewable energy—are smaller still, but also show every sign of being long-term winners. How are these sectors going to somehow revert to the mean? Conversely, how will legacy sectors that lose share to these disruptors return to their normal growth trajectory?

Reversion to the Mean is Dead

Seessel isn’t some wild-eyed permabull growth investor. By disposition, he’s more of a value investor. But after a decade of underperformance by value investing as a discipline, he’s wondering if it really is different this time.

It’s a legitimate question to ask. Not all trades revert to the mean. Had you been a value investor 100 years ago, you might have seen a lot of cheap buggy-whip stocks. But they ended up getting a lot cheaper as cars replaced horse-drawn carriages.

Likewise, might banks and energy companies today be at risk today from new disruptors like green energy and peer to peer lenders? And will the winners of the new economy just continually get bigger?

Well, maybe. Stranger things have happened. But before you start digging value investing’s grave, consider the experience of Julian Robertson, one of the greatest money managers in history and the godfather of the modern hedge fund industry. Robertson produced an amazing track record of 32% compounded annual returns for nearly two decades in the 1980s and 1990s, crushing the S&P 500 and virtually all of his competitors. But the late 1990s tech bubble tripped him up, and he had two disappointing years in 1998 and 1999.

Facing client redemptions, Robertson opted to shut down his fund altogether. His parting words to investors are telling.

The following is a snippet from Julian Robertson’s final letter to his investors, dated March 30, 2000, written as he was in the process of shutting down Tiger Management:

There is a lot of talk now about the New Economy (meaning Internet, technology and telecom). Certainly, the Internet is changing the world and the advances from biotechnology will be equally amazing. Technology and telecommunications bring us opportunities none of us have dreamed of.

“Avoid the Old Economy and invest in the New and forget about price,” proclaim the pundits. And in truth, that has been the way to invest over the last eighteen months.

As you have heard me say on many occasions, the key to Tiger’s success over the years has been a steady commitment to buying the best stocks and shorting the worst. In a rational environment, this strategy functions well. But in an irrational market, where earnings and price considerations take a back seat to mouse clicks and momentum, such logic, as we have learned, does not count for much…

I have great faith though that, “this, too, will pass.” We have seen manic periods like this before and I remain confident that despite the current disfavor in which it is held, value investing remains the best course. There is just too much reward in certain mundane, Old Economy stocks to ignore. This is not the first time that value stocks have taken a licking. Many of the great value investors produced terrible returns from 1970 to 1975 and from 1980 to 1981 but then they came back in spades.

The difficulty is predicting when this change will occur and in this regard, I have no advantage. What I do know is that there is no point in subjecting our investors to risk in a market which I frankly do not understand. Consequently, after thorough consideration, I have decided to return all capital to our investors, effectively bringing down the curtain on the Tiger funds.

Had Robertson held on a little longer, he would have been vindicated and likely would have made a killing. Tech stocks rolled over and died not long after he published this, and value stocks had a fantastic run that lasted nearly a decade.

Today, I see shades of the late 1990s. The so-called “unicorn” tech IPOs this year were Uber and Lyft. Neither of these companies turns a profit, nor is there any quick path to profitability. These are garbage stocks being sold to suckers at inflated prices.

No thanks.

I’ll stick with my value and income stocks, thank you very much. And in Peak Income, we have a portfolio full of them.

This month, I added a new pick offering a 7% tax-free yield. That’s real money, and I don’t have to worry about selling to a greater fool.

To find out more…


 [CS1]https://www.barrons.com/articles/reversion-to-the-mean-is-dead-investors-beware-51556912141

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as This Time It’s Different

What Thanos Got Wrong

Note from Charles: I worked with Bill Washinski for years when I was living in Florida, and we collaborated on several research projects. In the spirit of the upcoming Avengers movie. I enjoyed his piece here on “the economics of Thanos,” and I hope you do too. –Charles

Tomorrow, April 24, Avengers: Endgame, the sequel to the $2 billion hit movie Avengers: Infinity War will be released in China, with releases in the rest of the world to quickly follow. This brings to a climax a story line that has been more than a decade in the making, starting with 2008’s Iron Man

In all of the anticipation, there has been a lot of discussion around social media and other outlets about Thanos and the merits his plan to eliminate half of the population of every planet in the universe with “The Snap”.  

To some, Thanos isn’t a villain at all. He’s a misunderstood hero doing what needs to be done to save humanity from the consequences of overpopulation and the exhaustion of resources. Indeed, throughout history many (if not most) conflicts have been fought over limited resources. And in an era in which global warming is one of the biggest and thorniest political issues, there are plenty of people out there who believe a smaller population is ideal.

It stands to reason that the Earth probably has a finite carrying capacity. There may be some upper population limit at which we’ve officially outgrown our planet.

It was 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus who first popularized the idea of the Earth reaching its carrying capacity. Mathusianism stated that “the power of population is indefinitely greater that the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” 

Thanos made the same point in Infinity War:  “It’s simple calculus, the universe has finite resources and if life is left unchecked, life will cease to exist.”

However, despite his omnipotent power, Thanos is lousy statistician. Had he bothered to check, he would have seen that the birth rate has been in a state of free fall since the U.N. began keeping track of it in the 1950s.  This is a product of industrialization, as children in the modern era are no longer a source of cheap labor but rather a major expense.

The birthrate was 37.2 Births per 1,000 from 1950-1955, dropping nearly in half to 19.4 Births per 1000 from 2010-2015.  This has nothing to do with declining resources as much as it does economic factors – it can cost $200,000 – $300,000 to raise a child in the United States (not including the costs of college education).  Massive improvements in infant mortality also played a role, as parents felt less needs to have “spare” children.

But not only is population growing at a slower rate; some countries are actually shrinking. Japan’s population started to decline in 2011, and the country had a record low 15 million births in 2018.  Western European nations average only 1.6 children per woman, which is not enough to replace the existing generation. So, it is only a matter of time before Europe as a whole begins to shrink.

Thanos tried to “fix” a problem that nature and economics seems to already be fixing on its own. We’ve already moved past a point of maximum growth.

Let’s look at other aspects of Mad Titan’s madness. His cutting out half the population could have drastic negative effects.  In the movie he references how another character’s home world was a paradise after he culled the population. This is a short-sighted view, that a smaller population with more resources to sustain them made it a better world, is incredibly naïve.

Imagine if Thanos came and did his snap before Henry Ford developed the assembly line for cars or before Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin? What if Bill Gates was turned to dust before he created Microsoft or Steve Jobs before he created Apple?  What kind of brilliant minds that could have made our lives more efficient and productive would have been suddenly ripped from existence before they could implement their products?

Imagine your world today before the smart phone or software that could increase your productivity and income or you were still behind a carriage on the way to work?  Thanos may have made for an interesting villain and a great movie; but his solution of eliminating population also eliminates productivity and innovation – and this writer hopes the foolish and simple-minded snap is undone this weekend by a series of heroes that have earned a lot of respect over the years by some great minds leading the way like Kevin Fiege. 

Oh no, what if Fiege was not head of Marvel Studios because he turned to dust?  Perhaps there would be no need for this article then!

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as What Thanos Got Wrong

Why You Shouldn’t Put ALL Your Money into an Index Fund

Cliff Asness doesn’t have the name recognition of a Warren Buffett or a Carl Icahn. But among “quant” investors, his words carry a lot more weight.

Asness is the billionaire co-founder of AQR Capital Management and a pioneer in liquid alternatives. For all of us looking to build that proverbial better mouse trap, Asness is our guru. My own Peak Profits strategy, which combines value and momentum investing, was inspired by some of Asness’ early work.

Unfortunately, he’s been getting his butt kicked lately. His hedge funds have had a rough 2018, which prompted him to write a really insightful and introspective client letter earlier this month titled “Liquid Alt Ragnarok.”

“This is one of those notes,” Asness starts with his characteristic bluntness. “You know, from an investment manager who has recently been doing crappy.”

Rather make excuses for a lousy quarter (Asness is above that), he uses his bad streak to get back to the basics of why he invests the way he does.

As I mentioned, Asness specializes in liquid alternatives. In plain English, he builds portfolios that aren’t tightly correlated to the S&P 500. They’re designed to generate respectable returns whether the market goes up, down or sideways.

You don’t have to be bearish on stocks to see the value of alts. As Asness explains,

You do not want a liquid alt because you’re bearish on stocks or, more generally, traditional assets. That kind of timing is difficult to do well. Plus, if you’re convinced traditional assets are going to plummet, you want to be short, not “alternative.” In other words, liquid alts are a “diversifier” not a “hedge.”

You should invest [in a liquid alt] because you believe that it has a positive expected return and provides diversification versus everything else you’re doing. It’s the same reason an all-stock investor can build a better portfolio by adding some bonds, and an all-bond investor can build a better portfolio by adding some stocks.

I love this, so you’re going to have to forgive me if I “geek out” a little bit here. My professors pretty well beat this stuff into my head when I was working on my master’s degree at the London School of Economics.

When you invest in multiple strategies that aren’t tightly correlated with each other, your risk and returns are not the average risk and return of the individual strategies. The sum is actually greater than the parts. You get more return for a given level of risk or less risk for a given level of return.

Take a look at the graph. This is a hypothetical scenario, so don’t get fixated on the precise numbers. But know that it really does work like this in the real world.

Strategy A is a relative low risk, low return strategy. Strategy B is higher return, higher risk.

In a world where Strategies A and B are perfectly correlated (they move up and down together), any combination of the two strategies would be a simple average. If A returned 2% with 8% volatility and B returned 16% with 11% volatility, a portfolio invested 50/50 between the two would have returns of 9% with 9.5% volatility. That is what you see with the straight line connecting A and B. Any combination of the two portfolios would fall along that line (assuming perfect correlation).

But if they are not perfectly correlated (they move at least somewhat independently), you get a curve. And the less correlation, the further the curve gets pushed out.

Look at the dot on the curve that shows an expected return of about 8% and risk (or volatility) of 10%. On the straight line, that 8% curve would have volatility of about 14%, not 10%. And accepting 10% volatility would only get you a return of about 4% on the straight line.

This is why you diversify among strategies. Running multiple good strategies at the same time lowers your overall risk and boosts your returns. The key is finding good strategies that are independent. Running the basic strategy five slightly different ways isn’t real diversification, and neither is owning five different index funds in your 401k plan. Diversification is useless if all of your assets end up rising and falling together.

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Why You Shouldn’t Put ALL Your Money into an Index Fund

Best ETFs for 2018: This Isn’t the Year for Emerging Markets (DVYE)

The following is an excerpt from Best ETFs for 2018: This Isn’t the Year for Emerging Markets (DVYE).

Well, I should probably start this by mentioning that I no longer personally own the ETF I recommended in InvestorPlace’s Best ETFs for 2018 contest.

I recently sold my shares of the iShares Emerging Markets Dividend ETF (DVYE). While I still believe that emerging markets are likely to be one of the best-performing asset classes of the next ten years, it’s a minefield in the short-term. As I write this, the shares are down 4% on the year. That’s not a disaster by any stretch, but it is a disappointment.

There are a couple reasons for the recent underperformance in emerging markets. To start, the U.S. market remains the casino of choice for most investors right now. Adding to this is dollar strength. While dollar strength is good for countries that sell manufactured products to the United States, it’s bad for commodities producers, as a more expensive dollar by definition means cheaper commodities.

President Donald Trump’s trade war isn’t helping either. While it’s hard to argue that anyone truly “wins” a trade war, Trump isn’t incorrect when it says that our trading partners need us more than we need them. In a war of attrition like this, you “win” by losing less.

Of course, these conditions are not new, and virtually all of them were in place when I made the initial recommendation of DVYE. None of these factors would be enough for me to punt on emerging markets just yet. No, the problem is a greater risk that has only recently popped up: the twin meltdowns in Argentina and Turkey.

To continue reading, please see Best ETFs for 2018: This Isn’t the Year for Emerging Markets (DVYE).

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Best ETFs for 2018: This Isn’t the Year for Emerging Markets (DVYE)

Best Stocks for 2018: Enterprise Products Is a Keeper

The following is an excerpt from Best Stocks for 2018: Enterprise Products Is a Keeper.

A 14% return is nothing to be ashamed of in a year where the S&P 500 is up only 8%. Yet it looks awfully meager when my competition in the Best Stocks contest is up 144%.

As I write, my submission in InvestorPlace’s Best Stocks for 2018 contest — blue-chip natural gas and natural gas liquids pipeline operator Enterprise Products Partners (EPD)  — is up 14%, including dividends, as of today. Yet Tracey Ryniec’s Etsy (ETSY) is up a whopping 144%. Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG) and Amazon.com (AMZN) take the second and third slots with returns to date of 71% and 68%, respectively.

So, barring something truly unexpected happening, it’s looking like victory may be out of sight this time around.

Can’t win ‘em all.

While Enterprise Products may finish the contest as a middling contender, I still consider it one of the absolute best stocks to own over the next two to three years. Growth stocks have dominated value stocks  since 2009, but that trend will not last forever. Value and income stocks will enjoy a nice run of outperformance — and when they do, Enterprise Products will be a major beneficiary.

To continue reading, please see Best Stocks for 2018: Enterprise Products Is a Keeper.

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Best Stocks for 2018: Enterprise Products Is a Keeper

Today on Straight Talk Money: Elon Musk’s Tesla Turnaround and More

I joined Peggy Tuck today on Straight Talk Money, and at the top of the agenda was Elon Musk and Tesla (TSLA). Tesla reported its worst loss in history, yet shares rallied hard as a more conciliatory Musk promised profits in the quarters ahead.

Musk, by the way, was the inspiration for Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man character from the Avengers movies. It’s debatable whether that makes Tesla stock worth buying.

 

In the next segment, we talk about Apple’s (AAPL) epic rise to $1 trillion… and whether it makes sense for billionaires like Amazon’s (AMZN) Jeff Bezos to keep substantially all of their net worth in their own company. My answer might surprise you.

 

In the final segment, we chat about the best places to invest should inflation make a comeback and look at a list of 10 stocks that have recently raised their dividends by at least 10%.

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as Today on Straight Talk Money: Elon Musk’s Tesla Turnaround and More

The Top 10 Presidents of All Time (At Least According to the Stock Market)

A more comprehensive version of this article covering all presidents back to 1889 was originally published on Kiplinger’s.

Mount Rushmore features massive 60-foot-tall busts of celebrated presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, each chosen for their respective roles in preserving or expanding the Republic.

But if you were to make a Mount Rushmore for presidents based on stock market performance, none of these men would make the cut. There really was no stock market to speak of during the administrations of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt ranks as one of the worst-performing presidents of the past 130 years. In his nearly eight years in office, the Dow returned a measly 2.2% per year.

Just for grins, let’s see what a “stock market Mount Rushmore” might look like. And while we’re at it, we’ll rank every president that we can realistically include based on the available data.

Naturally, a few caveats are necessary here. The returns data you see here are price only (not including dividends), so this tends to favor more recent presidents. Over the past half century, dividends have become a smaller portion of total returns due to their unfavorable tax treatment.

Furthermore, the data isn’t adjusted for inflation. This will tend to reward presidents of inflationary times (Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, etc.) and punish presidents of disinflationary or deflationary times (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc.)

And finally, presidents from Hoover to the present are ranked using the S&P 500, whereas earlier presidents were ranked using the Dow Industrials due to data availability.

That said, the data should give us a “quick and dirty” estimate of what stock market returns were like in every presidential administration since Benjamin Harrison. (He ranks near the bottom, by the way, with losses of 1.4% per year).

PresidentFirst Day in OfficeLast Day in OfficeStarting S&P 500*Ending S&P 500*Cumulative ReturnDaysCAGR
* Dow Industrials used prior to President Herbert Hoover
^ Data though 7/2/2018
Calvin CoolidgeAugust 3, 1923March 3, 192987.20319.12265.96%203926.14%
Bill ClintonJanuary 20, 1993January 19, 2001433.371342.54209.79%292115.18%
Barack ObamaJanuary 20, 2009January 19, 2017805.222263.69181.13%292113.79%
Donald Trump^January 20, 2017July 2, 20182271.312703.8919.05%52812.81%
William McKinleyMarch 4, 1897September 13, 190130.2849.2762.68%166511.26%
George H.W. BushJanuary 20, 1989January 19, 1993286.63435.1351.81%146011.00%
Dwight EisenhowerJanuary 20, 1953January 19, 196126.1459.77128.65%292110.89%
Gerald FordAugust 9, 1974January 19, 197780.86103.8528.43%89410.76%
Ronald ReaganJanuary 20, 1981January 19, 1989131.65286.91117.93%292110.22%
Harry TrumanApril 12, 1945January 19, 195314.2026.0183.17%28398.09%
Lyndon JohnsonNovember 22, 1963January 19, 196969.61102.0346.57%18857.68%
Warren HardingMarch 4, 1921August 2, 192375.1188.2017.43%8816.88%
Jimmy CarterJanuary 20, 1977January 19, 1981102.97134.3730.49%14606.88%
John KennedyJanuary 20, 1961November 21, 196359.9671.6219.45%10356.47%
Franklin RooseveltMarch 4, 1933April 12, 19456.8114.05106.31%44226.16%
Woodrow WilsonMarch 4, 1913March 3, 192159.1375.2327.24%29213.06%
Theodore RooseveltSeptember 14, 1901March 3, 190951.2960.5017.95%27272.23%
William Howard TaftMarch 4, 1909March 3, 191359.9259.58-0.56%1460-0.14%
Benjamin HarrisonMarch 4, 1889March 3, 189340.0737.82-5.61%1460-1.43%
Richard NixonJanuary 20, 1969August 8, 1974101.6981.57-19.78%2026-3.89%
Grover ClevelandMarch 4, 1893March 3, 189737.7530.86-18.25%1460-4.91%
George W. BushJanuary 20, 2001January 19, 20091342.90850.12-36.702921-5.55%
Herbert HooverMarch 4, 1929March 3, 193325.495.84-77.08%1460-30.82%

At the very top of the list is Calvin Coolidge, the man who presided over the boom years of the Roaring Twenties. Coolidge, a hero among small-government conservatives for his modest, hands-off approach to government, famously said “After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world.”

It was true then, and it’s just as true today.

In Coolidge’s five and a half years in office, the Dow soared an incredible 266%, translating to compound annualized gains of 26.1% per year.

Of course, the cynic might point out that Coolidge was also extraordinarily lucky to have taken office just as the 1920s were starting to roar… and to have retired just as the whole thing was starting to fall apart. His successor Hoover was left to deal with the consequences of the 1929 crash and the Great Depression that followed.

The second head on Rushmore would be that of Bill Clinton. Clinton, like Coolidge, presided over one of the largest booms in American history, the 1990s “dot com” boom. And Clinton, particularly during the final six years of his presidency, was considered one of the more business-friendly presidents by modern standards.

The S&P 500 soared 210% over Clinton’s eight years, working out to annualized returns of 15.2%.

Not far behind Clinton is Barack Obama, who can boast cumulative returns of 181.1% and annualized returns of 13.8%. President Obama had the good fortune of taking office right as the worst bear market since the Great Depression was nearing its end. That’s fantastic timing. All the same, 181% cumulative returns aren’t too shabby.

Interestingly, the infamous “Trump rally” places Donald Trump as the fourth head on Mount Rushmore with annualized returns thus far of 12.8% It’s still early, of course, as President Trump is not even two years into his presidency. And given the already lofty valuations in place when he took office, it’s questionable whether the market can continue to generate these kinds of returns throughout his presidency. But he’s certainly off to a strong start.

After Trump, the next four presidents – William McKinley, George H.W Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford – are clumped into a tight band, each enjoying market returns of between 10.8% and 11.3%. And the top 10 is rounded out by Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman, with annualized returns of 10.2% and 8.1%, respectively.

We’ve covered the winners. Now let’s look at the losers; the “Mount Rushmore of Stock Market Shame,” if you will.

Herbert Hoover occupies the bottom rung with a truly abysmal 77.1% cumulative loss and 30.8% annualized compound loss. In case you need a history refresher, Hoover took office just months before the 1929 crash that ushered in the worst bear market in U.S. history.

Don’t feel too sorry for Hoover, however. 1,028 economists signed a letter warning him not to sign the Smoot Hawley Tariffs into law… yet he did it anyway. This helped to turn what might have been a garden variety recession into the Great Depression. That’s on you, Hoover.

In second place is George W. Bush, with annualized losses of 5.6%. Poor W had the misfortune of taking office just as the dot com boom of the 1990s went bust and shortly before the September 11, 2001 terror attacks helped to push the economy deeper into recession. And if that weren’t bad enough, the 2008 mortgage and banking crisis happened at the tail end of his presidency.

Sandwiched between two of the worst bear markets in U.S. history, poor W never had a chance.

Rounding out the Mount Rushmore of Stock Market Shame are Grover Cleveland and Richard Nixon with annualized losses of 4.9% and 3.9%, respectively.

Nixon’s presidency was marred by scandal and by the devaluation of the dollar, neither of which was good for market returns.

Poor Cleveland, on the other hand, was just unlucky. By any historical account, he was a responsible president who ran an honest and fiscally sound administration. But then the Panic of 1893 hit the banking system and led to a deep depression. The fallout was so bad that it actually led to a grassroots revolt and to a total realignment of the Democratic Party. After Cleveland fell from grace, the mantle of leadership shifted to Progressives Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan, and the rest is history.

To see the full rankings of all presidents since 1889, see The Best and Worst Presidents (According to the Stock Market)

 

This article first appeared on Sizemore Insights as The Top 10 Presidents of All Time (At Least According to the Stock Market)