This week's interesting finds

This week’s charts

Hard market conditions continue with the U.S. Property & Casualty rate growth trending at high single-digit range for 12 consecutive months 

Shortest corrections

Since we broke through the 2007 pre-GFC highs in the summer of 2013 we are now looking at more than 320 new highs in this bull market. Which means in the past 7 years US stock market has reached a new high once out of every 7 days or so.

The difference between this cycle and the last is that corrections did not last very long, while crashes in early 2000s were measured in years instead of months.

How the US tech giants could fall  

American tech companies lead the world’s top 10 by market value and many commentators and investors see no reason to question their continued dominance. The conventional narrative is that these giants are growing bigger, faster and more durably than their predecessors

Only we have seen much of this before.

Data going back to 1970 shows companies that finished a decade in the top 10 saw median earnings gains of around 330 per cent over the course of that decade, and their stocks beat the market by more than 230 per cent. The top 10 of the 2010s were not that different from the norm: earnings were up 350 per cent and their stocks outperformed the market by 330 per cent.

Since 1970, companies that finished a decade in the global top 10 have had a less than one in five chances of finishing the next decade there.

Capture more value  

Switzerland-based Vestergaard introduced its LifeStraw technology, which removes 99.99999% of bacteria and 99.9% of protozoan cysts from contaminated water. The product is a favorite of aid organizations: Over the past decade, LifeStraws have been distributed after almost every disaster.

But not every place with bad drinking water is a relief zone; 780 million people in the world lack access to clean water in their daily lives. So Vestergaard saw a much larger potential market than its NGO customer base—and proved that it could innovate in another way. The challenge was LifeStraw’s cost, which is beyond the means of most households in developing countries. The company found a clever means for families to fund their purchases: with carbon offset credits. Thanks to the worldwide carbon emissions trade, any documented C02 savings can now be monetized—and using LifeStraws means not having to burn petrol or wood to boil dirty water. Vestergaard’s Carbon For Water initiative has enabled hundreds of thousands of Kenyan families to pay for its product, growing its business substantially.

Both these kinds of innovation—one in value creation, the other in value capture—are important. But most companies focus only on the first.

To benefit from both kinds of innovation, companies need to think about value capture more imaginatively and as a matter of course.

This framework shows 15 ways firms can capture new value, clustered under five focal points of change. 

A Framework for Value-Capture Innovation

The rise of warehousing  

The demand for warehouse space is pushing industrial real estate into new terrain, and Canada may have limited warehouse space by the end of the year, thanks to the surge in e-commerce sparked by the pandemic. 

Statistics Canada reported retail e-commerce sales were up 110.7 % year-over-year to $3.5 billion in January 2021. 

Online splurging by Canadians is estimated to reach $92.7 billion by 2025 and net-new warehouse requirements from e-commerce-related pressure are expected to exceed 40 million square feet over the next five years.

This growth is more significant than all the available leasable space in Canada’s three largest industrial markets combined.   

Bets against Cathie Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF  

Ms. Wood’s ARK Innovation ETF raced higher in 2020 and at the start of 2021, boosted by big bets on companies like electric car maker Tesla Inc., Roku Inc. and Square Inc.

But as shares of technology and other fast-growing companies lost some of their luster over the following months, so, too, did Ms. Wood’s innovation fund. It is down 6.9% this year, while the S&P 500 has risen 18%

Several hedge funds took out fresh positions in the second quarter betting against Ms. Wood’s actively managed ARK Innovation exchange-traded fund, according to the most recent 13F filings.

Mr. Burry’s Scion Asset Management held bearish put options worth nearly $31 million against 235,500 shares of the ARK Innovation ETF. Laurion Capital Management held roughly $171 million worth of put options against 1.3 million shares of the ARK Innovation ETF. GoldenTree Asset Management, Moore Capital Management and Cormorant Asset Management also held sizable bearish positions on Ms. Wood’s fund.

This week's interesting finds

This week’s charts 

China

Source: Bank of America

Correlation of yields and styles

*5Yr rolling correlation; monthly change in US 10-yr yields vs outperformance to S&P 500 (TR) ANALYST TEAMSource: Scotiabank GBM Portfolio Strategy, Bloomberg.

Producer Price Data (PPI) as a measure of inflation 

Unlike the CPI report, producer price data surprised to the upside. The Producer Price Index (PPI) is a measure of inflation based on input costs to producers.

Is Inflation Here to Stay?

The August 1979 BusinessWeek issued a magazine with cover line “The Death of Equities — How Inflation is Destroying the Stock Market” in which it outlined how inflation would depress equity returns for a generation of investors. 

In retrospect, this was probably the worse market call ever made.

The funny aspects of business magazine cover stories is that in the short term they are perceived to be correct. It was not until August 1982, three years after the publication of the BusinessWeek article that investors suddenly recognized the financial landscape had dramatically changed. The stock market exploded off the bottom on August 17th and never looked back.

Two years have passed since BusinessWeek/Bloomberg’s 2019 “Is Inflation Dead?” piece and we believe we are rapidly approaching inflation’s inflection point.

Multiple fundamental trends now confirm this view: 

o  In 2019, money supply was only growing at 4% per year; today it is growing at 27% per year — the fastest rate in history. In 2019, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet stood at $4.3 trillion compared with $7.3 trillion today. In 2019, US government debt totaled $20 trillion. Two short years later, it stands at $28 trillion — up 40%. 

o  Over the last year, the US government has borrowed and spent $2.4 trillion to replace $800 billion of lost economic activity resulting in a US savings glut of nearly $1.5 trillion. Not content with the massive surge in government spending, the Biden administration is proposing an additional $3 tr in stimulus spending. 

o  With the economy now starting to recover, the press is filled with stories of shortages that have developed in countless markets from lumber to semiconductors to restaurant workers to ketchup packets.   

Mixed reviews  

• From farm to bottler to supermarket cooler, a liter of Coca-Cola creates 346 grams of carbon dioxide emissions, the company’s data show. That’s less than half the tree-to-toilet 771-gram carbon footprint of a mega roll of Charmin Ultra Soft toilet paper, as measured by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. 

• Math like this is fast becoming obligatory. Investors are increasing pressure on businesses to disclose the emissions of greenhouse gases related to their products and services. Regulators are starting to ask about that, too. Within the next couple of years, every public company in the U.S. might well be required to report climate information. 

• Investors are eager to buys stocks that rank high on ESG factors. A Wall Street Journal analysis of ESG grades issued for nearly 1,500 companies by three rating firms found that nearly two-thirds—942 companies—got different grades from different raters. 

• Nearly a third of the companies were deemed ESG leaders by one or more rating firms, but labeled ESG laggards by one or another rater. Credit ratings, by contrast, are broadly consistent.   

Wealth inequality

• Americans may be richer than they think and less unequal than they’ve been led to believe. 

• There are strong reasons to include pension and Social Security guarantees in wealth calculations. Most workers forfeit 12.4% of their income annually in payroll taxes in return for Social Security payouts starting in their 60s, but that wealth is ignored in standard inequality measures. 

• In the 40 to 59 age group that is the paper’s focus, the top 5% of households control 63.5% of “market wealth”—liquid assets, housing, and accounts like 401(k)s. But include future pension and Social Security income, and the top 5% share is a more modest 45.4%, the authors find.   

Simple Explanations For Complex Topics  

One of the biggest residential real estate brands in the world, Zillow, is getting hammered in the midst of one of the biggest housing booms we’ve ever seen? What gives? 

• Some claim this was the market’s acting as a forward-looking indicator showing the housing market is going to crash. This one doesn’t pass the smell test. Other housing-related stocks are crushing it this year.

• Another theory was that this is a housing boom in price only. This makes sense considering how low inventory levels are. On the other hand, part of the reason for this is houses are flying off the shelves. Existing home sales are higher than they’ve been in a long time. 

• If it’s not the industry and it’s not a company that’s falling out of favor the next logical guess would be valuation. This is an argument that seems to hold water. The price to sales ratio was well over 13x in the February blow-off top, twice the average over the past 5 years. 

There are a number of stocks with similar return profiles. Stocks that are still up a lot from the lows of the Corona crash, despite being down a lot from their highs. 

Sometimes there is a good reason stocks get cut in half. Sometimes there is a good reason stocks rise 500% in a matter of months. 

We would all like for there to be a simple explanation for complex topics like the movements of stocks in the short run. But most of the time these price moves are random, an amalgamation of emotions, differing opinions, expectations and momentum.

This week's interesting finds

This week’s charts

Wage pressure

In the “hood”

China’s steel mills must improve efficiency if they’re to cut their huge carbon emissions, say analysts  

China’s steel mills can meet their goal of reducing carbon emissions if the industry is willing to accept the high cost of improving the efficiency of production, according to analysts. 

As the largest crude steel producer and consumer, China’s steel accounts for about 15 per cent of the country’s carbon emissions and over 60 per cent of the global steel industry’s emissions. Steel companies in the country are under pressure now Beijing has fully committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. 

The largest steel producer in the world, Shanghai-based China Baowu Steel Group said it will reach carbon emission peak by 2023 and will reduce emissions by 30 per cent before 2035. The steel maker is also investing in innovative technologies to ramp up production. It has formed a five-year partnership with Anglo-Australian miner BHP to invest up to US$35 million in greenhouse gas emissions research, including the deployment of carbon capture and hydrogen injection in the blast furnace.

Innovative technologies have been developed and tested to eliminate the carbon footprint by using hydrogen or by capturing and storing the carbon during production. Still, the high costs have prevented the technologies being used on an industrial scale. Analysts said the situation would change in the future.

Ecosystem for failure  

There has been a lot of cheerleading about do-it-yourself investing. People are opening discount brokerage accounts in record numbers and young investors are flooding into the market. 

I can’t help but think we’re building an ecosystem for failure. The excitement isn’t about investing. It’s about gambling and speculation. About riding a one-way market that’s being fuelled by low interest rates and a complacency to risk. 

To explain what I mean, let’s take a tour of the ecosystem, starting with discount brokers.

These firms are fighting for market share and their promotions are all about trading: low commissions, no commissions, 300 free trades a year and easy-to-trade apps. The visuals in the ads are powerful. A person who oozes success is looking at a screen with colourful charts and lots of numbers. Even I feel like I’m missing out on some really cool stuff, and I do this for a living.

The emergence of ETFs has brought the cost of investing down and made it possible to build well-diversified portfolios with just a few funds. But the industry doesn’t know when to stop.

There are more than 1,000 ETFs to choose from in Canada. There’s a fund for any mood you’re in. The initial emphasis on broad market exposure at a low cost has shifted to sector rotation (hard to get right), market timing (impossible to get right) and, yes, trading.

Option volumes have exploded for the same reason lottery tickets are popular — a small investment can pay off big. But there are no silver bullets in the options market. It’s dominated by professional traders and is highly efficient.

Today, investors have a cheering section rooting them on. Business news, apps and research websites like Motley Fool, and promoters on Reddit are telling you how to find the next Amazon and where the action is. Unfortunately, they’re selling the same edge to millions of others.

Investing is a solitary pursuit, not a social activity or entertainment.

We should not be too sanguine about a shrinking population  

When my mother was born, there were fewer than 3bn people in the world. When I was born, there were almost 5bn, and when I gave birth to my daughter, there were 7.7bn. She may live to see the beginning of a new era: the point at which the number of people on the planet begins to decline. 

The pandemic has caused a baby bust of historic proportions in some countries. In Spain, 20 per cent fewer babies were born in December 2020 than in the same month a year earlier, the lowest number since 1941, when such records began. Births fell 22 per cent in Italy and 13 per cent in France.

Almost half the global population now lives in a country or area where the lifetime fertility rate (the average number of babies per woman) sits below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 — the number that would keep the population stable. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is still growing fast, the fertility rate has declined from 6.8 in the 1970s to about 4.6.

Many will see this as good news for the planet. Rapid population growth has helped to put the environment under extreme stress. And in developing countries, declining fertility rates are usually connected to women gaining more education and opportunities.

That said, we shouldn’t celebrate declining fertility rates regardless of the cause. In some countries, people are having fewer babies than they say they want. In South Korea, where the fertility rate is now below 1, the working hours are too long, housing and education are too expensive and mothers too unsupported. Erin Hye-Won Kim, assistant professor at the University of Seoul, says the same system that powered the economy’s rapid development has put society under stress: “Working long and working late became virtuous.”

A stressed generation is not something to welcome, and it is not unique to South Korea, though it is particularly acute there. When the Financial Times surveyed young people around the world earlier this year, many spoke of a deep sense of insecurity that spanned unstable work and housing to the fear they would never be able to retire. Some said they didn’t feel secure enough to have children.

The risk is that, as countries begin to age and shrink, these dynamics enter a vicious circle, especially if young people see policy shaped increasingly around the needs of the more populous older generations.

We can’t control the number of babies women have, nor should we want to. But in many ways, having a child is an act of faith in the future. If some people are not having the babies they say they want, it is a warning sign we should heed, not something to shrug off because there are too many humans on the planet anyway.

This week's interesting finds

Immigration and Canadian housing market

Americans taking personal loans to invest in the stock market

Thinking about macro 

Macro forecasting is another area where – as with investing in general – it is easy to be as right as the consensus, but very hard to be more right. Consensus forecasts provide no advantage; it is only from being more right than others – from having a knowledge advantage – that investors can expect to earn above average returns. 

Nonetheless, since macro developments are so influential, many people think it is downright irresponsible to ignore them when investing. Yet: 

•Most macro forecasts are likely to turn out to be either unhelpful consensus expectations or non-consensus forecasts that are rarely right

•There are few investors who successfully base their decisions on macro forecasts. The rest invest from the bottom up, one investment at a time. They buy when they think they have found bargains and sell things they consider overpriced – mostly without reference to the macro-outlook.

•It may be hard to admit that you do not know what the macro future holds, but in areas entailing great uncertainty, agnosticism is probably wiser than self-delusion.

How Trader Joe’s $2 wine became a best-seller

In the spring of 2002, the label made its retail debut at the shockingly low price of $1.99 per bottle. Early on, in an internet chat room, a Trader Joe’s employee dubbed it “Two Buck Chuck” — a moniker that caught the eyes of budget-conscious shoppers. 

In the wake of the dot-com bubble, there was a demand for cheap wine. But nobody could’ve anticipated the brand’s success. 

For a $2 bottle, it performed astonishingly well in competitions: The Chardonnay won a double-gold at the 2007 California State Fair, and Wines & Vines magazine rated it higher than a $67 bottle in a blind tasting.

Two Buck Chuck, declared one New York Times critic, had “revolutionized wine drinking” forever. \

How to make money on a $2 bottle on wine 

Industry experts estimate a bottle costs ~$1.50 to produce, accounting for processing, packaging, labor, and shipping. The wine itself only makes up ~30-40% of this cost. Though the Charles Shaw label claims to be “Cellared and Bottled in Napa,” most of the grapes in the wine are grown in the Central Valley — an area with dramatically cheaper land and operation costs. 

Costs in the supply chain have also been minimized:

•oak chips are used to ferment wine rather than barrels 

•real corks substituted for composites

•lighter glass bottles are used, allowing them to ship more cases per truck and save on shipping

His role in changing the wine industry has earned him near-universal disdain among “true wine people” — mainly vintners who claim he’s “cheapened” the good Napa name. 

But this doesn’t seem to bother him much. 

“You tell me why someone’s bottle is worth $80 and mine’s worth $2,” he told a reporter in 2009. “Do you get 40 times the pleasure from it?”

Wisdom from decades of investing 

A podcast with Carl Kawaja, who has served as a portfolio manager at Capital Group for decades.

[00:16:37] - Discussing his investment style through the lens of simplicity

[00:24:35] - A time where he worked to try and create a simplified equation but couldn’t

[00:36:03] - Thoughts on whether buying well or holding well is more difficult 

[00:40:40] - Capital Group’s history and his river-rafting analogy in regard to the company 

[01:13:08] - Advice for new investors who want to step into the field and set themselves up for success

History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes

This week's interesting finds

This week’s charts 

In the market for a car? 

Market corrections by decade 

Social media 

Canada’s fiscal reality

It’s imperative that Canadians distinguish between convenient political rhetoric and reality when it comes to the country’s finances. The Trudeau government continues to promulgate three assertions that must be clarified. 

• First, that the government lowered personal income taxes for the middle-class. It simultaneously eliminated a number of tax credits such as children’s fitness, public transit and income-splitting for couples with young children. A 2017 analysis of these tax changes, which included both the tax rate reduction and the elimination of the tax credits, found that 81 per cent of middle-income families paid on average $840 more in income taxes. And a follow-up study found that 61 per cent of low-income families faced higher personal income taxes due to these tax changes. 

• Second, the Trudeau government continues to use Canada’s comparative government debt position as a rationale for more debt-financed spending. Using net debt, however, turns out to favour Canada in a way that fundamentally misrepresents our indebtedness because it includes the assets of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans to adjust total debt when calculating net debt. Those assets are required to finance the promised benefits to current and future retirees. Therefore, it’s misleading to offset government debt with these pension assets. This is one of the main reasons why Canada’s total debt ranking is so different from its ranking on net debt. When we compare total government indebtedness as a share of the economy among 29 industrialized countries, Canada falls to 25th with only Japan, Italy, Portugal and the United States having higher levels of indebtedness. 

• The third and final clarification relates to rates of economic growth. The government continues to reiterate its commitment to improving the economy, the inference being that their policies—namely higher taxes, higher debt-financed spending and more regulation of the economy—have led to stronger economic growth. But if we compare the four years prior to the 2020 COVID recession (2016-2019) to similar periods in the past, the Trudeau government experiences the lowest annual average rates of economic growth (2.1 per cent) dating back to Brian Mulroney.

The private equity backlash against ESG

Call it Newton’s law of corporate ownership. As listed companies come under increasing investor pressure to act on everything from executive pay to carbon emissions, a reaction against those constraints seems to be fueling a spate of buyouts by private equity firms. 

The first half of 2021 was a boom period for the sector with $500bn-plus of deals, the highest level since records began four decades ago. 

Done well, private equity has a crucial role to play in modernizing economies, helping companies to restructure efficiently away from the short-termist glare of public markets. Buyout firms rightly pounce on listed companies that they deem undervalued or bloated. In so doing, they keep capitalism efficient and act as a positive reactionary force.

But is private equity also reactionary in the conservative backlash sense of the word — facilitating a rebellion against some of the progressive constraints of public company existence, particularly the growing demands of complying with standards on environmental, social and governance issues? The evidence is mounting. 

More freedom on governance has long been seen as a plus for private companies. As listed company governance has become stricter, so the advantage of private company status has increased. Heads at private equity owned companies relish diminished bureaucracy and the ability to earn more money without critical scrutiny from public company shareholders. Fortress’s agreed £9.5bn buyout of Morrisons this month came with a strong hint that management “incentives structures” would be boosted, only weeks after the listed UK supermarket suffered a shareholder revolt over pay.

The fact remains, though, that ESG is a fringe topic in the private equity industry. That in turn risks undermining the whole drive to embed ESG in global business. First, the steady switch towards private ownership and away from public markets neutralises progress made in public company ESG standards. Second, private equity is under little pressure to change. Buyout firms claim that their “limited partner” end investors, such as right-thinking pension funds and endowments, are demanding more focus on ESG. However, those LPs have little genuine influence, given the wall of return-hungry money clamouring for access to the best private equity funds.

Can the nuclear industry power Canada’s future?  

Governments encourage electrification of cars, buildings and nearly everything else. Those efforts could double, even triple, electricity demand in the coming decades. But renewable forms of generation – hydro, wind, solar and biomass – have become preferred tools for decarbonizing electricity grids. And utilities can buy inexpensive wind turbines and solar panels today.

Seeking to catch up, dozens of nuclear vendors sprung up just in the past few years, promoting a dizzying assortment of next-generation models that have collectively been dubbed “small modular reactors” (SMRs)

Though the characteristics of individual designs vary widely, in brief, these compact new reactors promise to retain the main selling points of nuclear power generation – namely, low carbon emissions and predictable electricity output, rather than the intermittent power generated by wind and solar. The makers also hope to ditch the nuclear industry’s considerable baggage, which includes a long history of cost overruns and construction delays.

Senior government officials regard SMRs as indispensable tools for meeting Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions targets, by replacing coal-fired plants and by electrifying mining and oil and gas facilities. U.S. President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson have also indicated they will also support SMR development, as have some prominent investors, notably Bill Gates.

This week's interesting finds

Q2 EdgePoint commentaries

This quarter, Sydney Van Vierzen looks at why we believe that the key to ESG investing is making the world a better place, not just how a company is rated.

 

Derek Skomorowski discusses how we're positioning our Portfolios to deliver pleasing long-term returns regardless of the potential negative effects that central bank measures may have on fixed income markets. 

This week in charts 

Income earned in a savings account is at the lowest level, while income needed to beat inflation is at the highest level since 1994. 

Retail inflows into four direct brokerages account for approximately 20% of all US equity market volume since the start of the pandemic. Inflows were mainly driven from younger age groups, associated with a lower income category. 

The valuation spread between S&P 500 Index companies is wider than its historical average   

Inflation 

There are four main trends underlying the June inflation report. 

First are the items where prices fell sharply at the start of the pandemic and that are now returning to their pre-pandemic levels. 

Second are items where prices have temporarily risen above their pre-pandemic levels due to supply constraints and could come down. 

Third are items where prices are likely settling at a permanently higher level. 

And fourth are items where price increases have slowed rather than accelerated as a result of the pandemic, at least for now.

The loser’s game

To win at amateur tennis, you only need to avoid mistakes. And the way to avoid mistakes is to be prudent, keep the ball in play, and let the other guy defeat himself in doing so. The other guy will try to beat you but an activist strategy will not work. His effort to win more points only increases his error rate. And it works ever brilliantly when he doesn’t realize that he himself is playing a Loser’s Game.

It’s not just tennis. Any game can be assessed through the mental model of the Winner’s and Loser’s Game. What’s important is whether you can assess which one you are dealing with and adjust your winning strategy accordingly. 

Winner’s Games are ones in which the outcome of the game is entirely dependent on the player’s ability. Great examples of Winner’s Games are chess, sprinting, and weightlifting. 

Loser’s Games are entirely different from Winner’s Games. Loser’s Games are ones in which the players struggle to compete against the game itself. In such games you make more progress getting ahead by avoiding mistakes rather than making brilliant decisions. 

The loser’s game of investing

It’s gradually becoming a well-known fact that the majority of professional money managers—the ones who have devoted their entire career and day to picking stocks—are not beating the market. 

The investing game continues to suck in bright and articulate individuals laden with overconfidence who erroneously try to play the Winner’s Game rather than the Loser’s Game. They manage money for outsized gains, expose their clients to too much risk, and rake up too many transaction fees in the process. 

Why? Because these people all compete against themselves and they all try to do it faster than the other.

The very essence of how a Winner’s Game turns into a Loser’s Game is when the players all flock to the same place based on the wild successes of the early players. So, the investing game wasn’t always a Loser’s Game. It was transformed from a Winner’s Game into a Loser’s Game.

Luckily, there are a few principles that allow one to play the Loser’s Game of investing successfully for those who dare to do so.

Principle #1: Make sure you are playing your own game. In other words, know your circle of competence and know it really well.

Principle #2: Keep it simple. Simplicity, concentration, and economy of time and effort have been the distinguishing features of the great players’ methods, while others lost their way to glory by wandering in a maze of details. 

Principle #3: Concentrate on your defenses. Almost all of the really big trouble that you’re going to experience in the next year is in your portfolio right now; if you could reduce some of those really big problems, you might come out the winner in the Loser’s Game. 

Principle #4: Don’t take it personally. In the investing business, working harder isn’t at all correlated to getting a better outcome. And we are all, as a group, captives of the normal distribution of the bell curve. The way to give yourself the biggest chance of being on the right side of the curve is by fishing in the less-crowded pond.

This week's interesting finds

 CAUSATIONAL OR COINCIDENCE? 

Bond yields peaked at the same time as demographic ratio (number of 20 to 34-year olds divided by number of 55+ year olds). Both measures have been in secular decline since early 80s.

THE MADNESS OF FIRST HALF OF THE 2021

The capital inflows into equity in first half of 2021 are larger than all the inflows in first halves of the years for the last 20 years combined. 

The gain for global stocks in first half of 2021 is 7th largest gain in the past 100 years.

The annualized return for commodities in first half of 2021 is the largest in almost last 50 years and the 5th largest in the past 100 years.

PEAK FISCAL STIMULUS AND GAP BETWEEN LABOUR AND BALISTIC SPENDING

Large retail sales despite jobs still not being fully recovered could be explained by fiscal stimulus

As a result, US inflation was up 8.4% annualized in past 3 month, which is 9th fastest since WW2.

Patient investing is hard 

Patient investing is the ability to endure long periods of underperformance — adhering to your well-thought-out plan in the form of an investment policy statement — in hopes of achieving your investment objective. 

When it comes to judging the performance of investment strategies involving risk assets, far too many investors believe that three years is a long time, five years a very long time and 10 years an eternity. This is true even of most institutional investors — a State Street survey of senior executives with asset allocation responsibilities at 400 large institutional investors found that just 20% of respondents said they would tolerate underperformance of two years, and just 1% for three years.

Vanguard’s Chris Tidmore and Andrew Hon examined the amount of patience required of investors by quantifying the wide range of frequencies, durations and magnitudes of underperformance that both equity factor tilts and outperforming traditional active managers experience. Here are some of the findings: 

• About 70% of outperforming funds underperformed their style benchmarks between 40%and 60%of all one-year periods. 

• Almost 100%of outperforming funds had experienced a drawdown relative to their style and median peer benchmarks over one-, three- and five-year periods. 

• 8 out of 10 outperforming funds had at least one five-year period when they were in the bottom quartile relative to their peers.