by Gary Alexander

May 11, 2021

What’s your worst market fear? A big correction, a crash of 20% or more? Long-term investors have nothing to fear. Nearly every major downturn has been followed by an opposite but equal upturn.

Call it “reversion to the mean” or “Newton’s law of Thermodynamics” or simply “a return to our senses.”

In early May 2009, I began contributing to Louis Navellier’s MarketMail. My first essay covered the rapid growth in China (see last week’s GrowthMail). My second article was entitled, “The Worst Crash Since 1929 Implies the Best Recovery since 1932.” That headline was so controversial that it prompted USA Today’s financial markets editor Matt Krantz to call me and ask, “How can you be so sure?”

At the time, my prediction sounded too good to be true. The Dow was mired at 8,285 when Matt called. The baby bull was fragile, only two months old, but I laid out the record of earlier mega-crashes in 1929-32, 1974, 1987, and 2002.  Each gave birth to historically strong recoveries – a restoration to the mean.

Huge crashes always precede huge recoveries – and something just like that happened all over again in the last 13 months. The stock market went down way too fast from February 18 to March 23, 2020, so a “reversion to the mean” implied an equally powerful and rapid move upward. It’s the financial version of Newton’s Third Law of Thermodynamics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Back in 2009, it took almost two years for the S&P 500 to double from its low. On February 18, 2011, the S&P 500 closed at 1343, finally doubling from its 666 low of March 6, 2009. At the time, The Wall Street Journal called it “the fastest doubling since 1936.” Small stocks did even better: The S&P 400 MidCap and 600 SmallCap indexes were up 139% in those 23+ months. In the latest recovery, some indexes have already doubled in the 13.5 months since March 23, 2020, while the Dow and S&P 500 are up over 90%.

 Index   March 23, 2020 Low   Recent High   2021 High   Gain since March, 2020
 Russell 2000    966.42    2,360.17    March 15    +144.2% in 11.7 months
 NASDAQ Composite    6,631.42    14,211.57    April 29   +114.3% in 13.2 months
 S&P 500    2,191.86    4,238.04    May 7    +92.5% in 13.5 months
 Dow Jones Industrials    18,213.65    34,811.39    May 7    +91.1% in 13.5 months
 Data Source: Yahoo Finance

Why such a rapid rebound? The first look at first-quarter GDP came in at +6.4%. The Atlanta Fed sees second-quarter GDP at 11%, but that is a rapidly changing real-time estimate. Economists surveyed by IHS Markit see a more realistic target of 8.3%. The highest full-year growth rate of the last 70 years was 7.2% in 1984. If we exceed that, 2021 could be the best year in 70 years, since Truman was President.

The onset of the Korean War in 1950 pushed the economy up to 8.7% growth rate in 1950 and then 8.0% in 1951, but that was based on a nominal GDP of just $300 billion, or about 1.5% the size of today’s economy. (Adjusted for inflation, the 1950 economy was closer to $2.3 trillion in today’s dollars.) But growing a $20 trillion economy at 7% is far more difficult than growing a $2 trillion economy at 8%!

Who Will Win the 21st Century – China or the U.S.?

Now let me return to last week’s big question – Who will “win” the 21st century? When you compare raw numbers, you have to ask: What good does it do for America to grow 5% or 6% a year if China can grow 10% to 12% a year? It now seems certain that China will someday surpass the U.S. in GDP, but bear in mind that they have four times as many people – so their per capita GDP would still be 75% below ours.

These kinds of questions deliver a huge wave of “Déjà vu” to me. In the 1980s, it seemed like everyone was saying Japan would pass the U.S. by the year 2000. In fact, I was among the first economic writers to take such a position – in late 1967, fresh out of college. I was hired by a national magazine and joined a senior writer there to assemble a series of three surveys of the Economy of the Rising Sun. I did all the economic research and writing for the 7-page opener, “Japan: Industrial Supergiant,” rife with charts and data on trade and ship tonnage. My co-author wrote a second essay, “Japan’s Feet of Clay,” predicting their ultimate fall. Together, we wrote “Japan’s New Role in Asia,” so before Japan’s rise, we foresaw its fall, based on demographic flaws (few children, fewer immigrants), vertical (closed) corporate zaibatsu, and huge debt: Japan now has a 230% debt-to-GDP ratio, and an economy addicted to zero-interest loans.

Will China fall to some of these same “feet of clay” flaws in the future? I think so. Like Japan, and our own growth recently, too much of China’s growth is financed by debt and an outpouring of cash from the central government. In fact, the government there is far more over-extended than ours, and they are skating on far more speculative ice when it comes to financing their state-owned enterprises (S.O.E.s).

China is flirting with a 300% debt-to-GDP ratio in an economy far more fragile than ours, especially since Xi Jinping launched the costly “Belt and Road Initiative” in 2013. Bloomberg has been charting China’s debt leverage since 2014: It has clearly risen during the pandemic of 2020 – its greatest surge since 2015:

China's Debt to Gross Domestic Product Ratio Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

China desperately needs trade and growth to keep its debt machine fed. Think Bernie Madoff – “Must find new clients.” China’s trade has kept them growing. Every nation keeps a “balance of payments” account, and those accounts must balance across borders. For every Chinese export, there must be an equivalent import in some other nation. The same is true for internal consumption. Their new buildings and roads are clearly visible to any visitor, but are those structures used profitably and well? That is another question.

Also, I don’t think China will ever grow by double digits again. When China was smaller (like when I visited there in 1996), double-digit growth was almost easy. You can grow 10% a year from a base of $1 billion quite easily, but it’s much harder from a $10 billion base. In 2016, my friend and old China hand Robert Lawrence Kuhn wrote of the discontent in China when their annual growth rate slipped below 7%.

Ten years ago, in 2006, when China’s growth rate was a robust 12.7%, everyone was happy – count on China to drive world economic growth! Now everyone is on edge about China. But consider this: the GDP base is far bigger. In 2005, China’s GDP was $2.3 trillion, and 12.7% growth meant an increase of under $300 billion in 2006.

Fast-forward ten years. In 2015, China’s GDP was $11 trillion, and 6.5% growth would mean an increase of over $700 billion in 2016 – more than twice the absolute amount the economy grew in 2006 when the growth rate was that happiness-engendering 12.7%. And since China’s population in 2016 is only marginally more than it was in 2006, the absolute amount of GDP growth per capita will be well more this year than it was a decade ago.
–Robert Lawrence Kuhn, “Understanding China’s Economy,” CCTV, December 12, 2016

The same math is true in America, of course. The larger the economy, the more difficult it is to grow fast.

China's Economy in Two Charts

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Despite rapid GDP growth, China’s stock market performance has been nowhere near as impressive as the U.S. equivalent, reflecting the fact that the vast array of their companies are not organized as clearly for the benefit of the shareholder as are most U.S. equivalents – with notable exceptions, of course.

Here’s how the two markets compare in the decade from the Great Recession to the onset of COVID (mid-2009 to mid-2019). China’s market was flat, while the S&P 500 tripled, so investors must ask: What did all those double-digit annual economic gains do for most Chinese (or overseas investors in China)?

Standard and Poor's 500 Index versus Shanghai Composite Index Chart

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Who will win? We’re not in this world alone. We need allies. China is alienating almost everyone. We shouldn’t do the same. In 12 key nations, a single question was asked between 2002 and 2020. With few exceptions, there was a sharp rise in unfavorable views of China since 2015 (i.e., under Xi Jinping).

Negative Evaluations of China Across Advanced Economies Charts

Graphs are for illustrative and discussion purposes only. Please read important disclosures at the end of this commentary.

Who will win? In the end, it will come down more to the quality of growth than the quantity, and that includes the quality of life. China has cleaned up some of its cities, but it still has nine of the 25 most polluted air quality conditions among world cities. (India now leads with four of the worst five cities.) Each nation is home to 1.4 billion people. Overcrowding is a serious challenge, but having fewer children poses an opposite challenge – who will work to support the elderly? China is also still a command-and-control Communist economy with severe human rights abuses and ongoing fraudulent trade practices amid a growing military buildup, so the question of who will “win” takes on greater import. America has its challenges, too – do we really want to grow and stay #1? – but the world would be better off if we did.

All content above represents the opinion of Gary Alexander of Navellier & Associates, Inc.

Please see important disclosures below.

About The Author

Gary Alexander
SENIOR EDITOR

Gary Alexander has been Senior Writer at Navellier since 2009.  He edits Navellier’s weekly Marketmail and writes a weekly Growth Mail column, in which he uses market history to support the case for growth stocks.  For the previous 20 years before joining Navellier, he was Senior Executive Editor at InvestorPlace Media (formerly Phillips Publishing), where he worked with several leading investment analysts, including Louis Navellier (since 1997), helping launch Louis Navellier’s Blue Chip Growth and Global Growth newsletters.

Prior to that, Gary edited Wealth Magazine and Gold Newsletter and wrote various investment research reports for Jefferson Financial in New Orleans in the 1980s.  He began his financial newsletter career with KCI Communications in 1980, where he served as consulting editor for Personal Finance newsletter while serving as general manager of KCI’s Alexandria House book division.  Before that, he covered the economics beat for news magazines. All content of “Growth Mail” represents the opinion of Gary Alexander

Important Disclosures:

Although information in these reports has been obtained from and is based upon sources that Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy and it may be incomplete or condensed. All opinions and estimates constitute Navellier’s judgment as of the date the report was created and are subject to change without notice. These reports are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. Any decision to purchase securities mentioned in these reports must take into account existing public information on such securities or any registered prospectus.To the extent permitted by law, neither Navellier & Associates, Inc., nor any of its affiliates, agents, or service providers assumes any liability or responsibility nor owes any duty of care for any consequences of any person acting or refraining to act in reliance on the information contained in this communication or for any decision based on it.

Past performance is no indication of future results. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report. Dividend payments are not guaranteed. The amount of a dividend payment, if any, can vary over time and issuers may reduce dividends paid on securities in the event of a recession or adverse event affecting a specific industry or issuer.

None of the stock information, data, and company information presented herein constitutes a recommendation by Navellier or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Any specific securities identified and described do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients. The holdings identified do not represent all of the securities purchased, sold, or recommended for advisory clients and the reader should not assume that investments in the securities identified and discussed were or will be profitable.

Information presented is general information that does not take into account your individual circumstances, financial situation, or needs, nor does it present a personalized recommendation to you. Individual stocks presented may not be suitable for every investor. Investment in securities involves significant risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. Investment in fixed income securities has the potential for the investment return and principal value of an investment to fluctuate so that an investor’s holdings, when redeemed, may be worth less than their original cost.

One cannot invest directly in an index. Index is unmanaged and index performance does not reflect deduction of fees, expenses, or taxes. Presentation of Index data does not reflect a belief by Navellier that any stock index constitutes an investment alternative to any Navellier equity strategy or is necessarily comparable to such strategies. Among the most important differences between the Indices and Navellier strategies are that the Navellier equity strategies may (1) incur material management fees, (2) concentrate its investments in relatively few stocks, industries, or sectors, (3) have significantly greater trading activity and related costs, and (4) be significantly more or less volatile than the Indices.

ETF Risk: We may invest in exchange traded funds (“ETFs”) and some of our investment strategies are generally fully invested in ETFs. Like traditional mutual funds, ETFs charge asset-based fees, but they generally do not charge initial sales charges or redemption fees and investors typically pay only customary brokerage fees to buy and sell ETF shares. The fees and costs charged by ETFs held in client accounts will not be deducted from the compensation the client pays Navellier. ETF prices can fluctuate up or down, and a client account could lose money investing in an ETF if the prices of the securities owned by the ETF go down. ETFs are subject to additional risks:

  • ETF shares may trade above or below their net asset value;
  • An active trading market for an ETF’s shares may not develop or be maintained;
  • The value of an ETF may be more volatile than the underlying portfolio of securities the ETF is designed to track;
  • The cost of owning shares of the ETF may exceed those a client would incur by directly investing in the underlying securities; and
  • Trading of an ETF’s shares may be halted if the listing exchange’s officials deem it appropriate, the shares are delisted from the exchange, or the activation of market-wide “circuit breakers” (which are tied to large decreases in stock prices) halts stock trading generally.

Grader Disclosures: Investment in equity strategies involves substantial risk and has the potential for partial or complete loss of funds invested. The sample portfolio and any accompanying charts are for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial instrument and should not be relied upon as the sole factor in an investment making decision. As a matter of normal and important disclosures to you, as a potential investor, please consider the following: The performance presented is not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the reported performance of the A, B, C, D, and F portfolios (collectively the “model portfolios”) should be considered mere “paper” or pro forma performance results based on Navellier’s research.

Investors evaluating any of Navellier & Associates, Inc.’s, (or its affiliates’) Investment Products must not use any information presented here, including the performance figures of the model portfolios, in their evaluation of any Navellier Investment Products. Navellier Investment Products include the firm’s mutual funds and managed accounts. The model portfolios, charts, and other information presented do not represent actual funded trades and are not actual funded portfolios. There are material differences between Navellier Investment Products’ portfolios and the model portfolios, research, and performance figures presented here. The model portfolios and the research results (1) may contain stocks or ETFs that are illiquid and difficult to trade; (2) may contain stock or ETF holdings materially different from actual funded Navellier Investment Product portfolios; (3) include the reinvestment of all dividends and other earnings, estimated trading costs, commissions, or management fees; and, (4) may not reflect prices obtained in an actual funded Navellier Investment Product portfolio. For these and other reasons, the reported performances of model portfolios do not reflect the performance results of Navellier’s actually funded and traded Investment Products. In most cases, Navellier’s Investment Products have materially lower performance results than the performances of the model portfolios presented.

This report contains statements that are, or may be considered to be, forward-looking statements. All statements that are not historical facts, including statements about our beliefs or expectations, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of The U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified by such forward-looking terminology as “expect,” “estimate,” “plan,” “intend,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “continue,” “project,” or similar statements or variations of such terms. Our forward-looking statements are based on a series of expectations, assumptions, and projections, are not guarantees of future results or performance, and involve substantial risks and uncertainty as described in Form ADV Part 2A of our filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is available at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov or by requesting a copy by emailing info@navellier.com. All of our forward-looking statements are as of the date of this report only. We can give no assurance that such expectations or forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. Actual results may differ materially. You are urged to carefully consider all such factors.

FEDERAL TAX ADVICE DISCLAIMER: As required by U.S. Treasury Regulations, you are informed that, to the extent this presentation includes any federal tax advice, the presentation is not written by Navellier to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax penalties. Navellier does not advise on any income tax requirements or issues. Use of any information presented by Navellier is for general information only and does not represent tax advice either express or implied. You are encouraged to seek professional tax advice for income tax questions and assistance.

IMPORTANT NEWSLETTER DISCLOSURE:The hypothetical performance results for investment newsletters that are authored or edited by Louis Navellier, including Louis Navellier’s Growth Investor, Louis Navellier’s Breakthrough Stocks, Louis Navellier’s Accelerated Profits, and Louis Navellier’s Platinum Club, are not based on any actual securities trading, portfolio, or accounts, and the newsletters’ reported hypothetical performances should be considered mere “paper” or proforma hypothetical performance results and are not actual performance of real world trades.  Navellier & Associates, Inc. does not have any relation to or affiliation with the owner of these newsletters. There are material differences between Navellier Investment Products’ portfolios and the InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletter portfolios authored by Louis Navellier. The InvestorPlace Media, LLC newsletters contain hypothetical performance that do not include transaction costs, advisory fees, or other fees a client might incur if actual investments and trades were being made by an investor. As a result, newsletter performance should not be used to evaluate Navellier Investment services which are separate and different from the newsletters. The owner of the newsletters is InvestorPlace Media, LLC and any questions concerning the newsletters, including any newsletter advertising or hypothetical Newsletter performance claims, (which are calculated solely by Investor Place Media and not Navellier) should be referred to InvestorPlace Media, LLC at (800) 718-8289.

Please note that Navellier & Associates and the Navellier Private Client Group are managed completely independent of the newsletters owned and published by InvestorPlace Media, LLC and written and edited by Louis Navellier, and investment performance of the newsletters should in no way be considered indicative of potential future investment performance for any Navellier & Associates separately managed account portfolio. Potential investors should consult with their financial advisor before investing in any Navellier Investment Product.

Navellier claims compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). To receive a complete list and descriptions of Navellier’s composites and/or a presentation that adheres to the GIPS standards, please contact Navellier or click here. It should not be assumed that any securities recommendations made by Navellier & Associates, Inc. in the future will be profitable or equal the performance of securities made in this report.

FactSet Disclosure: Navellier does not independently calculate the statistical information included in the attached report. The calculation and the information are provided by FactSet, a company not related to Navellier. Although information contained in the report has been obtained from FactSet and is based on sources Navellier believes to be reliable, Navellier does not guarantee its accuracy, and it may be incomplete or condensed. The report and the related FactSet sourced information are provided on an “as is” basis. The user assumes the entire risk of any use made of this information. Investors should consider the report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. The report is for informational purposes only and is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of a security. FactSet sourced information is the exclusive property of FactSet. Without prior written permission of FactSet, this information may not be reproduced, disseminated or used to create any financial products. All indices are unmanaged and performance of the indices include reinvestment of dividends and interest income, unless otherwise noted, are not illustrative of any particular investment and an investment cannot be made in any index. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.