Saturday , 19 August 2017


True or False: GDP Drives Stock Market Up & Down

Macroeconomic news supposedly explains only about one fifth of the movement ininvesting-6 stock prices but if there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best. Let me explain.

By Vadim Pokhlebkin/Robert Prechter (elliottwave.com) originally entitled Myth #5: “GDP drives stock prices” Part 5).

You may remember that during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, many called into question traditional economic models. Why did the traditional financial models fail and, more importantly, will they warn us of a new approaching doomsday, should there be one? This series gives you a well-researched answer.

Surely the stock market reflects the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. The aggregate success of corporations shows up as changes in GDP. Stocks are shares in corporations. How could their prices not reflect the ebb and flow of GDP?

Suppose that you had perfect foreknowledge that over the next 3 3/4 years GDP would be positive every single quarter and that one of those quarters would surprise economists in being the strongest quarterly rise in a half-century span. Would you buy stocks?

If you had acted on such knowledge in March 1976, you would have owned stocks for four years in which the DJIA fell 22%. If at the end of Q1 1980 you figured out that the quarter would be negative and would be followed by yet another negative quarter, you would have sold out at the bottom.

Suppose you were to possess perfect knowledge that next quarter’s GDP will be the strongest rising quarter for a span of 15 years, guaranteed. Would you buy stocks?

Had you anticipated precisely this event for 4Q 1987, you would have owned stocks for the biggest stock market crash since 1929. GDP was positive every quarter for 20 straight quarters before the crash and for 10 quarters thereafter but the market crashed anyway. Three years after the start of 4Q 1987, stock prices were still below their level of that time despite 30 uninterrupted quarters of rising GDP.

Figure 10 shows these two events. It seems that there is something wrong with the idea that investors rationally value stocks according to growth or contraction in GDP.

Interest rates, oil prices, trade balances, corporate earnings and GDP: None of them seem to be important, or even relevant, to explaining stock price changes but you need not trust your own eyes. In a study that is stunning for its boldness in actually checking basis premises, Cutler, Poterba and Summers, in a paper for the Journal of Portfolio Management in 1989, investigated the effect of economic news on stock prices and concluded that “Macroeconomic news bearing on fundamental values…explains only about one fifth of the movement in stock prices.”

Even here, I would question the conclusion that such news “explains” even 1/5 of the movement in stock prices. Surely a set of football statistics could generate a 1/5 correlation to the S&P and every correlation, to have meaning, must have a theory to account for it.

What theory accommodates the idea that macroeconomic fundamentals explain 1/5 of stock price changes? If there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best.

[The above article is presented by  Lorimer Wilson, editor of  www.munKNEE.com and www.FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com and the FREE Market Intelligence Report newsletter (sample hereregister here) and may have been edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. The author’s views and conclusions are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original article. This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.]

*http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2014/09/12/Don-t-Get-Ruined-by-These-10-Popular-Investment-Myths-%28Part-V%29.aspx#axzz3IOE2gK92 (© 2014 Elliott Wave International)

If you liked this article then “Follow the munKNEE” & get each new post via

Related Articles:
Most economists (primarily Keynesians and monetarists) believe that authorities can control the money supply and interest rates, and most neo-Austrians believe that the Fed is all-powerful when it comes to inflating – that whatever inflation rate it wants, it simply manufactures. Is that true or false? Read on for the answer. Read More »
This one seems like a no-brainer. The government or the central bank prints more bonds, notes and bills, and prices for things go up in response. Gold is real money, so it must fluctuate along with the inflation rate. It’s basic physics but it doesn’t happen that way. Let’s examine the history of inflation and the precious metals since the low of the Great Depression. Read More »
It seems logical that a scary, destructive terrorist attack, particularly one that implies more attacks to come, would be bearish for stock prices – but has that actually been the case? Read More »
It would seem logical to say that peace allows companies to focus on manufacturing goods, providing services, innovation and competition, all of which helps the overall economy but does peace, in fact, have anything to do with determining stock prices? Read More »
A sensible story of causation regarding oil prices and stock prices made by countless economists is that “rising oil prices increase the cost of energy and therefore reduce corporate profits and consumers’ spending power, thus putting drags on stock prices and the economy.” Stunningly, as far as I can determine, however, no evidence supports that claim, as the discussion below will show. Read More »
Q: Is it correct to assume throughout that an expanding trade deficit impacts the economy negatively? A: No, the relationship, if there is one, is that there has been a positive — not negative — correlation between the stock market and the trade deficit. Let me explain. Read More »
The belief that earnings drive stock prices powers the bulk of the research on Wall Street but this glaring exception to the idea of a causal relationship between corporate earnings and stock prices challenges that theory. Let me explain. Read More »
It is common for economists to offer a forecast for the stock market yet add a caveat to the effect that “If a war shock or terrorist attack occurs, then I would have to modify my outlook.” As such, it would seem logical to assume that…they must have access to a study showing that such events affect the stock market, right? The answer is no, for the same reason that they do not check relationships between interest rates, oil prices or the trade balance and the stock market. The causality just seems too sensible to doubt. Read More »
Events and conditions do not make investors behave in any particular way that can be identified as shown in this analysis of the supposed relationship between interest rates and stock prices. So much for the popular claim that “Interest rates drive stock prices”! Read More »