Comment by darby_nine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by darby_nine | Hacker News Reader

Very interesting paper.

> I show that the decline in interest rates and corporate tax rates over the past three decades accounts for the majority of the period’s exceptional stock market performance.

It's interesting that they've shown this to the exclusion of other narratives, mainly frontier markets like semiconductors and software allowing "easy" creation of value. I think this is partially why investors are so eager to dump so much cash into AI/why Zuckerberg has been so focused on VR/AR—they're looking not just for a solid investment, but an opportunity to get into the rent-seeking class on the ground floor. Why would you invest in a piece of software when you could invest in a "platform" (aka privately-owned market) instead?

Of course, we can't just create these platforms out of nowhere—they require enormous moats like exclusive access to IP or regulatory capture or enormous production capacity or some sort of similar gimmick, and there's only a finite number of these. It seems like this is also a significant reason why growth isn't infinite and should be expected to slow and even reverse in time.

I haven't finished the paper but I eagerly look forward to reading it in full later.

EDIT: spelling, wording, I'm done editing; apologies.

Semiconductors and software have created enormous amounts of value for the companies that own them, but the Fed usually thinks in macroeconomic terms. For the macro economy, the effect of technical development on overall corporate profits is much more muted. Creative destruction destroys old industries as much as it creates new ones. For example, there's a TV show "Mad Men" about the dominance of Madison Avenue advertising firms; Google and Facebook have completely destroyed this industry. Berkshire Hathaway annual reports from the 1970s and 1980s used to say that the local newspaper for each major metro area was a natural monopoly and reliable source of corporate profits; now, this industry has been reliably commoditized by the Internet.

Of course, the creative destroyers in question would much rather focus on the "creation of value" narrative, because it avoids attracting attention (and competition or regulation) from the industries that they're about to destroy. So there are pretty significant information distortions in the popular narrative.

Interest rates and corporate taxes have the property that they affect the whole market, which makes them much more useful to the Fed. If you bought NVidia in 2022 or Apple in 1998, congrats, you made a good investing call. But if you bought the S&P 500 in 2009 and are congratulating yourself on your 600% returns over the decade, you should know that most of that is because of low interest rates, and if the low interest rate environment unwinds, so will your stock portfolio.

Interest rates have been all over the map over the last 60 years, including double digits in the 80s, and yet low-cost index funds have been a reliable driver of wealth that entire time.

"That entire time" only holds if you're looking at 20+ year time horizons, and zooming in shows the effect of interest rates. If you bought the S&P 500 in November 1968 and sold it in July 1982, you lost money in nominal terms, despite the CPI nearly tripling during that time period (so in real terms, you lost 2/3 of your investment). During that time period, interest rates went from 6% to 19%, also roughly tripling.

Then if you held from 1982 to 1987, the S&P 500 nearly tripled, despite low inflation and relatively few major technological changes. What was the difference? Interest rates went from 19% to 6%.

A useful lens with which to view this and other phenomena is "Which factors cancel out, and under what timeframes?" Technological development leads to large microeconomic winners and losers but little macroeconomic effect under short time frames, less than the business cycle, because the mechanism by which it increases overall welfare is to put workers out of work and firms into bankruptcy, freeing up those workers and that capital to be invested in new enterprises. Interest rates have a large effect over that timeframe, because they affect all firms in the economy equally. Over long time frames (multiple business cycles), the effect of interest rates washes out because they go up and then they go down and eventually they equilibrate near the long-term average. Technological development dominates then because you've given the economy a chance to adapt to new production methods and re-employ workers in obsolete jobs.

Broad index funds are indeed recommended to be held for a very long time for maximum yield. Continuous investment over at least 15 years is better precisely because it spans multiple business cycles and allows taking advantage of the lower prices during dips and recessions. But that's completely fine for those that want to save up for retirement.

The US population today is twice what it was in 1960. I know I am oversimplifying, but so much of the the history of long term growth could be intepreted as older people benefitting from progressively larger younger generations. More people = more production and more consumption = growth. I really wonder if this is sustainable with the projected future of population decline.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS10/

Zoom out to "Max" to get the full 60 year history. You can clearly see a full four decades of declining interest rates running from 1981-2020. That very neatly corresponds with the amazing stock market growth most HN readers, myself included, have grown up with.

The stock market growth is neatly correlated with declining interest rates, not with the actual value of the interest rates currently. That is, until the interest rates can't go any lower. The 10-year yield got as close as I hope it will ever get to zero back in 2020. There's nowhere to go but up from there.

For myself, I'm dusting off the old magic - a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio, with the stocks focused on value funds, plus a relatively small amount in "breakout" funds that could multiply a few times if technology goes the way I think it will. Maybe if interest fall a little bit I'll dial it to a 70/30 mix, but bonds are definitely part of the equation now.

But if interest rates rise, bonds lose too. That is, the bonds you hold today lose market value (the value you could get if you sold them today). The longer the duration of the bond, the more they lose. So if you expect interest rates to rise, I'm not sure holding bonds (especially long bonds) is the protection you want.

On the other hand, I may be missing something. Ray Dalio's All Weather Portfolio is 55% bonds, and it's supposed to be safe-ish for any market conditions.

They lose in the short term, but if you're buying and holding to maturity, you get that money back. If you're worried about losing "market value" in a rising interest rate regime, buy shorter-term bonds. You can buy short-term bond funds, or buy bonds individually on Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.

Google, Facebook and other internet platforms destroyed the viability of the industry previously providing the advertising mediums, which were newspapers/magazines. They didn't completely destroy the ad agencies creating the advertising. Large advertising firms are still responsible for many ads seen on YouTube, tv, billboards or on static Google/Facebook ads.

> Creative destruction destroys old industries as much as it creates new ones.

Yes, of course, but this frequently comes with significant productivity benefits. This is what I'm referring to when I say "creating for free". These marginal productivity improvements are going to be harder and harder to come by over time. Huge fan of Schumpeter, btw.

I call bullshit. Tax rates and interest rates certainly help spur investment and expansion of production but it’s hard to look at the world we live in today, with electric cars that can self drive and hand held devices connected to natural language comprehending oracles of knowledge, JIT industries end to end, starships to mars for colonization in mid to late stages, etc, and think “yep the only value is the value the federal reserve has created” as a federal reserve economist posits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox. "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."

There are definitely companies that are winning from the tech you pointed out, sure. The companies that make robotaxis and the companies that sell AI subscriptions are going to make bank.

But at an aggregate level, that robotaxi means a human tax driver is no longer working, and if every sales person has their own personal robot translator for talking to foreign clients, then none of them has a competitive edge over the others, they've just had to invest that money in order to avoid giving up a competitive edge.

That OP paper's argument is basically that the only rising tide that truly lifts all economic boats is being able to keep more of the money you make instead of having to spend it on interest or taxes. So the age-old wisdom of "just buy an index fund" may have run its course, and you will actually have to pay attention to valuations instead of just blindly buying the market going forward.

> So the age-old wisdom of "just buy an index fund" may have run its course, and you will actually have to pay attention to valuations instead of just blindly buying the market going forward.

The efficient-market hypothesis would probably disagree. If "paying attention to valuations" ever consistently produces greater returns, then index funds will start weighting their holdings in such a way to capture that value. If it produces greater returns, but not consistently, then we're back to gambling and things like technical analysis and trying to time the market.

I’d argue productivity measured in economic activity is measuring the wrong thing. Looking at my personal life I have paid about the same amount for an iPhone since they came out, and probably less on computing hardware YoY over my life time. However it’s impossible to say my iPhone today is equivalent to the iPhone I bought 15 years ago, even though the nominal price is the same. What these nominal values fail to price is the “quality” of stuff improving while prices and demand for “more shit” doesn’t keep up. At some level we have enough shit, and we expect things to be about the same price year over year for something that has improved materially over that time. Where does this get valued?

I also think a goal of full employment naturally leads to a flattening of productivity. We hire a lot of people to do work that isn’t super productive because we consider employment more important than raw numerical superiority. We probably could let go many people and improve productivity at a great expense to social cohesion. This doesn’t seem like progress to most people if we had 30% unemployment. To the papers point low interest rates and reducing taxes creates a lot of space for inefficient employment. There even might, if you get particularly breathless, be a time post scarcity when employment itself is anachronistic. But as we have no method of social or communal distribution today in capitalists societies, we would need to find a way to keep people pecking for food pellets. Productivity would fall off a cliff at that point.

I thing what this paper illustrates more than anything is that productivity as a measure of value is pre-automation industrial thinking that we largely stick with because it’s really a lot harder to measure anything else. Valuations in the stock market IMO have decoupled from traditional economic measures because those measures are flawed and don’t explain how we value things in modernity.

> it’s hard to look at the world we live in today, with electric cars that can self drive and hand held devices connected to natural language comprehending oracles of knowledge, JIT industries end to end, starships to mars for colonization in mid to late stages, etc, and think “yep the only value is the value the federal reserve has created” as a federal reserve economist posits.

I agree that we're still producing new technology, but just because a certain technology is impressive doesn't mean it's going to yield a lot of value to investors or yield a lot of marginal improvement to productivity. Perhaps I'll be demonstrated wrong when we start mining asteroids and flooding the market with massive productivity shifts again, but there's not exactly any sign this is right around the corner. There's certainly no reason to assume growth as a market invariant just because of technological development has led to growth in the past.

> starships to mars for colonization in mid to late stages

?? Did I miss a news article?? I know we've successfully landed on the moon, but we don't have reliable ways of commuting there let alone setting up a colony.

I even hear about astronauts stuck in orbit for months at a time.

mars is just a little bit further away and has similar atmosphere problems as the moon.

The best writing on economics I have ever read is in the book Chance and Chaos by David Ruelle.

Ruelle gives some thoughts on economics but ultimately concludes something like "we don't currently have the tools needed to properly study this subject".

I don't think that's the claim. The claim is that the stock market outperforming the historical trend is due to declining interest rates.

I mean, there was value created in the 1960s and 1970s, too - computers! Minicomputers! Microcomputers! Transistor radios! Walking on the moon! 747s! Much better railroad engines! The start of the internet! The interstate highway system! And on and on. But it wasn't showing up in the stock market. Why not? Because the interest rates were rising, and almost all of the gains were disappearing into that headwind.

well, they're looking at earnings growth, not profit margins. You could have a company that increases profitability YoY and not grow revenue as well. It's less typical, but certainly possible with technology companies. I think this paper misses that fact.

This is fair. But the theoretical maximum of profitability is 100% of revenue. A company that increased their revenue 10x while keeping the same 10% profit margin (both numbers quite normal) achieved the same profit as if it kept the revenue the same and grew profitability to 100% (pure fantasy).

Also, larger streams of money create the economic multiplier effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com