Jul
24
GDP and SP, from Duncan Coker
July 24, 2012 |
I did a quick look at real GDP vs. SP500 quarterly changes to see if there is any relationship. Regarding GPD there are numerous revisions and this study uses the final revision. Using the first estimate for GDP would have been better, but I don't have that data. So there is a retrospective bias. Here are the correlations with lags of up to 5 quarters since 2004:
GDP to predict SP500
0 .55
1 .16
2 -.17
3 -.21
4 -.11
5 -.09
Even given all the shortcomings of the study I would not have expected correlations to go negative after 1 quarter lag
SP500 to predict GDP
0 .55
1 .51
2 .35
3 .37
4 .15
5 -.04
Correlation is stronger in this direction and fits with the adage that the market it looking ahead 3-9 months.
Here is the same using the change of change for real GDP(1st derivative) vs SP500:
Rate of GDP Change to predict SP500
0 .47
1 .39
2 .06
3 .-15
4 -.01
5 -.01
This is somewhat interest with lag1, but not actionable since all the revisions for GDP usually take a full quarter.
SP500 to predict Rate of change of GDP
0 .47
1 -.05
2 -.20
3 -.02
4 -.26
5 -.23
Some relationship a year away, but seem suspect as not stationary.
Comments
1 Comment so far
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
Arguably the most cited study on this particular subject is the work of Dimson, Marsh, & Staunton (Triumph of the Optimists, 2002). They observe the contemporaneous relationship between compounded real equity returns & compounded real GDP per capita growth for 16 countries over a 101 year period from 1900 to 2000. They report a negative cross-sectional correlation of -0.27 for the total period & -0.03 for 1951 to 2000. The authors concluded “we find no link between stock market performance & GDP growth.”
Dimson, Marsh, & Staunton in collaboration with ABN AMRO (Global Investment Returns Yearbook, 2005) extended their previous work using 105 years of history (17 Countries) to test a trading rule. Each year, the authors ranked countries by their GDP growth over the previous 5 years. They found that a strategy of always investing in the bottom quintile of countries with the lowest GDP growth led to higher returns than one of investing in the quintile of highest GDP growth countries. Employing this same strategy on an extended group of 53 countries (smaller sample period than 105 years for most countries) again produced higher returns for lower quintile versus higher quintile investors. The study also suggested that none of the so called “BRIC” developing nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) were found to exhibit a significant relationship between equity return & economic growth.
Jeremy Siegel (Stocks for the Long Run, 1998) had similar findings in the period from 1970 to 1997. For 17 developed countries & 18 emerging markets, Siegel, found negative correlations of -0.32 & -0.03 respectively, between stock returns & GDP growth.
More recently, Jay Ritter (Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 13, 2005, pages 489 – 503) suggested that “Countries with high growth potential do not offer good equity investment opportunities unless valuations are low.” Professor Ritter hypothesises that one reason for the negative correlation between real equity returns & real per capita income growth is “a general tendency for markets to assign higher P/E & P/D multiples when economic growth is expected to be high, which has the effect of lowering realised returns because more capital must be committed by investors to receive the same dividends.”
There are probably many reasons why the GDP to Stock Market Return relationship is insignificant. Professor Ritter cites a few reasons albeit not exhaustive. GDP is somewhat sales driven while Stocks are corporate profitability driven, poor corporate governance can provide high returns to managers at the expense of minority shareholders, company returns may be earned offshore away from listed domicile, the stock market only represents part of the broader economy, economic growth through increased labor force participation rather than productivity growth, deployment of excess capital into new firms (no benefit to existing firms).
Interestingly much of the investment community believes that a strong relationship exists between GDP growth & equity market returns. After the Sex Pistols’ last gig in San Francisco (1978), Johnny Rotten famously chided his audience, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”