Three Things I Thought I'd Never See

Published in Company Comment on 26 February 2009

The shocks just keep coming, as the market continues to tumble and shares continue to get cheaper and cheaper. If it wasn’t happening in front of your very eyes, you’d never believe it.

1. Base interest rates at 1%

The Bank of England recently slashed its base rate to 1%, the lowest level in its 314-year history. It's even lower than the 2% it was at in 1951, when Winston Churchill was in power, and the country was recovering from its massive war effort.

The battle of 2009 is The Great Credit War or The First World Recession. Individuals and businesses have too much debt. Banks are not willing to lend, for fear of exposing themselves to yet more bad debts. People are not spending, instead they are hoarding whatever spare cash they have. (Ed: It’s called saving, stupid, an ancient pastime last seen in the early 1980s!)

House prices continue to fall, plunging an annualised 16.6% in the year to January. With unemployment on the rise, banks unwilling to lend, and potential buyers waiting for prices to get even cheaper still, the outlook for house prices is not promising.

But think ahead. Think ahead to the days when the economy gets back to some level of normality. Believe it or not, it will happen, probably in 2010. Think about mortgage rates of 3.5%. Think about how attractive the dividend yields on shares are compared to savings rates.

Some economists are forecasting the cost of borrowing could fall still further, with a base rate of 0% no longer out of the question. It's there in the US, and if it can happen there, it can happen here too. I never thought I'd see it.

2. FTSE 100 Shares trading on P/Es of less than 5 and dividend yields of more than 10%

I remember people who were actively investing during the 1973-74 stock market crash telling me that back then, banks traded on price to earnings ratios (P/E) of 2, 3 and 4. I found it hard to believe, and thought it could never happen again in my investing lifetime.

Fast forward to today…

Company

Share Price

Trailing P/E

Barclays (LSE: BARC)105p1
Lloyds Banking Group (LSE: LLOY)57p1
Royal Bank of Scotland (LSE: RBS)23p0.4

Obviously in this instance, last year's ratios are not worth the paper they are written on. But it is a very salutary reminder of a) just how far the share prices of these once mighty British banks have fallen and b) that banking P/Es really can fall to these tiny levels.

Banks aside, and using forward ratios, there are still many FTSE 100 stocks trading on what looks like ridiculously low valuations.

Company

Share Price

Forward P/E

Forward Dividend Yield

Aviva (LSE: AV)288p412.7%
Astrazeneca (LSE: AZN)2400p66.7%
BT Group (LSE: BT.A)86p59.7%
Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSA)1605p67.5%

Cheap as they may appear, and as high as the dividend yield looks, these are somewhat unprecedented economic times. Aviva for example is being hammered over capital concerns for the insurance sector, and because of their general exposure to a falling stock market. BT's profits are falling fast, has a large and growing pension deficit, and the dividend is under some threat. Shell is at the mercy of the sharply lower crude oil price.

There are no free lunches here, no reward without risk. But I never thought I'd see it.

3. The oil price back down at US$40 a barrel

It wasn't too long ago that oil traded at US$147 a barrel. Back then, common consensus went along the lines of:

  • the world is running out of oil;
  • world demand for oil is high and only going to get higher still in the years and decades ahead; and
  • most of the world’s cheap oil has already been discovered.

At the time, analysts were falling over themselves to predict higher and higher oil prices. Our own Maynard Paton, Chief Analyst at our share tipping service, Champion Shares (try it free for 30 days, with no obligation whatsoever to subscribe), won that particular competition with his tongue in cheek prediction of a $US10,000 oil price.

Today oil trades back around US$40 a barrel. It wasn't too long ago that Merrill Lynch Commodity Strategist Francisco Blanch said "A temporary drop below US$25 a barrel is possible…"

The oil price has recently regained some momentum. But who's to say it can't slump to US$25 a barrel? It has already been below US$35 a barrel, and the global economy doesn't look like it’s a about to take off any time soon.

Over the medium-term, with the marginal cost of discovering a new barrel of oil widely estimated to be about US$75-US$80 a barrel, and oil still being a depleting asset, in a rational market you'd imagine the oil price should eventually get back up to around those levels.

Just don't bank on it happening in the next few months. Fadel Gheit, director of oil and gas research at Oppenheimer & Co. in New York just yesterday said "I do not believe we will see $75 a barrel oil anytime soon…"

Strange times, times I never thought I'd see.

More on the economy, investing and the markets:

> If you’ve never seen The Motley Fool's Champion Shares premium share tipping service, now might be a time to try it. Sign up to a free 30-day trial and you can instantly find out the names of all the cheap, cash rich companies Maynard Patron is recommending as today’s buys. Click here to take a peek – there is absolutely no obligation to subscribe.

> This article was originally published on 5 December 2008. It has been updated.

> Of the companies mentioned in this article, Bruce Jackson has a small and shrinking beneficial interest in Barclays and Lloyds Banking Group.

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.

Staintunerider 26 Feb 2009 , 11:42am

What I would like to know is why there is still a "sir" in front of Fred Goodwin's name ? One of the arrogant individuals whose sheer incompetence causd this mess.

I hear now at the age of 50 he is drawing 650k per annum from his 16 million pension pot !

At least back in the days of proper Kings and Queens he'd be a permanent guest in the Tower.

Staintunerider 26 Feb 2009 , 11:45am

Personally if everybody wasn't running about like scared rabbits, they might just realise that property is probably the best long term bet. Especially with the current rates, I mean where else are you gong to invest ?

At least you can live in a house or someone will pay you to live in it..

bimber 26 Feb 2009 , 7:45pm

Property? Now? Hopefully the events of the last few years will have taught everyone that there is no such thing as a successful long term investment. You don't make money by buy and hold but by selling when things are expensive and buying when they are cheap, bearing in mind that some things appear "cheap" for a good reason, as mentioned above.

Property at the moment is an awful investment. It's still coming down from an inflated price whereas interest rates are low. So you will lose capital value if you buy now, whilst the price you eventually pay for the property can only go up. Even if you don't need to borrow you still contend with falling rental and capital values and an illiquid market. Frankly, why would anyone bother? Wait it out in cash until prices stabilise below their long term trend and laugh at the "smart money" which got in when everyone else was fearful.

kinshaw 02 Mar 2009 , 8:00am

The best long term investment?
Yourself.
I would have to agree that we need more of a trader mentality than buy and hold. Active asset management would seem to be the order of the day as recent events have decreed.

nopolitician 02 Mar 2009 , 9:30am

Where are the regulators??

I still want to know why, with BOE rates at 1%, I am still being charged around 20% for my credit cards?

It seems to me that it has effectively robbed income from the moderate investors/savers and continues to rob those without money to invest of the opportunity to reduce debts.
As usual, it is the bottom 20% of society that suffers under this regime.

As for 'Sir Fred', (and all his cronies), getting paid for screwing up is farcical. I would suggest that not only should he not be retired, I think justice should demand that they all fund a 'loan scheme' with repayment interest pegged at BOE base rate out of their own personal resources. They can retain 30k a year to live on out of the interest they subsequently 'earn' from the scheme.

A big problem here and elsewhere is the discrepancy between Law and Justice. In UK courts you get 'Law', not justice.

billyboy121 02 Mar 2009 , 11:16am

nopolitician - 20% is pretty high, but you could try not using credit cards? They are the least efficient form of borrowing other than illegal loan sharks so if you're paying that level of interest, I would advise against using them full stop.

And without Law, there'd be no financial system. What the government is proposing ie to legislate to deny an individual of property because they have acquired by law the 'court of public opinion' say so is verging on communism - I agree that it's not just, but if you start tinkering with the system on that basis and denying people of property rights, where does it stop? No one was complaining when the government was letting the banks lend people money like crazy, but in reality all debts have to be repaid one day and those that conveniently forgot that and borrowed like lunatics(eg Gordon and friends) have a lot to answer for

billyboy121 02 Mar 2009 , 11:21am

Oops that went a bit wrong – second para should read

And without Law, there'd be no financial system. What the government is proposing ie to legislate to deny an individual of property they have acquired because the 'court of public opinion' say so is verging on communism - I agree that it's not just, but if you start tinkering with the system on that basis and denying people of property rights, where does it stop? No one was complaining when the government was letting the banks lend people money like crazy, but in reality all debts have to be repaid one day and those that conveniently forgot that and borrowed like lunatics(eg Gordon and friends) have a lot to answer for

fedupofthesystem 02 Mar 2009 , 11:38am

It vexes me to hear of justice and rights in this case.The 'court of public opinion' ,is correct.The organisation that was destroyed by the inept and outrageously incompetent'Sir'Fred does not really exist,the government , using our money has bought the crippled remains of the company and should now be able to deal with it however we see fit.In the real world there would not be a pension pot for the fat rats to dip into.All pension thieves should be given the option of the 'Maxwell escape clause'

mer2k 02 Mar 2009 , 11:57am

nopolitician - the reason 20% is charged is because people are stupid enough to use the service, as billyboy says there are cheaper loans available.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy: you used the service knowing the rates, and must be prepared to pay the interest.

Yes, banks are squeezing their customers to regain the money they have lost, but you do have a choice, and don't have to use their services.

I do agree that the boards of these businesses should be further investigated, as giving bonuses for failure should not have happened - who wrote the contracts? This government is also implicated to a degree.

nopolitician 02 Mar 2009 , 12:00pm

Billyboy121

I am glad I sparked some comment,but....

If you have no money to pay your council tax, or eat, or heat your home, what do you do other than use credit.

If I try to delay or defer some costs, I get threatening letters and/or taken to court, which adds further costs. If I do not pay the council tax on time, it would cost more than I can afford to resist it. Council tax is over 20% of my income. A truly iniquitous tax. No 'ability to pay' is built into the payment system.

I do not want any handouts from the government, I just want them not to take it in the first place. It is ludicrous that thousands of civil servants are employed administering means tested benefits, when their pensions are funded from the Council Tax!

I am sorry, but I think on the point of Law and justice, you do not understand at all.
Yes, you need laws as a framework or guideline, but justice MUST transcend law, otherwise you really would end up with a totalitarian state. It is the ruler(s) that set the laws.

In history, being executed for stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family was law, it was not justice.

As to your comment about debts having to be repaid, I completely agree. BUT, if the lender does not play fair with interest rates, for many people repayment becomes impossible!

nopolitician 02 Mar 2009 , 12:14pm

Mer2k,

Most of my CC spend was in different circumstances to those that exist today. You are lucky that your own circumstances are stable enough not to get into debt. I do not have access to alternative loan sources that charge any less interest than the credit cards. I just want a fair rate in today's climate, which I would say for a credit card, should be about 8%p.a.

I have no problem with paying interest at a reasonable rate, but just to follow your argument through, what is the point of a base rate, if nobody takes any notice of it?

mrbigbathstew 02 Mar 2009 , 12:43pm

nopolitician

sorry, but you agreed the terms, and took on the debt

if you have no money, why aren't you claiming benefits?

if you spent the money "in different circumstances", what were you doing at that time to save for a rainy day?

and, bearing in mind risk vs reward (from the lenders view), noting that you "have no income", and that they have lent you money when you don't seem able to repay, on what grounds is 20% unfair? It seems like you could be considered high risk, which is thus built into the cost...

Aside from that, I agree credit cards are a rip-off, but you cant complain because you did it to yourself. Me, I use them, and pay them off every month. If theres a chance I couldnt pay them off, I wouldnt have spent on them. Through good times and bad, you have to budget. Buyer beware

bimber 02 Mar 2009 , 1:28pm

"Council tax is over 20% of my income. A truly iniquitous tax. No 'ability to pay' is built into the payment system."

Where I live your income would be les than about £6,000 for that ratio to hold true. Perhaps you could move somewhere more affordable or find a way to increase your income? If there were no council tax your ability to pay would be ignored by the companies that carry out the essential services currently supplied by the council. You would, of course, have the ability to use limit your use of those services.

You can try Zopa.com for a more "fair" loan rate. I don't think it will be 8%. As a saver I think 8% is a fair rate for a deposit account!

nopolitician 02 Mar 2009 , 2:48pm

bimber,

Thanks for the tips, but I think you do not have a full picture of what Council tax covers. I would be more than happy to pay a private company for 'essential' services, which, at most, accounts for 15% of this tax. The rest is made up of payments for 'national' services. Schools, Police, Civil Service pay and pensions etc. etc. The bulk of these should, in a fair and sane world be paid out of central funding.

Moving is not a good option as the costs of doing so would far outweigh the benefits, and I like where I live.

I guess the best option is, as you suggest, to increase my income.

Perhaps I should start a 'Ponsi' scheme, or other scam to fleece hardworking people like yourself. Which, these days, seem to be the 'in' thing. (tongue in cheek!!)

nopolitician 02 Mar 2009 , 3:03pm

mrbigbathstew,

It is always nice to read comments from sympathetic people, such as yourself!!

Please read my posts more carefully. I never said I had no income.
I said that I was threatened with court action over Council Tax, not that such action was ever taken, as I have always paid my way.
I have always paid my credit card bills, even if it only the minimum payment.
When I took out my credit cards, their rate was approx 14-15% against a base rate of approx 6%. I consider this to be reasonably fair.
Now the rate is 19.5% against a base rate of 1%. It is on these grounds that I say that 20% is unfair. On what basis would you disagree?

12stringman 03 Mar 2009 , 10:28am

nopolitician

I totally agree with you. Base rate has never been so low, so how can credit cards justify this difference. Surely it would seem more reasonable to drop the interest rates to a sensible level and have a chance of getting their money back.

Many people have little option than to use cards and I know how that feels. I am in the position of no longer using cards but in the process of repaying them. If the card companies continue to increase the rate of interest I may no longer be in a position to repay.

I WANT to repay what I borrowed, but it is increasingly difficult. Would the lenders really rather have 20%+ interest and end up with a bad debt than cahrge a fair rate and get everything owing them?

And ss for the patronising "Don't use it if you can't afford it" brigade - until you have walked a mile in others shoes do not be so smug in your replies. You do not know what lies around the corner for yourselves. If you ever end up in that situation, I sineely hope that you encounter more sympathetic - and empathetic - people than yourselves.

LandOfConfusion 03 Mar 2009 , 12:46pm

It's been interesting reading some of the comments here.

People have failed to budget, taken on expensive short-term debt and used it like a long-term loan. Now they are complaining that the CC companies have raised the rates because so many others just like them are defaulting and the CC companies need to cover those losses.

Oh, and if that wasn't enough they want sympathy because they over-extended themselves and didn't budget!

nopolitician, you provide a classic example of this. You aren't willing to move because "the costs of doing so would far outweigh the benefits, and I like where I live".

Ignoring the first point for a second, I cannot believe that the cost of moving is too expensive. If you own your house then sell and use the capital raised to pay off your debts. In the meantime rent. If you already rent then sell any non-vital processions (that 48" LCD TV isn't vital) and move somewhere cheaper. If nether of these ideas are workable then ether arrange an IVA or go bankrupt and hope that the government has any social housing left.

As for your second point: Tough. The new reality is this: If you can't afford it you can't have it.

We are in this mess precisely because people borrowed beyond their means in order to buy expensive, non-essential things like foreign holidays and a new car. Now that this debt bubble has finally burst I have no sympathy for those who over extended and couldn't be bothered to budget. Nothing in life is free and the sooner people realise that the better.

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.