Hello Speculation, My Old Friend
The term speculation[1] has been on the steady decline since 1840. The decline in use is somewhat surprising given the current market environment where speculation runs rampant. In recent weeks, our team inked a well-thought-out article about the speculation du jour titled, The Big Short: Volume II Starring $GME . Interestingly, they could have been writing about any of the past's speculations—like the Dutch Tulipmania in the 1630s and the roaring 20s that ran up to the 1929 crash. More recently, tech stock speculation reached a fevered pitch in the 2000s and was followed by an equally thrilling run-up in housing which peaked in Q1 2007.
“Speculation is easy to spot, but it is difficult to understand what brings speculative environments to an end.”
Memory Lane (1995-2000)
Speculation in technology stocks lasted for six years. Money managers and even the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan noted the overall frothiness of the markets. In his 1996 public address, Chairman Greenspan pondered, "but how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values…?" From 1995 to 2000, the Nasdaq grew sixfold (see Figure 1 below). Over several years, beginning in March of 2000, the tech-heavy Nasdaq stock index lost nearly 80% of its value. Even the "blue chip" tech stocks of the day: Cisco, Intel, and Oracle, fell fast. But because they had well established and viable business', they crawled from the rubble and thrived. But the road to recovery took 15 years as the Nasdaq crossed through its previous market peak set in March of 2000 in April of 2015.
Figure 1
Reason for the speculation?
As was the case leading up to the peak of the .com era, much of today's speculation has been brought about by venture capital (VC) investment. Key statistics surrounding VC investment are at or near all-time highs. This includes deal activity, VC-backed IPO's, and VC-backed M & A. You can learn more about VCs and speculation here. The influence of M & A on the market dynamics is meaningful—particularly for retail investors who see what VCs are doing and want a piece of the action. In the book, The Psychology of Money, the author notes that "people have a tendency to be influenced by the actions of other people who are playing a different financial game than they are." VC investors are some of the most sophisticated investors in the world. Simply put, VC investors are playing a different financial game than most people who want to get a piece of their action.
One reason for concern is that a mass of money is being put into the capital markets, including VCs, with a speculative bent. This changes the market's disposition. The stock market can quickly turn from a place to save for retirement and invest for college to a casino or dog track, where a quick buck can be made. The bottom line is that investing and speculating are not the same thing. In the last 25 years, the most successful investors I have observed have relied on simple truths to accumulate their wealth. They make their money by saving and investing over a lifetime. To be sure, some speculators hit it big, and those will be the stories you hear about. Others, as is the case with most speculative investments, will lose everything.
Access, Gamification, and Human Nature
This go-around, the rise of speculative investing seems to have a social appeal. With stock trading commissions at zero and gamified investment platforms, both access and the fun factor are present at levels I've never seen before. On the one hand, I'm thrilled that more people are interested in the capital markets. But I wonder if tools and access make investing more like a casino or betting app than serious investors' tools to achieve lifelong financial goals. If investing is being marketed to fulfill all your dreams in a couple of keystrokes, why wait a lifetime?
It is human nature to want a piece of what is working—after all, who wouldn't? We all know someone who made their money quickly. For every person who made an easy buck and won the lottery, millions of us are going to need to do it the hard way. Yes, the wet blanket approach to investing—like spending less than what you earn and putting a little away each month to an emergency fund. Forgoing a slice of your paycheck today so that you have something to live off when you are no longer generating an income from your labor. Driving the same old car so the payments you would otherwise have with a new car can go to your child's college savings account. I know what some of you may be saying, "he just doesn't get it." Maybe not, but what is true is that if investors do not choose a path, it will be selected for them. Or if not, they may bounce around from one path to another, making for a very emotional and disjointed investing experience. One path has a high probability of success because it relies on disciplined saving and investing behavior over a lifetime. The other approach is speculative, looks fun, is incredible to talk about, and has social equity—but unfortunately has a fractional probability of success.
Tesla and bubbles
There are plenty of speculative investments that will make an article like this seem out of touch and tired. Maybe so. Take the electric car manufacturer who recently booked its first full year of profits. Yep, the investor and media darling Tesla is worth $800 billion and just turned a profit in 2020 for the first time since it was founded in 2003. The only issue is that it is not from selling cars. The bulk of their profit comes from selling regulatory tax credits, not from selling cars. Read more about Tesla here. This is fine, and I own a few Tesla shares inside my low-cost Vanguard S&P 500 index fund. The point in sharing a story about Tesla is not to shame those that own the stock, nor is it a knock on the product as they make a good car. Instead, it highlights the influence of VC money and corresponding expectation for speculative investing and returns.
Dr. Olivier Blanchard, the most cited economist in the world, penned a 1979 masterpiece where he said this,
"Self-ending speculative bubbles, i.e., speculative bubbles followed by market crashes, are consistent with the assumptions of rational expectations. More generally, speculative bubbles may take all kinds of shapes. Detecting their presence or rejecting their existence is likely to prove very hard."
If speculation were a person, I would write it a letter. It would be short. It would go like this, "As for our families and how we advise Human Investing clients, we view each dollar as hard earned and essential to a well thought out financial plan. There is no play money or money we can afford to lose. As such, we are not much for speculation." Sincerely, your wet blanket.
[1] Merriam-Webster defines speculation as “a risky undertaking.” Thesaurus notes it is a “theory, guess, risk, or gamble.”
