The Stark Warning Of 112 Years Of History

Published in Investing on 14 February 2012

A hidden danger threatens your portfolio, cautions new research.

For investors, inflation is dangerous. No matter how reliable your income stream, inflation can rapidly degrade its purchasing power. Worse, inflation can ravage the purchasing power of your capital, too.

That said, many investors -- myself included -- will feel reasonably safe in the assumption that, in inflationary times, equities are a safer bet than most other asset classes.

Almost by definition, for instance, fixed-income assets -- bonds and gilts -- will suffer. The same goes for cash savings. But with their link to the real economy, and to corporate pricing power, equities intuitively seem a better bet.

No shelter

As research by London Business School academics Elroy Dimson, Paul March and Mike Staunton highlights, that assumption holds true -- up to a point.

But their findings, published last week in the latest Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook, are disturbing. Analysing the impact of inflation over various asset classes, and over an impressive 112 years of history in 19 countries, the conclusion that they come to is that no asset class is truly immune to the ravages of inflation.

In short, equities suffer as well -- although not as much as bonds, gilts or cash. And nor do commercial property and gold offer the protection that might be assumed.

Simply put -- and this is a simplification -- in times of high inflation, inflation-adjusted equity values go down, sometimes sharply. In times of low or modest inflation, they are more likely to hold their own, or appreciate.

Index-linked peace of mind

Over the weekend, Fidelity's Tom Stevenson wrote a thought-provoking column in the Daily Telegraph, discussing these findings.

He too, it turned out, had thought that equities would be a better buffer against inflation than the evidence suggested.

And the lessons, as he saw them, were twofold. First, don't rely exclusively on equities for inflation protection; index-linked bonds have a place in every investor's portfolio. Second, letting inflation get out of control is a very bad idea indeed.

Last night, I picked up the phone and chatted to him.

Short-term pain, long-term gain

While disturbing, the London Business School research does offer some reassurance, stressed Mr Stevenson. Look at investments that offer the prospect of an income -- unlike gold, or the house that you live in -- and equities remain a pretty decent bet.

"The research confirms the view that equities provide the best long-run return," he said. "So investors need to be exposed to equities, because that is where their returns are going to come from."

And over the long term, he added, inflation hasn't been an enormous problem. The difficulty comes during those periods, such as the 1970s and early 1980s, when inflation does get out of hand.

Which is why, he says, we should be worried about the extent of the quantitative easing that is being undertaken by the Bank of England in order to ease the credit crunch.

"People say that quantitative easing is only a little bit inflationary," he says. "But that misses the point that history suggests that a little inflation can very quickly turn into a lot of inflation."

Good news

Today's news on inflation is welcome. Inflation fell to an annual rate of 3.6%, significantly lower than the 4.2% recorded for December. Among economists, a fall of this magnitude was expected; input price pressures are slowing, and last year's rise in VAT falls out of the calculation.

My bet -- although article comments have previously disagreed with this view -- is that inflation will continue to fall, although I think that the Bank of England will struggle to get it down to very much below 2%.

But if that level of inflation can be reached, and maintained, then it's good news for equity investors.

For one of the clearest messages from the London Business School research is that during periods when inflation is moderate and stable, and not fluctuating sharply from year to year, equities have performed reasonably well.

"In such economic conditions, companies are likely to be able to make sensible capital allocation decisions, and prosper accordingly," explains Mr Stevenson.

Lurking danger

All of which says that the critical period for inflation is some way off -- mid-2013, perhaps.

If inflation can be brought down, and held down, then equity investors can be reasonably sanguine. If not, then the purchasing power of their income and capital is under threat. And, what's more, under a greater threat than many will have realised.

Here's hoping, then.

> Get the latest on investing and the markets from the desk of David Kuo -- join The Motley Fool Collective today.

More from Malcolm Wheatley:

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Wuffle 14 Feb 2012 , 7:37pm

While not key to the article, 'the house that you live in' is analogous to an income generating investment if it is owned. It could also give some protection from inflation.
A functioning adult (job. bills etc) will need an address. There is little difference day to day between having £100k worth of gilts paying 4% and renting accomodation for £350 a month, and owning a basic terrace worth £100k.
Each has a different risk profile, but it is inaccurate to suggest that the basic house is not 'income generating'. Go beyond basic and things change.

Wuffle.

ANuvver 14 Feb 2012 , 9:20pm

What on earth do you do for asset balancing when linkers are being played as a momentum trade? Jump on, if you like, I suppose.

I know there are a lot here who like to cost average and drip-feed to avoid market timing issues, but there's a lot to be said for stockpiling cash right now. I don't mean selling to try to catch a top, I just mean waiting and watching.

Austerity aint what it used to be. All of a sudden everyone's a bloody expert on Keynes.

mcecaro 15 Feb 2012 , 10:47am

QE is balanced by the de-leveraging going on in the developed economies....

People pay down debt ...Companies do the same...and NOW even Governments do the same... ==== amount of money comes down and therefore inflation stays steady ....

This is why BoE is "printing money" because they see that the amount of money is being reduced by families + companies + public sector ....

In the US they leveraged the "HOUSE asset class" to 18 trillions back in 2008 ....now Americans are reducing the leverage and so the FED is right to print more money and keep M4 at the same level.


snoekie 15 Feb 2012 , 3:50pm

I am with ANuvver, sitting on my modest pile.

The present market can possibly be likened to a pressure cooker, and soon likely to have overcooked the content to an amorphous mess, with a few exceptions.

And no, I am not selling anything, I am still well up on my original input, but well down on the highs of 2010/11. In the meantime the dividend income, my pension, has increased.

fedupwithbrown 15 Feb 2012 , 6:46pm

I thought the various Governments wanted some inflation to lower the value of debt repayments?

From what I have seen in my 60 years, it's always been better for you to be a borrower, not a saver!

Whatever I have done in my life to try to build some wealth for my old age has been scuppered by the idiots running the country and recently the banks.

ANuvver 16 Feb 2012 , 12:44am

fedupwithbrown:
"I thought the various Governments wanted some inflation to lower the value of debt repayments?"

They do. They just daren't admit it. Administrations must be seen to fight the good fight, but alone and on Chatham House rules over a fine cigar...

richjfool 22 Feb 2012 , 3:36am

On the subject of Government's devaluing debts.

"The pound in your pocket is worth the same today as it was yesterday". Yes, as long as you don't try and buy anything with it, or go abroad or even worse retire abroad!

bobble293 11 Mar 2012 , 2:12pm

Yes, devaluation hurts under the circumstances you describe (effectively reducing our ability to purchase foreign goods) At least when Harold W said it, Great Britain still had a manufacturing sector which benefited.

I'm not patting him on the back, just stating facts as I see them. Manufacturing represents less than 15% of our GDP now, so the benefits are much reduced. We could, of course resume manufacturing, but the competition's pretty formidable now, isn't it?

Oh, how we laughed at Honda, Volkswagen, Datsun, Bridgestone, Yamaha and Suzuki trying to compete in the motorcycle (and car) markets in the early sixties! Only Bridgestone (of those) dropped out, and two of the major players manufacture here in the UK.

Perhaps

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.