Markets Haven't Yet Discounted a Full-Blown Recession

 | Dec 19, 2022 01:04PM ET

If there is anything I've learned in my 35+ years of managing money for a living it is that markets hate uncertainty — especially when it comes to the macroeconomic outlook. And I think it is safe to say that the extreme uncertainty surrounding the outlooks for inflation, interest rates, the economy, and earnings that is responsible for this year's bear market environment.

In short, the Fed's fight against inflation caused investors to worry about growth. Or in this case, the distinct possibility for a lack thereof from both the global economy and corporate earnings. As a result, stock prices, which tend to be a discounting mechanism for future expectations, moved lower.

At one point (October 12, 2022, to be exact), the S&P 500 found itself -25.4% below its January 3, 2022, all-time high. I think most will agree that this represents a hefty amount of discounting for those future expectations. (And yes, I will agree that stock prices were more than a little "stretched" to the upside at their peak when you consider historical valuation measures.)

The question at times like these is, how much is enough? As in, how much of a decline in stock prices is needed to sufficiently discount the outlook for the future?

Granted, the ultimate answer here lies in the eyes of the beholder. But sometimes it is a good idea to look back at history for clues. So, let's take a look at the analysis from Ned Davis Research Group of all bear markets since 1900.

Cutting to the chase, what NDR found was that the degree of damage caused by a given bear can be classified into two different categories: Those bears that were accompanied by a recession and those that weren't.