Aswath Damodaran's Blog

Sovereign Ratings, Default Risk and Markets: The Moody's Downgrade Aftermath!

Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:31:00 -0700

��I was on a family vacation in August 2011 when I received an email from a journalist asking me what I thought about the S&P ratings downgrade for the US. Since I stay blissfully unaware of most news stories and things related to markets when I am on the beach, I had to look up what he was talking about, and it was S&P's , which had always enjoyed AAA, the highest sovereign rating ��that can be granted to a country, to AA+, reflecting their concerns about both the fiscal challenges faced by the country, with mounting trade and budget deficits, as well as the willingness of its political institutions to flirt with the possibility of default. For more than a decade, S&P remained the outlier, but in 2023, Fitch joined it by also , citing the same reasons. That left Moody's, the third of the major sovereign ratings agencies, as the only one that persisted with a Aaa (Moody's equivalent of AAA) for the US, but that changed on May 16, 2025, when it too downgraded the US from Aaa (negative) to Aa1 (stable). Since the ratings downgrade happened after close of trading on a Friday, there was concern that markets would wake up on the following ��Monday (May 19) to a wave of selling, and while that did not materialize, the rest of the week was a down week for both stocks and US treasury bonds, especially at the longest end of the maturity spectrum. Rather than rehash the arguments about US debt and political dysfunction, which I am sure that you had read elsewhere, I thought I would take this moment to talk about sovereign default risk, how ratings agencies rate sovereigns, the biases and errors in sovereign ratings and their predictive power, and use that discussion as a launching pad to talk about how the US ratings downgrade will affect equity and bond valuations not just in the US, but around the world.

Sovereign Defaults: A History

�� Through time, governments have often been dependent on debt to finance themselves, some in the local currency and much in a foreign currency. A large proportion of sovereign defaults have occurred with foreign currency sovereign borrowing, as the borrowing country finds itself short of the foreign currency to meet its obligations. However, those defaults, and especially so in recent years, have been supplemented by countries that have chosen to default on local currency borrowings. I use the word "chosen" because most countries ��have the capacity to avoid default on local currency debt, being able to print money in that currency to pay off debt, but chose not to do so, because they feared the consequences of the inflation that would follow more than the consequences of default.
While the number of sovereign defaults has ebbed and flowed over time, there are two points worth making about the data. The first is that, over time, sovereign defaults, especially on foreign currency debt, have shifted from bank debt to sovereign bonds, with three times as many sovereign defaults on bonds than on bank loans in 2023. The second is that local currency defaults are persistent over time, and while less frequent than foreign currency defaults, remain a significant proportion of total defaults. �� The consequences of sovereign default have been both economic and political. Besides the obvious implication that lenders to that government lose some or a great deal of what is owed to them, there are other consequences. Researchers who have examined the aftermath of default have come to the following conclusions about the short-term and long-term effects of defaulting on debt:Default has a negative impact on the economy, with real GDP dropping between 0.5% and 2%, but the bulk of the decline is in the first year after the default and seems to be short lived.Default does affect a country’s long-term sovereign rating and borrowing costs. One study of credit ratings in 1995 found that the ratings for countries that had defaulted at least once since 1970 were one to two notches lower than otherwise similar countries that had not defaulted. In the same vein, defaulting countries have borrowing costs that are about 0.5 to 1% higher than countries that have not defaulted. Here again, though, the effects of default dissipate over time.Sovereign default can cause trade retaliation. One study indicates a drop of 8% in bilateral trade after default, with the effects lasting for up to 15 years, and another one that uses industry level data finds that export-oriented industries are particularly hurt by sovereign default.Sovereign default can make banking systems more fragile. A study of 149 countries between 1975 and 2000 indicates that the probability of a banking crisis is 14% in countries that have defaulted, an eleven percentage-point increase over non-defaulting countries.Sovereign default also increases the likelihood of political change. While none of the studies focus on defaults per se, there are several that have examined the after-effects of sharp devaluations, which often accompany default. A study of devaluations between 1971 and 2003 finds a 45% increase in the probability of change in the top leader (prime minister or president) in the country and a 64% increase in the probability of change in the finance executive (minister of finance or head of central bank).In summary, default is costly, and countries do not (and should not) take the possibility of default lightly. Default is particularly expensive when it leads to banking crises and currency devaluations; the former has a longstanding impact on the capacity of firms to fund their investments whereas the latter create political and institutional instability that lasts for long periods.

Sovereign Ratings: Measures and Process

�� Since few of us have the resources or the time to dedicate to understanding small and unfamiliar countries, it is no surprise that third parties have stepped into the breach, with their assessments of sovereign default risk. Of these third-party assessors, bond ratings agencies came in with the biggest advantages:They have been assessing default risk in corporations for a hundred years or more and presumably can transfer some of their skills to assessing sovereign risk.Bond investors who are familiar with the ratings measures, from investing in corporate bonds, find it easy to extend their use to assessing sovereign bonds. Thus, a AAA rated country is viewed as close to riskless whereas a C rated country is very risky.��Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch’s have been rating corporate bond offerings since the early part of the twentieth century. Moody’s has been rating corporate bonds since 1919 and started rating government bonds in the 1920s, when that market was an active one. By 1929, Moody’s provided ratings for almost fifty central governments. With the Great Depression and the Second World War, investments in government bonds abated and with it, the interest in government bond ratings. In the 1970s, the business picked up again slowly. As recently as the early 1980s, only about thirteen ��governments, mostly in developed and mature markets, had ratings, with most of them commanding the highest level (Aaa). The decade from 1985 to 1994 added 34 countries to the sovereign rating list, with many of them having speculative or lower ratings and by 2024, Moody's alone was rating 143 countries, covering 75% of all emerging market countries and almost every developed market.��
table.tableizer-table { font-size: 12px; border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; } .tableizer-table td { padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #CCC; } .tableizer-table th { background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold; }
Not only have ratings agencies become more active in adding countries to their ratings list, but they have also expanded their coverage of countries with more default risk/ lower ratings. ��In fact, the number of Aaa rated countries was the same in 1985, when there were thirteen rated countries, as in 2025, when there were 143 rated countries. In the last two decades, at least five sovereigns, including Japan, the UK, France and now the US, have lost their Aaa ratings. ��In addition to more countries being rated, the ratings themselves have become richer. Moody’s and S&P now provide two ratings for each country �� a local currency rating (for domestic currency debt/ bonds) and a foreign currency rating (for government borrowings in a foreign currency).�� In assessing these sovereign ratings, ratings agencies draw on a multitude of data, quantitative and qualitative. Moody's describes its sovereign ratings process in the picture below: The process is broad enough to cover both political and economic factors, while preserving wiggle room for the ratings agencies to make subjective judgments on default that can lead to different ratings for two countries with similar economic and political profiles.��The heat map below provides the sovereign ratings, from Moody's, for all rated countries the start of 2025:
Moody's sovereign ratings
Note that the greyed out countries are unrated, with Russia being the most significant example; the ratings agencies withdrew their rating for Russia in 2022 and not reinstated it yet.��There were only a handful of Aaa rated countries, concentrated in North America (United States and Canada), Northern Europe (Germany, Scandinavia), Australia & New Zealand and Singapore (the only Aaa-rated Asian country. In 2025, there have been a eight sovereign ratings changes, four upgrades and four downgrades, with the US downgrade from Aaa to Aa1 as the highest profile change
With the US downgrade, the list of Aaa-rated countries has become shorter, and as Canada and Germany struggle with budget imbalances, the likelihood is that more companies will drop off the list.
Sovereign Ratings: ��Performance and Alternatives��  If sovereign ratings are designed to measure exposure to default risk, how well do they do? The answer depends on how you evaluate their performance. The ratings agencies provide tables that list defaults by rating that back the proposition that sovereign ratings and default are highly correlated. A Moody's update of default rates by sovereign ratings classes, between 1983 and 2024, yielded the following:

Default rates rise as sovereign ratings decline, with a default rate of 24% for ��speculative grade sovereign debt (Baa2 and below) as opposed to 1.8% for investment grade (Aaa to Baa1) sovereign debt.�� That said, there are aspects of sovereign ratings that should give pause to anyone considering using them as their proxy for sovereign default, they do come with caveats and limitations:Ratings are upward biased: Ratings agencies have been accused by some of being far too optimistic in their assessments of both corporate and sovereign ratings. While the conflict of interest of having issuers pay for the rating is offered as the rationale for the upward bias in corporate ratings, that argument does not hold up when it comes to sovereign ratings, since not only are the revenues small, relative to reputation loss, but a proportion of sovereigns are rated for no fees.There is herd behavior: When one ratings agency lowers or raises a sovereign rating, other ratings agencies seem to follow suit. This herd behavior reduces the value of having three separate ratings agencies, since their assessments of sovereign risk are no longer independent.Too little, too late: To price sovereign bonds (or set interest rates on sovereign loans), investors (banks) need assessments of default risk that are updated and timely. It has long been argued that ratings agencies take too long to change ratings, and that these changes happen too late to protect investors from a crisis.Vicious Cycle: Once a market is in crisis, there is the perception that ratings agencies sometimes overreact and lower ratings too much, thus creating a feedback effect that makes the crisis worse. This is especially true for small countries that are mostly dependent on foreign capital for their funds.Regional biases: There are many, especially in Asia and Latin America, that believe that the ratings agencies are too lax in assessing default risk for North America and Europe, ��overrating countries in ��those regions, while being too stringent in their assessments of default in Asia, Latin America and Africa, underrating countries in those regions.��In sum, the evidence suggests that while sovereign ratings are good measures of country default risk, changes in ratings often lag changes on the ground, making them less useful to lenders and investors.�� If the key limitation of sovereign ratings is that they are not timely assessors of country default risk, that failure is alleviated by the development of the sovereign CDS market, a market where investors can buy insurance against country default risk by paying an (annualized) price. While that market still has issues in terms of counterparty risk and legal questions about what comprises default, it has expanded in the last two decades, and at the start of 2025, there were about 80 countries with sovereign CDS available on them. The heat map below provides a picture of sovereign (10-year) ��CDS spreads on��January 1, 2025:
As you can see, even at the start of 2025, the market was drawing a distinction between ��the safest Aaa-rated countries (Scandinavia, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand), all with sovereign CDS spreads of 0.20% or below, and more risky Aaa-rated countries (US, Germany, Canada). During 2025, the market shocks from tariff and trade wars have had an effect, with sovereign CDS spreads increasing, especially in April.��The US, which started 2025 with a sovereign CDS spread of 0.41%, saw a widening of the spread to 0.62% in late April, before dropping back a bit in May, with the Moody's downgrade having almost no effect on the US sovereign CDS spread.
The US Downgrade: Lead-in and Aftermath��  With that background on sovereign default and ratings, let's take a look at the story of the moment, which is the Moody's downgrade of the US from Aaa to Aa1. In the weeks since, we have not seen a major upheaval in markets, and the question that we face as investors and analysts is whether anything of consequence has changed as a result of the downgrade.

The Lead-in��  As I noted at the start of this post, Moody's was the last of the big three sovereign ratings agencies giving the United States a Aaa rating, with S&P (in 2011) and Fitch (in 2023) having already downgraded the US. In fact, the two reasons that both ratings agencies provided at the time of their downgrades were rising government debt and politically dysfunction were also the reasons that Moody's noted in their downgrade. On the debt front, one of the measures that ratings agencies use to assess a country's financial standing is its debt to GDP ratio, and it is undeniable that this statistic has trended upwards for the United States:
The ramping up of US debt since 2008 is reflected in total federal debt rising from 80% of GDP in 2008 ��to more than 120% in 2024. While some of the surge in debt can be attributed to the exigencies caused by crises (the 2008 banking crisis and the 2020 COVID bailouts), the troubling truth is that the debt has outlasted the crises and blaming the crises for the debt levels today is disingenuous.�� The problem with the debt-to-GDP measure of sovereign fiscal standing is that it is an imperfect indicator, as can be seen in this list of countries that scored highest and lowest on this measure in 2023:
Many of the countries with the highest debt to GDP ratios would be classified as safe and some have Aaa ratings, whereas very few of the countries on the lowest debt to GDP list would qualify as safe. Even if it it the high debt to GDP ratio for the US that triggered the Moody's downgrade, the question is why Moody's chose to do this in 2025 rather than a year or two or even a decade ago, and the answer to that lies, I think, in the political component. A sovereign default has both economic and political roots, since a government that is intent on preserving its credit standing will often find ways to pay its debt and avoid default. For decades now, the US has enjoyed special status with markets and institutions (like ratings agencies), built as much on its institutional stability (legal and regulatory) as it was on its economic power. The Moody's downgrade seems to me a signal that those days might be winding down, and that the United States, like the rest of the world, will face more accountability for lack of discipline in its fiscal and monetary policy.
Market Reaction��  The ratings downgrade was after close of trading on Friday, May 16, and there was concern about how it would play out in markets, when they opened on Monday, May 19. US equities were actually up on that day, though they lost ground in the subsequent days:

If equity markets were relatively unscathed in the two weeks after the downgrade, what about bond markets, and specially, the US treasury market? After all, an issuer downgrade for any bond is bad news, and rates should be expected to rise to reflect higher default risk:
While rates did go up in the the first few days after the downgrade, the effect was muddled by the passage of a reconciliation bill in the house that potentially could add to the deficit in future years. In fact, by the May 29, 2025, almost all of the downgrade effect had faded, with rates close to where they were at the start of the year.�� You may be surprised that markets did not react more negatively to the ratings downgrade, but I am not for three reasons:Lack of surprise effect: While the timing of the Moody's downgrade was unexpected, the downgrade itself was not surprising for two reasons. First, since S&P and Fitch had already downgraded the US, Moody's was the outlier in giving the US a Aaa rating, and it was only a matter of time before it joined the other two agencies. Second, in addition to reporting a sovereign rating, Moody's discloses when it puts a country on a watch for a ratings changes, with positive (negative) indicating the possibility of a ratings upgrade (downgrade). Moody's changed its outlook for the US to negative in November 2023, and while the rating remained unchanged until May 2025, it was clearly considering the downgrade in the months leading up to it.Magnitude of private capital: The immediate effect of a sovereign ratings downgrade is on government borrowing, and while the US does borrow vast amounts, private capital (in the form of equity and debt) is a far bigger source of financing and funding for the economy.��Ratings change: The ratings downgrade ws more of a blow to pride than to finances, since the default risk (and default spread) difference between an Aaa rating and a Aa1 rating is small. Austria and Finland, for instance, had Aa1 ratings in May 2025, and their ten-year bonds, denominated in Euros, traded at a spread of about 0.15- 0.20% over the German ten-year Euro bond; Germany had a Aaa rating.Consequences for valuation and investment analysis�� While the immediate economic and financial consequences of a downgrade from Aaa to Aa1 will be small, there are implications for analysts around the world. In particular, analysts will have to take steps when working with US dollars that they may already be taking already when working with most other currencies in estimating basic inputs into financial analysis.
�� Let's start with the riskfree rate, a basic building block for estimating costs of equity and capital, which are inputs into intrinsic valuation. In principle, the riskfree rate is what you will earn on a guaranteed investment in a currency, and any risk premiums, either for investing in equity (equity risk premium) or in fixed income securities (default spreads), are added to the riskfree rate. It is standard practice in many textbooks and classrooms to use the government bond rate as the risk free rate, but that is built on the presumption that governments cannot default (at least on bonds issued in the local currency). Using a Aaa (AAA) rating as a (lazy) proxy for default-free, that is the rationale we used to justify government bond rates as riskfree rates at the start of 2025, in Australian, Singapore and Canadian dollars, the Euro (Germany). Swiss francs and Danish krone.��As we noted in the first section, the assumption that governments don't default ��is violated in practice, since some countries choose to default on local currency bonds, rather than face up to inflation. If that is the case, the government bond rate is no longer truly a riskfree rate, and getting to a riskfree rate will require netting out a default spread from the government bond rate:

Risk free rate = Government Bond rate −��Default spread for the government��

The default spread can be estimated either from the sovereign bond rating (with a look up table) or a sovereign CDS spread, and we used that process to get riskfree in rates in a ��host of currencies, where local currency government bonds had default risk, at the start of 2025:

Thus, to get a riskfree rate in Indian rupees, Brazilian reals or Turkish lira, we start with government bonds in these currencies and net out the default spreads for the countries in question. We do this to ensure that we don't double count country risk by first using the government bond (which includes default risk) as a riskfree rate and then using a larger equity risk premium to allow for the same country risk. �� Now that the US is no longer Aaa rated, we have to follow a similar process to get a riskfree rate in US dollars:

US 10-year treasury bond rate on May 30, 2025 ��= 4.41%Default spread based on Aa1 rating on May 30, 2025 ��= 0.40%Riskfree rate in US dollars on May 30, 2025 = US 10-year treasury rate - Aa1 default spread = 4.41% - 0.40% = 4.01%

This adjustment yields a riskfree rate of 4.01% in US dollars, and it is also built on the presumption that the default spread manifested after the Moody's downgrade on May 16, when the more realistic reading is that US treasury markets have been carrying a ��default spread embedded in them for years, and that we are not making it explicit.�� The ratings downgrade for the US will also affect the equity risk premium computations that I use to estimate the cost of equity for companies. As some of you who track my equity risk premiums by country know, I estimate an equity risk premium for the S&P 500, and at least until the start of this year, I used that as a premium for all mature markets (with a AAA (Aaa) rating as the indicator of maturity). Thus, countries like Canada, Germany, Australia and Singapore were all assigned the same premium as that attributed to the S&P 500. For countries with ratings below Aaa, I added an "extra country risk premium" ��computed based upon the default spreads that went with the country ratings:
With the ratings downgrade, I will have to modify this process in three ways. The first is that when computing the equity risk premium for the S& P 500, I will have to net out the adjusted riskfree rate in US dollars rather than the US treasury rate, yielding a higher equity risk premium for the US. Second, for Aaa rated countries, to the extent that they are safer than the US will have to be assigned an equity risk premium lower than the US, with the adjustment downward reflecting the Aa1 rating for the US. The third is that for all other countries, the country risk premium will be computed based upon the the their default spreads and the equity risk premium estimated for Aaa rated countries (rather than the US equity risk premium):
How will the cost of equity for a firm with all of its revenues in the United States be affected as a consequence? Let's take three companies, one below-average risk, one average-risk and one above average risk, and compute their costs of equity on May 30, 2025, with and without the downgrade factored in:
As you can see, the expected return on the S&P 500 as of May 30, 2025, reflecting the index level then and the expected cash flows, is 8.64%. Incorporating the effects of the downgrade changes the composition of that expected return, resulting in a lower riskfree rate (4.01% instead of 4.41%) and a higher equity risk premium (4.63% instead of 4.23%). Thus, while the expected return for the average stock remains at 8.64%, the expected return increases slightly for riskier stocks and decreases slightly for safer stocks, but the effects are so small that investors will hardly notice. If there is a lesson for analysts here, it is that the downgrade's effects on the discount rates (costs of equity and capital) are minimal, and that staying with the conventional approach (of using the ten-year US treasury bond rate as the riskfree rate and using that rate to compute the equity risk premium) will continue to work.
Conclusion�� The Moody's ratings downgrade of the US made the news, and much was made of it during the weekend that followed. The financial and economic consequences, at least so far, have been inconsequential, with equity and bond markets shrugging off the downgrade, perhaps because the surprise factor was minimal. The downgrade also has had only a minimal impact on costs of equity and capital for US companies, and while that may change, the changes will come from macroeconomic news or from crises. For the most part, analysts should be able to continue to work with the US treasury rate as a riskfree rate and forward-looking equity risk premiums, as they did before the downgrade. With all of that said, though, the Moody's action does carry symbolic weight, another indicator that US exceptionalism, which allowed the US to take economic and fiscal actions that would have brought blowback for other countries, especially in emerging markets, is coming to an end. That is healthy, in the long term, for both the United States and the rest of the world, but it will come with short term pain.

YouTube Video

posted by Aswath Damodaran on June, 03

The Greed & Fear Tango: The Markets in April 2025!

Sat, 03 May 2025 07:30:00 -0700

�� I started the month on a trip to Latin America, just as the tariff story hit my newsfeed and the market reacted with a sell off that knocked more than $9 trillion in market cap for global equities in the next two days. The month was off to a bad start, and tariffs remained the lead story for much of the month, contributing to both its biggest down days (with stories of trade war escalation) and to the biggest up days (with news of relief from the fight). To add to the volatility, there was talk midway through the month of replacing Jerome Powell as the Fed Chair, and assorted news adding to uncertainty about the direction of the economy. An observer reading just the news stories and asked to guess what the market did during the month would probably have bet on stocks falling steeply, but he or she would have lost that bet, because markets managed to surprise us all again, ending the month almost where they began.
Equities: Storm Clouds gather (and dissipate)!��  It would be an understatement to describe equity markets in April 2025 as volatile, with the equity indices going through stomach wrenching up and down movements intraday and across days, as investors struggled to price in a world of tariffs, trade wars and policy uncertainty.
The journey that the indices went through during the course of the month has been extraordinary. Each of the indices lost close to 10% ��in the first two days of the month, went deeper into the hole in the second week of the month, but by the end of the month, they had each found their way back to almost where they started the month at, with the S&P 500, NASDAQ and the MSCI world index all within 1% of their start-of-the-month levels.�� As I noted , where I framed the market crisis around tariffs, the indices sometimes obscure markets shifts that are occurring under the surface, and that looking at all publicly traded stocks on an aggregated basis provides a more complete picture. I will start by looking at the regional breakdown of what the month delivered in terms of change in market cap, in both dollar and percentage terms:

The crisis may have been birthed in the United States, but as has been the case with market crises in this century, it has spread across the world, with disparate impacts. There are truly no standouts in either direction, with China being the worst performing region, in terms of percentage change in dollar value, down 3.69%, and India and Latin America tied for best performing, up 3.57%. ��These are dollar returns, and since the US dollar came under selling pressure during the course of the month, the local currency returns were worse, especially in markets, like the EU, where the Euro gained about 5% in the courser of the month.�� At the start of the month, as has been the case for much of the last decade, the focus was on technology, partly because of��its large weight in overall equity value at the start of 2025, and partly because of the punishment meted out to tech stocks during the first quarter of the year. ��Focusing just on US equities, technology companies, which accounted for 29.4% of the overall market capitalization of all US companies at the start of 2025, lost $2.34 trillion (about 13.19%) in market capitalization in the first quarter of 2025. In the first few days of April, that trend continued as technology initially led the rout, losing an additional $1.78 trillion, but by the end of April, tech had made at least a partial comeback:
As you can see, technology ended the month as the second best performing sector, up 1.67% for the month, and in spite of the handwringing about their poor performance, their share of the market cap pie has barely changed after the first four months of 2025. While the first quarter continues to weigh the sector down, as was the case in 2022, the obituaries written for technology investing may have been premature.�� Staying in the weeds, I also looked at the push and pull of growth versus value, by breaking US equities down into deciles based on earnings to price ratios��and assessing their performance leading into April and in April 2025 alone:

As you can see, while there is no clearly discernible pattern across deciles of US stocks based upon earnings to price ratios, breaking down US stocks into a top and bottom half, based upon the ratio, yields the conclusion that while high PE stocks had a bad start to the year, losing 10.9% of their value in the first quarter, they made a comeback in April, up 1.74% for the year, ��while low PE stocks were down 2.22% for the month. That pattern of a reversal in April 2025 of trends that had been forming in the first quarter of 2025 shows upon in other proxies for the value versus growth tussle:Looking at companies broken down by market capitalization into deciles, you find that larger cap companies outperformed small cap stocks during April,��Breaking down stocks based on dividends, dividend paying stocks and companies buying back stock underperformed non-cash returning stocks, indicating that there was no flight to safety in April.�� Finally, I classified companies based upon their stock price performance in 2024 to see if what we are seeing in 2025 is just a correction of overreach in 2024. After all, if that is the case, we should see the stocks that have performed the best in 2024 be the ones that have taken the most punishment this year:
As you can see, momentum returned in force in April, with the best performing stocks in 2024 up 0.76% during the month, while the worst performing stocks of 2024 were down 5.31% for the month. In fact, the year-to-date numbers for 2025 indicate that momentum remains in the driver's seat, extending a long period of outperformance.�� In sum, the market stresses��in April 2025 seems to have pushed the market back into its 2024 ways, after a first quarter that promised reversal, as technology, growth and momentum all made a comeback in the last three weeks of April. The performance of the Mag Seven, which represent a combination of all three forces (large, high growth and technology), in April provides a tangible measure of this shift:

The Mag Seven have had a bad year to date, losing $2.6 trillion in market capitalization, but they made a comeback from the depths to finish April at about the same market cap that they had at the start of the month, recovering almost all of the $1.55 trillion that they lost in the first week of the month.�� In short, not only did equities recover in the last three weeks of April 2025, but there seems have been a shift in sentiment back the forces that have borne markets upwards for the last few years,��with technology, growth and momentum returning as market drivers. Of course, three weeks is a short time, but this is a trend worth watching for the rest of this year.
The Rest of the Market: Swirling Winds?�� As equities careened through April 2025 between panic and delirium, the other asset classes were surprisingly staid, at least on the surface, starting with the US treasuries. Unlike other crises, where US treasuries saws funds flow in, pushing down yields and pushing up prices, treasury rates remained relatively stable through much of April:

Not only did rates remain almost unchanged across the maturity spectrum, but they were stable on a week-to-week basis. The yield curve, downward sloping for much of the last two years, ��is now u-shaped, with 3-month rates and 2-year rates higher than 5-year rates, before reverting back to higher longer term (10-year and 30-year rates). Coming from the camp that we read too much economic significance into yield curve slopes and dynamics, I am reluctant to draw big conclusions, but some of this can be attributed to expectations of higher inflation in the near term. There is another force at play in this crisis that has not been as visible in past ones, at least in the US treasury market, and that is concerns about the trustworthiness of the US government Though this is still an early indicator, that can be seen in the sovereign CDS market, where investors pay for insurance against default risk, and where the US CDS spread has risen in April:

The sovereign CDS spread for the US has risen about 38% during the course of this month, and the interesting part is that much of that rise happened in the last three weeks of the month, and during the first week, when equities were collapsing. The rise in perceptions of US default risk is more likely to have been precipitated by the threat to fire Jerome Powell, and by extension to the independence of the Fed as an institution. While that threat was withdrawn, the sovereign CDS spread has stayed high, and it will be worth watching whether it will come back down or whether some permanent damage has been done to US treasuries as a safe haven. As some of you who follow my thinking on riskfree rates may know, I argue that the riskfree rate in a currency is not necessarily the government bond rate in that currency, and that the default spread has to netted out from the government bond rate two get to a riskfree rate, if the sovereign in question is not viewed as default-free. Building on that principle, I may soon have to revisit my practice of using the US treasury rate as the riskfree rate in US dollars and net out a default spread for the US from that rate to get to a riskfree rate.�� During April 2025, commodity prices were also on the move, and in the graph below, I look at oil prices as well as an overall commodity index during the month:��

In the first third of the month, oil prices, in particular, and commodity prices, in general, joined equities, as they moved down, but in the last part of the month, they delinked, and stayed down, even as stock prices bounced back up. To the extent that the demand for commodities is driven by real economic growth, that would suggest that at least in the near term, the tariffs that precipitated the crisis will slow down global economies and reduce demand for commodities.�� The concerns about central banking independence that triggered the surge in the US sovereign CDS spread also played out in currency markets, where the US dollar, already weakened in the first quarter, continued its decline in April. In the graph below, I look at the dollar-euro exchange rate and an index measuring the strength of the dollar against multiples currencies.

The dollar continued its decline in April, down about 3% against a broad basket of currencies, and more than 5% against the Euro.�� Finally, I looked at two other investment classes - gold and bitcoin - for the same reasons that I brought them into the discussion at the start of April. They are collectibles, i.e., investments that investors are drawn to during crisis periods or when they lose faith in paper currencies and governments:

Gold had a good month in April, up about 5.3%, and hitting $3.500 towards the end of the month, but Bitcoin did even better rising almost 14.12% during the course of the month. That said, the fact that financial asset markets (equity and bond) recovered over the second part of the month made this a month where collectibles were not put to their test as crisis investments, and the rise in both can be attributed more to the loss of trust that has driven ��the sovereign CDS spread up and the US dollar down.
Risk and Co-movement�� Early in April, I argued that the one number that would track the balance between greed and fear in markets would be the price of risk in markets, and I resolved to estimate that price every day, through April, for both equity and bond markets. With equity markets, the price of risk is the equity risk premium, and at least ��in my estimation process, it is a forward-looking number determined by the level of stock prices and expected cash flows. In the table below, I report on my estimates of the equity risk premium for the S&P 500 every trading day in April, in conjunction with the VIX, and equity volatility index that should be correlated:

After rising above 5% in the first third of the month, the equity risk premium decreased in fits and starts over the rest of the month to end at almost the same value (4.58%) as at the start of the month (4.59%). In parallel, the VIX soared in the first few days of the month to peak at 52.33 on April 8, and then decreased over the rest of the month to a level (24.70) close to where it was at the start of the month (22.28).�� In the bond market, the price of risk takes the form of default spreads, and these spreads followed a similar path to the equity risk measures:
The default spread on high yield bonds surged, rising by more than 1% between the start of the month and April 7, before declining, but unlike the equity risk measures, the bond default spreads did end the month at levels higher than at the start, indicating at least at this point that near term concerns about the economy and the ensuing default risk have not subsided.�� As a final exercise, I looked at the correlation in price changes across investment classes - stocks, treasuries, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, commodities, gold and bitcoin:

With the caveat that this is just 22 trading days in one month, it does yield some preliminary results about co-movements. First, stock and treasury bond prices moved together much of the month, not something that you would expect during a crisis, when bond prices gain as stock prices fall. Second, while both gold and bitcoin prices moved with stocks, gold prices movements were more closely tied to stock price movements, at least during the month. In sum, the movement across asset markets affirms our conclusion from looking at company-level data that this was more a month of asset reprising than panic selling or buying.�� In sum, if I were to summarize what the data is pointing me towards, here are the general conclusions that I would draw, albeit with a small sample:
The market movements through much of the month were less driven by panic and more by investors trying to reprice companies to reflect a world with more trade barriers and tariffs and political turmoil.While equities, in the aggregate, ended the month roughly where they started the month, a shift in sentiment seemed to occur in the last three weeks of the month, as technology, growth and momentum, three forces that seemed to be in retreat in the first quarter of 2025, made a come back.With US treasuries, there was little movement on the rates, but under the surface, there were shifts ��that could be tectonic in the long term. There was clearly a drop in trust in the US government and its institutions, which played out in rising sovereign CDS spreads and a declining dollar, and trust once lost can be difficult to gain back.The investment classes that are most vulnerable to the real economy, i.e.. commodities and higher yield corporate bonds, were down for the month, indicating a slowing down of global economic growth.In the coming months, we will see whether the last three weeks of April were an aberration or the start of something bigger.
Lessons Learned�� Every market meltdown carries pain to investors, but that pain is often spread unevenly across these investors, with the variation driven as much as by what they held coming into the crisis, as it is by how they behaved in response to the sell off. I am not sure April 2025 falls into the crisis column, but it did feel like one early in the month, and as I look back at the month, I come back to three market characteristics that stood out.Market resilience: In the last five years, markets have repeatedly not only got the big trends right, but they have also shown far more resilience than any expert group. I would wager that if you had given a group of macro economists or market strategists just the news stories that came out during the course of the month and asked them to guess how they would play out in market reaction, almost none of them would have guessed the actual outcome (of flat markets). At the time of COVID, I argued that one reason for market resilience is that market influence has become diffuse, with social media and alternative sources of information supplementing and often replacing the traditional influencers - the financial press, media and investment talking heads, and market movements are less driven by large portfolio managers exhibiting herd behavior and more by disparate groups of traders, with different motives, models and patterns.��Market power: A key reason for the turnaround in markets during April was the administration's decision to walk back, reverse or delay actions that the market reacted to strongly and negatively. The "liberation day" tariffs that triggered the initial sell off have largely been put on hold or suspended, and the talk about replacing the Fed Chair was walked back quickly the week after it was made. In short, an administration that has been impervious to Wall Street journal editorials, warnings from economists and counter threats from other governments has been willing to bend to market selling pressure.Market unpredictability: As markets rose and fell during the course of the month, the debate about the value added by active investing kicked into full gear. I heard quite a few advocates of active investing argue that it was during times like this (volatility and crisis) that the "sage counsel" and "timely decisions" of wealth or fund managers would protect investors on the downside. I would suggest the opposite, and am willing to bet that the extent of damage that April did to investor portfolios was directly proportional to how much time they spent watching CNBC and listening to (or reading) what market experts told them to do.On a personal note, I stuck to my resolution early in the crisis to use it to stay true to my investment philosophy. As someone who stinks at market timing, I made no attempt to buy and sell the market through the month, perhaps leaving a great deal of money on the table, or more likely, saving myself just as much from getting the timing wrong. In the middle of April, I, and in that post, I put myself ��in the opportunistic contrarian camp. I did use the mid-month sell off to add BYD, a stock that I like, to my portfolio, when its price dipped below my limit price ($80). Palantir and Mercado Libre (my two other limit buys) came close but not low enough to break through my limits, but I am willing to wait, revisiting my valuations along the way.�� I do have some portfolio maintenance work that I need to do in the coming weeks, especially on the six of the seven Mag Seven stocks that remain in my portfolio (Tesla is out of my portfolio and Nvidia is at a quarter of my original holding). As these companies report their first quarter earnings, I plan to revisit my valuations from last year, when in the face of mild to moderate over valuation, I chose to maintain my holdings. As in prior years, I will post my assessments of value and my hold/sell judgments, but that has to wait because I do have more immediate priorities. First, as a teacher, with the semester end approaching, I have a stack of grading that has to get done.��Second, as a father, I am looking forward to my daughter having her first child next week, and the market and my portfolio take a distant second place to getting acquainted with my new granddaughter.
YouTube Video
My Posts (from April 2025)
Data Links

posted by Aswath Damodaran on May, 04

Buy the Dip: The Draw and Dangers of Contrarian Investing!

Sun, 20 Apr 2025 18:48:00 -0700

�� When��markets are in free fall, there is a great deal of ��advice that is meted out to investors, and one is to just buy the dip, i.e., buy beaten down stocks, in the hope that they will recover, or the entire market, if it is down. ��"Buying the dip" falls into a broad group of investment strategies that can be classified as "contrarian", where investors act in contrast to what the rest of the market is doing at the time, buying (selling) when the vast majority are selling (buying) , and it has been around through all of market history. There are strands of research in both behavioral finance and empirical studies that back up contrarian strategies, but as with everything to do with investing, it comes with caveats and constraints. In this post, I will posit that contrarian investing can take different forms, each based on different assumptions about market behavior, and present the evidence that we have on the successes and failures of each one. I will argue that even if you are swayed intellectually by the arguments for going against the crowd, it may not work for you, if you are not psychologically attuned to the stresses and demands that contrarian strategies bring with them.

Contrarianism - The Different Strands

��  All contrarian investing is built around a common theme of buying an investment, when its price goes down significantly, but there are wide variations in how it is practiced. In the first, knee-jerk contrarianism, you use a bludgeon, buying either individual companies or the entire market when they are down, on the expectation that you will benefit from an inevitable recovery in prices. In the second, technical contrarianism, you buy beaten-up stocks or the entire market, but only if charting or technical indicators support the decision. ��In the third, constrained contrarianism, you buy the stocks that are down, but only if they pass your screens for qualify and safety. In the fourth, opportunistic contrarianism, you use a price markdown as an opportunity to buy companies that you have always wanted to hold, but had not been able to buy because they were priced too high.

1. Knee-jerk Contrarianism

��  The simplest and most direct version of contrarian investing is to buy any traded asset where the price is down substantially from its highs, with the asset sometimes being an individual company, sometimes a sector and sometimes the entire market. Implicit in this strategy is an absolute belief in mean reversion, i.e., ��that what goes down will almost always go back up, and that buying at the beaten down price and being willing to wait will therefore pay off.

�� The evidence for this strategy comes from many sources. For the market, it is often built on papers (or books) that look at the historical data on what equity markets have delivered as returns over long periods, relative to what you would have made investing elsewhere. Using data for the United States, a ��market with the longest and most reliable historical records, you can see the substantial payoff to investing in equities:

No matter what time period you use for your time horizon, stocks deliver the highest returns, of all asset classes, and there some who look at this record and conclude that "stocks always win in the long term", with the implication that you should stay fully invested in stocks, even through the worst downturns, if you have a reasonably long time horizon. These returns to buying stocks become greater, when you buy them when they are cheaper, measured either through pricing metrics (low PE ratios) or after corrections. There are two problems with the conclusion. The first is that there is selection bias, where using historical data from the United States, one of the most successful equity markets of the last century, to draw general conclusions about the risk and returns of investing in equities will lead you to underestimate equity risk and overestimate equity returns. The second is that, even with US equities, an investor who bought stocks just before a major downturn would have to wait a long time before being made whole again. Thus, investors who put their money in stocks in 1929, just ahead of the Great Depression, would not have recovered until 1954.��

�� With individual stocks, the strongest backing for buying the dip comes from studies of "loser" stocks, i.e., stocks that have gone down the most over a prior period. In a classified��stocks based upon stock price performance in the prior three years into winner and loser portfolios, with the top fifty performers going into the "winner" portfolio, and the bottom fifty into the "losers portfolio", and estimated the returns you could have made on each group in the following city months:

As you can see, the loser portfolio dramatically outperforms the winner portfolio, delivering about 30% more on a cumulative basis than the winner portfolio in the thirty six months after the portfolios are created, which DeBondt and Thaler argued was evidence that markets overreact. About a decade later, revisited the study, with more granular data on time horizons, and found that the results were reversed, if you shorten the holding period, with winner stocks continuing to win over the first year after portfolio creation.��

The reversal eventually kicks in after a year, but over the entire time period, the winner portfolio still outperforms the loser portfolio, on a cumulative basis. Jegadeesh and Titman also noted a skew in the loser portfolio towards smaller market cap and lower-priced stocks, with higher transactions costs (from bid-ask spreads and price impact). As other studies have added to the mix, the consensus on winner versus loser stocks is that there is no consensus, with evidence for both momentum, with winner stocks continuing to win, and for reversal, with loser stocks outperforming, depending on time horizon, and questions about whether these excess returns are large enough to cover the transactions costs involved.

�� Setting aside the mixed evidence for the moment, the biggest danger in knee-jerk contrarian investing at the market level is that buying the dip in the market is akin to catching a falling knife, since that initial market drop can be a prelude to a much larger sell off, and to the extent that there was an economic or fundamental reason for the sell off (a banking crisis, a severe recession), there may be no near term bounceback. With individual stocks, that danger gets multiplied, with investors buying stocks that are being sold off to for legitimate reasons (a broken business model, dysfunctional management, financial distress) and waiting for a market correction that never comes.��

�� To examine the kinds of companies that you would invest in, with a knee-jerk contrarian investing strategy , I looked at all US stocks with a market capitalization exceeding a billion dollars on December 31, 2024, and found the companies that were the biggest losers, on a percent basis,��between March 28 and April 18 of 2025:

You will note that technology and biotechnology firms are disproportionately represented on the list, but that is the by-product of a bludgeon approach.

2. Technical Contrarianism

�� In technical contrarianism, you start with the same basis as knee-jerk contrarianism, by ��looking at stocks and markets that have dropped significantly, but with an added requirement that the price has to meet a charting or technical indicator constraint before becoming a buy. While there are many who consign technical analysis to voodoo investing, I believe that charting patterns and technical indicators can provide signals of shifts in mood and momentum that drive price movements, at least in the near term. Thus, you can view technical contrarianism as buying stocks or markets when they are down, but only if the charts and technical indicators point to a shift in market mood.

��  One of the problems with testing technical contrarianism, to see if it works, is that even among technical analysts, there seems to be no consensus as to the best indicator to use, but broadly speaking, these indicators can be based on either price and/or volume movements. They range in sophistication from simple measures like relative strength (where you look at percentage price changes over a period) and moving averages to complex ones that combine price and volume. In recent decades, investors have added pricing in other markets to the mix, with the VIX (a traded volatility index) as well as the relative pricing of puts and calls in the options market being used in market timing. In sum, all of these indicators are directed at measuring fear in the market, with a "market capitulation" viewed as a sign that the market has bottomed out.��

�� With market timing indicators, there is research backing up the use of VIX and trading volume as predictors of market movements, though with substantial error.

As the VIX rises, the expected return on stocks in future periods goes up, albeit with much higher volatility around these expected returns. It��is ironic that some of the best defenses of technical analysis have been offered by academics, especially in their studies of price momentum and reversal. present a fairly convincing defense of technical analysis from the perspective of financial economists. They use daily returns of stocks on the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ from 1962 and 1996 and employ sophisticated computational techniques (rather than human visualization) to look for pricing patterns. They find that the most common patterns in stocks are double tops and bottoms, followed by the widely used head and shoulders pattern. In other words, they find evidence that some of the most common patterns used by technical analysts exist in prices. Lest this be cause for too much celebration among chartists, they also point out that these patterns offer only marginal incremental returns (an academic code word for really small) and offer the caveat that these returns may not survive transaction costs.

3. Constrained Contrarianism

��  If you are in the old-time value investing camp, your approach to contrarian investing will reflect that worldview, where you will buy stocks that have dropped in value, but only if they meet the other criteria that you have for good companies. In short, you will start with a list of beaten up stocks, and then screen them for high profitability, strong moats and low risk, hoping to separate companies that are cheap from those that deserve to be cheap.

�� As a constrained contrarian, you are hoping to avoid value traps, every value investor's nightmare , where a company looks cheap on a pricing basis (low PE, low price to book) and proceeds to become even cheaper after you buy it. The evidence on whether screening helps avoid value traps comes largely from studies of the interplay between proxies of value (such as low��price to book ratios) and proxies for quality, including measures for both operating/capital efficiency (margins and returns on capital) and low risk (low debt ratios and volatility). Proponents of quality screens note that while value proxies alone no longer seem to deliver excess returns, incorporating quality screens seems to preserve these excess returns. ��Research Affiliates, an investment advisory service, looked at returns to pure value screens versus value plus quality screens and presents the following evidence on how screening for quality improves returns:

The evidence is supportive of the hypothesis that adding quality screens improves returns, and does so more for stocks that look cheap (low price to book) than for expensive stocks. That said, the evidence is underwhelming in terms of payoff, at least on an annual return basis, though the payoff is greater, if you factor in volatility and estimate Sharpe ratios (scaling annual return to volatility).�� While much of the research on quality has been built around value and small cap investing, the findings can be extrapolated to contrarian investing, with the lesson being that rather than buy the biggest losers, you should be buying the losers that pass screening tests for high��profitability (high returns on equity or capital) and low risk (low debt ratios and volatility). That may provide a modicum of protection, but the problem with these screens is that they are based upon historical data and do not capture structural changes in the economy or disruption in the industry, both of which have not yet found their way into the fundamentals that are in your screens.�� To provide just an illustration of constrained contrarianism, I again returned to the universe of about 6,000 publicly traded US stocks on April 18, 2025, and after removing firms with market capitalizations less than $100 million (with the rationale that these companies will have more liquidity risk and transactions costs), I screened first for stocks that lost more than 20% of their market capitalization between March 28 and April 18, and then added three value screens:
A PE ratio less than 15, putting the stock in the bottom quintile of US stocks as of December 31, 2024A dividend yield that exceeded 1%, a paltry number by historical norms, but ensuring that the company was dividend-paying in 2024, a year in which 60% of US stocks paid no dividendsA net debt/EBITDA ratio of less than two, dropping it into the bottom quintile of US companies in terms of debt loadThe six companies that made it through the screens are below:
I am sure that if you are a value investor, you will disagree about both the screens that I used as well as my cut offs, but you are welcome to experiment with your own screens to find bargains.

4. Opportunistic Contrarianism

�� In a fourth variant of contrarian investing, you use a market meltdown as an opportunity to buy companies that you��have always wanted to own but could not because they were over priced before the price drop, but look under priced after. ��The best place to start an assessment of opportunistic investing is with my post on with the first being determined by all of the considerations that go into separating great businesses from bad��businesses, including growth and profitability, and the second by the price you have to pay to buy them. In that post, I had a picture drawing the contrast between good companies and good investments:

Put simply, most great companies are neutral or even bad investments, because the market prices them to be great. A year ago, when I s, I argued that these were, for the most part, great businesses, with a combination of growth at scale, high profitability and deep moats, but that at the prices that they were trading ��they were not great investments.��

I also argued that even great companies have their market travails, where for periods of time, investors lose faith in them and drive their prices down not just to value, but below. It happened to Microsoft in 2014, Apple in 2017, Nvidia in 2018, Tesla at multiple times in the last decade, and to . While those corrections were caused by company-specific news stories and issues, the same process can play out, when you have significant market markdowns, as we have had over the last few weeks.��

�� The process of opportunistic contrarianism starts well before a market correction, with the identification of companies that you believe are good or great businesses:

At the time that you first value them, you are likely to find them to be over valued, which will undoubtedly be frustration. You may be tempted to play with the numbers to make these companies look undervalued, but a better path is to put them ��on your list of companies you would like to own, and leave them there. During a market crisis, and especially when investors are marking down the prices of everything, without discriminating between good and bad companies, you should revisit that list, with a caveat that you cannot compare the post-correction price to your pre-crisis valuation of your company. Instead, you will have to revalue the company, with adjustments to expected cash flows and risk premiums, given the crisis, and if that value exceeds the price, you should buy the stock.��

Contrarian Investing: The Psychological Tests!

��  In the abstract, it is easy to understand the appeal of contrarian investing. Both behavioral and empirical research identify the existence of herd behavior in crowds, and point to tipping points where crowd wisdom becomes crowd madness. A rational decision-maker in the midst of animal spirits may feel that he or she has an advantage in this setting, and rightly so. That said, buying when the rest of the market is selling takes a mindset, a time horizon and a stronger stomach than most of us do not have.

The Mindset: Investing against the market will not come easily to those who are easily swayed by peer pressure, since they will have to buy, just as other investors (the peer group) will be selling, and often in companies that the market has turned against. There are ��some who march to their own drummers, willing to take a path that is different from the rest, and these are better suited to being contrarians.The Time Horizon: To be a contrarian, you don't always need a long time horizon, since correlations can sometimes happen quickly, but you have to be willing to wait for a long period, if that is what is necessary for the correction. Relatively few investors have this capacity, since it is determined as much by your circumstances (age, health and cash needs) as it is by your personality.The Stomach: Even if your buy decision is based on the best thought-through contrarian investing strategies, it is likely that in the aftermath of that decision, momentum will continue to push prices down, testing your faith. Without a strong stomach, you will capitulate, and while your decision may have been right in the long term, your investment will not reflect that success.As you can see, the decision on whether to be a contrarian is not just one that you can make based upon the evidence and theory, but will depend on who you are as a person, and your makeup.�� I have the luxury of a long time horizon and the luck of a strong stomach, for both food and market surprises. I am not easily swayed by peer pressure, but I am not immune from it either. I know that buying stocks in the face of market selling will not come easily, and that is the reason that I initiated limit buys on three companies that I have wanted to have in my portfolio, BYD, the Chinese electric car maker, Mercado Libre, the Latin American online retail/fintech firm, and Palantir, a company that I believe is closest to delivering on thee promise of AI products and services. The limit buy kicked in on BYD on April 7, when it briefly dipped below $80, ��my limit price, and while Palantir and Mercado Libre have a way to go before they hit my price limits, the crisis is young and the order is good until canceled!

YouTube Video

posted by Aswath Damodaran on April, 21

Anatomy of a Market Crisis: Tariffs, Markets and the Economy!

Mon, 07 Apr 2025 14:10:00 -0700

I was boarding a plane for a trip to Latin America late in the evening last Wednesday (April 2), and as is my practice, I was checking the score on the Yankee game, when I read the tariff news announcement. Coming after a few days where the market seemed to have found its bearings (at least partially), it was clear from the initial reactions across the world that the breadth and the magnitude of the tariffs had caught most by surprise, and that a market markdown was coming. Not surprisingly, the markets opened down on Thursday and spent the next two days in that mode, with US equity indices declining almost 10% by close of trading on Friday. Luckily for me, I was too busy on both Thursday and Friday with speaking events, since as the speaker, I did not have the luxury (or the pain) of checking markets all day long. In my second venue, which was Buenos Aires, I quipped that while Argentina was trying its best to make its way back from chaos towards stability, the rest of the world was looking a lot more like Argentina, in terms of uncertainty. On Saturday, on a long flight back to New York, I wrestled with the confusion, denial and panic that come with a market meltdown, and tried to make sense of what had happened, and more importantly of what is coming. That thinking is still a work-in-progress but as in prior crises, I find that putting even unfinished thoughts down on paper (or in a post) is healthy, and perhaps a critical component to finding your way back to serenity.

The Tariffs and Markets

��  Since talk of tariffs has filled the airwaves for most of this year, you may wonder why markets reacted so strongly to the announcement on Wednesday. One reason might have been that investors and businesses were not expecting the tariff hit to be as wide and as deep as they turned out to be.���� 

Note that while Canada and Mexico were not on the Wednesday list of tariff targets that was released on Wednesday, they have been targeted separately, and that the remaining countries that do not show up on this map (Russia and North Korea, for instance) are under sanctions that prevent them from trading in the first place.��

�� Another reason for the market reaction was that the basis for the tariff estimates, which have now been widely shared, are not easily fixable, since they are not based on tariffs imposed by other countries, but on the magnitude of the trade deficit of the United States with these countries. Thus, any country with which the US runs a significant trade deficit faces a large tariff, and smaller countries are more exposed than larger ones since the trade deficit is computed on a percentage basis, from exports and imports related to that country. ��Thus, the easy out, where other countries offer to reduce or even remove their tariffs may have no or little effect on the tariffs, to the extent that the trade deficit may have little to do with tariffs. ��

Equities

�� The extent of the market hit can be seen by looking at the major US equity indices, the Dow, the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ, all of which shed significant portions of their value on Thursday and Friday:

Looking beyond these indices and across the globe, the negative reaction has been global, as can be seen in the returns to equity across sub-regions, with all returns denominated in US dollars:

The worst hit regions of the world is Small Asia, which is Asia not counting India, China and Japan, which saw equity values in the aggregate decline by 12.61% in the last week. US equities had the biggest decline in dollar value terms, losing $5.3 trillion in value last week, a 9.24% decline in value from the Friday close on March 28, 2025. China and India have held up the best in the last week, perhaps because both countries have large enough domestic markets to sustain them through a trade war. It is also a factory that with time differences, these markets both closed before the Friday beatdown on Wall Street unfolded, and the open on Monday may give a better indication of the true reaction. Breaking down just US equities, by sector, we can see the damage across sectors:The technology sector lost the most in value last week, both in dollar terms, shedding almost $1.8 trillion (and 11.6%) in equity value, and consumer staples and utilities held up the best, dropping 2.30% and 4.40% respectively. In percentage terms, energy stocks have lost the most in value, with market capitalizations dropping by 14.2%, dragged down by declining oil prices.�� Staying with US equities, and breaking down companies, based upon their market capitalizations coming into 2025, we can again see write downs in equity value across the spectrum from last week's sell off:As you can see, it looks like there is little to distinguish across the market cap spectrum, as the pain was widely distributed across the market cap classes, with small and large companies losing roughly the same percent of value. To the extent that market crisis usually cause a flight to safety, I looked at US stocks, broken down by decile into earnings yield (Earnings to price ratios), over the last week:
The lowest earnings to price ratio (highest PE) stocks, in the aggregate, lost 10.91% of their market capitalization last week, compared to the 8.08% decline in market cap at the highest earnings to price (lowest PE ratio) companies, providing some basis for the flight to safety hypothesis. Staying with the safety theme, I looked at US companies, broken down by debt burden (measured as debt to EBITDA):

On this dimension, the numbers actually push against the flight to safety hypothesis, since the companies with the least debt performed worse than those with the most debt. Finally, I looked at whether dividend paying and cash returning companies were better protected in the sell off, by looking at dividend paying (buying back stock) companies versus non-dividend paying (not buying back stock) companies:

While dividend paying stocks did drop by less than non-dividend paying stocks, companies buying back stock underperformed those that did not buy back stock in 2024.��

�� If you came into last week, believing that stocks were over priced, you would expect the correction to be worse at companies that have been bid up the most, and to test this, I classified US stocks based upon percentage stock price performance in 2024:

While the worst performers from last year came into the week down only 1.83% through March 28, whereas the best performers from 2024 were down 6.46% over the same period, there was little to distinguish between the two groups last week.�� Finally, I looked at the Mag Seven stocks, since they have, in large part, carried US equities for much of the last two years;Collectively, the Mag Seven came into last last week, already down 14.79% for the year (2025), but their losses last week, which massive in dollar value terms ($1.55 trillion) were close in percentage terms to the losses in the rest of the market.

Other Markets

�� As equity markets reacted to the tariff announcement, other markets followed. US treasury rates, which had entered the week down from the start of the year, continued to decline during the course of the week:

While the 3-month treasury bill rate remained fairly close to what it was at the start of the week, the rates at the longer end, from 2-year to 30-year all saw drops during the week, perhaps reflecting a search for safety on the part of investors. The drops, at least so far, have been modest and much smaller than what you would expect from a market sell off, where US equities dropped by $5.3 trillion.�� Looking past financial markets, I focused on three diverse markets - the oil market as a stand-in for commodity markets overall, the gold market, representing the��time-tested collectible, and Bitcoin, which is perhaps the millennial version of gold:

Oil prices dropped last week, especially as financial asset markets melted down on Thursday and Friday, while both gold and bitcoin held their own last week. For bitcoin advocates, that is good news, since in other market crises since its creation, it has behaved more like risky stock than a collectible. Of course, it I still early in this crisis, and the true tests will come in the next few weeks. ��

Summing up

�� In sum, the data seems to point more to a mark down in equity values than to panic selling, at least based upon the small sample of two days from last week. There was undoubtedly some panic selling on Friday, but the flight to safety, whether it be in moving into treasuries or high dividend paying stocks, was muted. ��

��The Crisis Cycle

��  Each crisis is unique both in its origins and in how it plays out, but there is still value in looking across crises, to see how they unfold, what causes them to crest, and how and why they recede. In this section, I will present a crisis cycle, which almost every crisis works its way through, with big differences in how quickly, and with how much damage. The crisis cycle starts with a trigger event, which can be economic, political or financial, though there are often smaller events ahead of is occurrence that point to its coming.��The immediate effect is in markets, where investors respond with the only instrument the they control, which is the prices they pay for assets, which they mark down to reflect at least their initial response to the crisis. In the language of risk, they are demanding higher prices for risk, translating into higher risk premiums. In conjunction, they often move their money to safer assets, with treasuries and collectibles historically benefiting from the fund flows. In the days and weeks that follow, there are aftershocks from the trigger event, both on the news and the market fronts, and while these aftershocks can sometimes be positive for markets, the net effect is usually negative. The effects find their way into the real economy, as consumers and businesses pull back, causing an economic slowdown or a recession, with negative effects on earnings and cash flows, at least in the near term. In the long term, the trigger event can change the economic dynamics, causing a resetting of real growth and inflation expectations, which then feed back into markets;

To illustrate, consider the 2008 banking crisis, where the Lehman collapse over the weekend before September 15 triggered a sell off in the stock market that caused equities to drop by 28% between September 12 and December 31, 2008, and triggered a steep recession, causing unemployment to hit double digits in 2009. The earnings for S&P 500 companies took a 40% hit in 2008, and long term, neither the economy nor earnings recovered back to pre-crisis levels until 2012.

During that crisis, I started a practice of estimating equity risk premiums by day, reflecting my belief that it is day-to-day movements in the price of risk that cause equity markets to move as much as they do in a crisis:

Equity risk premiums which started the crisis at around 4% peaked at almost 8% on November 21, 2008, before ending the year at 6.43%, well above the levels at the start of 2008. Those equity risk premiums did not get back to pre-2008 levels until almost 15 years later.�� Moving to 2020 and looking at the COVID crisis, the trigger event was a news story out of Italy about COVID cases in the country that could not be traced to either China or cruise ships, shattering the delusion that the pandemic would be contained to those settings. In the weeks after, the S&P 500 shed 33% of its value before bottoming out on March 23, 2020, and treasury rates plunged to historic lows, hitting 0.76% on that day. The key difference from 2008 was that the damage to the economy and earnings was mostly short term, and by the end of the year, both (economy and earnings) were on the mend, helped undoubtedly by multi-trillion dollar government support and central banking activism:

As in 2008, I computed equity risk premiums by day all through 2020, and the graph below tells the story:
As you can see, the equity risk premium which started at 4.4% on February 14, 2020, peaked a few weeks later at 7.75% on March 23, 2020, and as with the economy and earnings, it was back down to pre-crisis levels by September 2020.

The Perils of Post Mortems

��  Each crisis gives rise to postmortems, where investors, regulators and researchers pore over the data, often emerging with conclusions that extrapolate too much from what happened.

For investors: The lesson that many investors get out of looking at past crises is that markets come back from even the worst meltdowns, and that contrarian investing with a long time horizon always works. While that may be comforting, this lesson ignores the reality that the fact that a catastrophe did not occur in the crisis in question does not imply that the probability of it occurring was always zero. Markets assess risks in real time.For regulators: To the extent that crises expose the weakest seams in markets and businesses, regulators often come in with fixes for those seams, mostly by dealing with the symptoms, rather than the causes. After the 2008 crisis, the conclusions were that the problems was banks behaving badly and ratings agencies that were not doing their job, both merited judgments, but the question of risk incentives that had led them on their risk taking misadventures were largely left untouched.For researchers: With the benefit of hindsight, regulators weave stories about crises that are built around their own priors, by selectively picking up data items that support them. Thus, behavioral economists find every crisis to be an example of bubbles bursting and corrections for irrational investing, and efficient market theorists use the same crisis as an illustration of the magic of markets working.It is worth remembering that each crisis is a sample size of one, and since each crises is different, aggregating or averaging across them can be difficult to do. Thus, the danger is that we try to learn too much from past crises rather than too little.

The Tariff Crisis?

��  I don't believe that it is premature to put the tariff news and reaction into the crisis category. It has the potential to change the global economic order, and a market reaction is merited. It is, however, early in the process, since we are just past the trigger event (tariff announcement) and the initial market reaction, with lots of unknowns facing us down the road:

There are clearly stages of this crisis that have played out, but based on what we know now, here is how I see them:

After shocks: The tariff story will have after shocks, with both negatives (other countries imposing their own tariffs, and the US responding) and positives (a pause in tariffs, countries dropping tariffs). Those after shocks will create more market volatility, and if history is any guide, there is more downside than upside in the near term. In addition, the market volatility can feed itself, as levered investors are forced to close out positions and fund flows to markets reflect investor concerns and uncertainty. If you add on top of that the possibility that global investors may decide to reduce their US equity holdings, that reallocation will have price effects.Real economy (near term): In the near term, the real economy will slow down, with the plus being that while tariff-related price increases are coming, a cooling down in the economy will dampen inflation. The likelihood of a recession has spiked in the days since the tariff announcement, and while we will have to wait for the numbers on real growth and unemployment to come in, it does look likely that real growth will be impacted negatively. The steep declines in commodity prices suggests that investors see an economic slowdown on the horizon. AsReal economy (long term): Global economic growth will slow, and the US, as the world’s largest economy, will slow with it.. There are other dynamics at play including a restructuring of old economic and political alliances (Is there a point to having a G7 meeting?) and a new more challenging environment for global companies that have spent the last few decades building supply chains that stretch across the globe, and selling to consumers all over.

It is worth noting that if we measure winning by not the size of the pie (the size of the entire economy) but who gets what slice of that economy, it is possible that tariffs could reapportion the pie, with capital (equity markets) getting a smaller slice, and workers getting a larger slice,. In fact, much of this administration's defense of the tariff has been on this front, and time will tell whether that works out to be the case.�� In the two days after the announcement, stock prices have dropped and the price of risk has risen, as investors reassess the economy and markets:

The implied equity risk premium has risen from 4.57% on April 2 ��to 5.08% by the close of trading on Friday. The road ahead of us is long, but I plan to continue to compute these implied equity risk premiums every day for as long as I believe we are in crisis-mode, and I will keep these updated numbers . As stocks have been revalued with higher prices of risk, that same uncertainty is playing out in the corporate bond market, where corporate default spreads widened on Thursday (April 3) and Friday (April 4):

As with the equity risk premiums, the price of risk in the bond market had already risen between the start of 2025 and March 28, 2025, but they surged last week, with the lowest ratings showing the biggest surges. With treasury rates, equity risk premiums and default spreads all on the move it may be time for companies and investors to be reassessing their costs of equity and capital.��

What now?

�� If you have stayed with me so far on this long and rambling discourse, you are probably looking for my views on how this crisis will unfold, and how investors should respond now. I am afraid that dishing out investment advice is not my cup of tea, but I will try to explain how I plan to deal with what's coming, with the caveat that what I do may not work for you

A (Personal) Postscript��

��  In the midst of every market meltdown, you will see three groups of experts emerge. The first will be the "I told you so" group, eager to tell you that this is the big one, the threat that they have spent a decade or more warning you about. They will of course not let on that if you had followed their advice from inception, you would have been invested in cash for the last decade, and even with a market crash, you would not be made hold again. The second will include "knee jerk contrarians", arguing that stock markets always come back, and that every market dip is a buying opportunity, an extraordinarily lazy philosophy that gets the rewards (none) that its deserves. The third will be the "indecisives", who will present every side of the argument, conclude that there is too much uncertainty right now to either buy or sell, but to wait until the uncertainty passes. There are elements of truth in all three arguments, but they all have blind spots.

�� In the midst of a crisis, the market becomes a pricing game, where perception gets the better of reality, momentum overwhelms fundamentals and day-to-day movements cannot be rationalized. Anyone who tells you that their crystal balls, data or charts can predict what's coming is lying or delusional, and there is no one right response to this (or any other) crisis. It will depend on:

Cash needs and time horizon: If you are or will soon be in need of cash, to pay for health care, buy a home or pay tuition, and you are invested in equities, you should take the cash out now. Waiting for a better time to do so, when the clock is ticking is the equivalent of paying Russian Roulette and just as dangerous. Conversely, if you do not need the cash and are patient, you have the flexibility of waiting, though having a longer time horizon does not necessarily mean that you should wait to act.Macro views: The effects on markets and the real economy will depend on how you see the tariffs playing out, with the outcomes ranging from a no-holds-barred trade war (with tariffs and counter tariffs) to a partial trade war (with some countries capitulating and others fighting) to a complete clearing of the air (where the tariff threat is scaled down or put on the back burner). While you may be inclined to turn this over to macro economists, this is less about economics and more about game theory, where an expert poker player will be better positioned to forecast what will happen than an economic think tank.Investment philosophy: I have long argued (and teach a class to that effect) that every investor needs an investment philosophy, attuned to his or her personal make up. That philosophy starts with a set of beliefs about how markets make mistakes and corrects them, and manifests in strategies designed to take advantage of those mistakes.��

My investment philosophy starts with the belief that markets, for the most part, do a remarkable job in aggregating and reflecting crowd consensus, but that they sometimes make big ��mistakes that take long periods to correct, especially in periods and portions of the market where there is uncertainty. ��I am terrible at gauging market mood and momentum, but feel that I have an edge (albeit a small one) in assessing individual companies, though that may be my delusion. My response to this crisis (or any other) will follow this script:

Daily ERP: As in prior crises, I will continue to monitor the equity risk premiums, treasury rates and the expected return on stocks every day until I feel comfortable enough to let go. Note that this process lasted for months after the 2008 and 2020 crises, but as earnings updates for the S&P 500 reflect tariffs, my confidence in my assessments will increase. (As mentioned earlier, you will find these daily updates )Revalue companies in my portfolio: While I was comfortable with the companies in my portfolio on March 28, viewing them as under valued or at least not over valued enough to merit a sell, the tariffs may have an significant effect on their values, and I plan to revalue them in batches, starting with my big tech holdings (the Mag Five, since I did sell Tesla and most of my Nvidia holdings) and working through the rest.��Buy value: I have drawn a , with the former characterized by large moats, great management and strong earnings power, and the latter by being priced too low. There are companies that I believe are great companies, but are priced so highly by the market that they are sub-standard investments and I choose not to invest in them. During a crisis, where investors often sell without discrimination, there companies can become buys, and I have to be ready to buy at the right price. Since buying in the face of a market meltdown can require fortitude that I may not have, I have been scouring my list of great companies, revaluing them with the tariff effects built in, and putting buys at limit prices below those values. In the last week, both BYD, a company , a few weeks ago in my post on globalization and disruption, and Mercado Libre, a Latin American powerhouse, that has the disruptive potential of an Amazon combined with a fintech enterprise, have moved from being significantly overvalued to within shouting distance of the limit prices I have on them.��Go back to living: I certainly don't see much gain watching the market hour-to-hour and day-to-day, since its doings are out of my control and anything that I do in response is more likely to do harm than good. Instead, I plan on living my life, enjoying life's small pleasures, like a Yankee win or taking my dog for a walk, to big ones, like celebrating my granddaughter's birthday in a couple of days.��I hope that you find your own path back to serenity in the face of this market volatility, and that whatever you end up doing with your portfolio allows you to pass the sleep test, where you don't lie awake at night thinking about your portfolio (up or down).��
YouTube Video

Data Links

posted by Aswath Damodaran on April, 08

Investing Politics: Globalization Backlash and Government Disruption!

Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:50:00 -0700

�� I will start with a couple of confessions. The first is that I see the world in shades of gray, and in a world where more and more people see only black and white, that makes me an outlier. Thus, if you are reading this post expecting me to post a diatribe or a tribute to Trump, tariffs or Tesla, you are likely to be disappointed. The second is that much of my work is in the micro world, where I look at companies and their ��values, and the work that I do on macro topics or variables is to help me in that pursuit. Thus, my estimates of equity risk premiums, updated every month, are not designed to make big statements about markets but more to get inputs I need to value companies. That said, ��to value companies today, I have no choice but to bring in the economics and politics of the world that these companies inhabit. The problem with doing so, though, is that with Trump and tariffs on the one hand, and Mush and DOGE on the other, it is easy to be reactive, and to let your political leanings drive your conclusions. That is why I want to step back and look at the two larger forces that have brought us to this moment, with the first being globalization, a movement that has shaped economics and markets for much of the last four decades, but that has now, in my view, crested and is facing pushback, and the other being disruption, initiated by technology start-ups in the 1990s, and extended to lay waste to the status quo in many ��businesses in the decades since, but now being brought into the political/government arena.
Globalization �� The Rise, Effects and Blowback�� Globalization has taken different forms through the ages, with some violent and toxic variants, but the current��version of globalization kicked into high gear in the 1980s, transforming every aspect of our lives. I am no historian, but in this section, I will start with a very short and personal history of how globalization has played out in my classroom, examine its winners and losers, and end with an assessment of how the financial crisis of 2008 caused the movement to crest and create a political and economic backlash that has led us to today.
A Short (Personal) History of Globalization �� The best way that I can think of illustrating the rise of globalization is to talk about how it has made its presence felt in my classroom over the last four decades. When I started my teaching journey at the University of California at Berkeley in 1984, business education was dollar-centric, with business schools around the world using textbooks and cases written with US data and starring US companies. My class had a sprinkling of European and Japanese students but students from much of the rest of the world were underrepresented. The companies that they went to work for, after graduation, were mostly domestic in operations and in revenues, and multinationals were more the exception than the rule, with almost all of them headquartered��in the United States and Europe.�� Today, business education, both in terms of location and material, has become global, with European and Asian business schools routinely making the top business school list, and class materials reflecting this trend. My classes at NYU often have more students from outside the United States than from within, ��and very few will go to work for entities with a purely domestic focus. Many of these hiring firms have supply chains that stretch across the world and sell their products and services in foreign markets. As businesses have globalized, consumers and investors have had no choice but to follow, and the things we buy (from food to furniture) and the companies that we invest in all reflecting these global influences.��
The Winners from Globalization �� As consumers, companies and investors have globalized, there have clearly been many who have benefited from its rise. Without claiming to be comprehensive, here is my list of the biggest winners from globalization.��China: The biggest winner from globalization has been China, which has seen its economic and political power surge over the last four decades. Note that the rise has not been all happenstance, and China deserves credit for taking advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization, making itself first the hub for global manufacturing and then using its increasing wealth to build its infrastructure and institutions. To get a measure of China’s rise, I look at its GDP, relative to GDP from the rest of the world over the last few decades:��Source: World BankChina's share of global GDP increased ten-fold between 1980 and 2023, and its centrality to global economic growth is measured in the table below, where I look at the percentage of the change in global GDP each decade has come from different parts of the world:��Between 2010 and 2023, China accounted for almost 38% of global economic growth, with only the United States having a larger share, though the winnings for the US were on a larger base and are more attributable to the other global force (disruption) that I will highlight in the next section.Consumers: Consumers have benefited from globalization in many ways, starting with more products to choose from and often at lower prices than in pre-globalization days. From being able to eat whatever we want to, anytime of the year, to wearing apparel that has become so cheap that it has become disposable, many of us, at least on the surface, have more buying power.Global Institutions : While the World Bank and the IMF predate the globalization shift, their power has amped up, at least in many emerging markets, and the developed world has created its own institutions and ��agreements (EU and NAFTA, to ��name just two) making it easier for businesses and individuals to operate outside their domestic borders. In parallel, International Commercial Courts have proliferated and been empowered to enforce the laws of commerce, often across borders.Financial Markets (and their centers): Over the last few decades, not only have more companies been able to list themselves on financial markets, but these markets has become more central to public ��policy. In many cases, the market reaction to spending, tax or economic proposals has become the determinant on whether they get adopted or continued. As financial markets have risen in value and importance, the cities (New York, London, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Tokyo and Mumbai) where these markets are centered have gained in importance and wealth, if not in livability, at the expense of the rest of the world.Experts: We have always looked to experts for guidance, but globalization has given rise to a new cadre of experts, who are positioned to identify what they believe are the world’s biggest problems and offer their solutions ��in forums like Davos and Aspen, with the world’s policy makers as their audience.�� The Losers from Globalization �� When globalization was ascendant, its proponents underplayed its costs, but there were losers, and that list would include at least the following:��Japan and Europe: The graph that shows the rise of China from globalization also illustrates the fading of Japan and Europe over the period, with the former declining from 17.8% of global GDP in 1995 to 3.96% in 2023 and the latter seeing its share dropping from 25.69% of global GDP in 1990 to 14.86%. You can see this drop off in the graph below:
While not all growth from globalization is zero-sum, a significant portion during this period was, with economic power and wealth shifting from Europe and Japan to newly ascendant economies.Consumers, on control: I listed consumers as winners from globalization, and they were, on the dimensions of choice and cost, but they also lost in terms of control of where their products were made, and by whom. To provide a simplistic example, the shift from buying your vegetables, fish and meat from local farmers, fishermen and butchers to factory farmers and supermarkets may have made the food more affordable, but it has come at a cost.Small businesses: While there are a host of other factors that have also contributed to the decline of small businesses, globalization has been a major contributor, as smaller businesses now find themselves competing against companies who make their products thousands of miles away, often with very different cost structures and rules restricting them. Larger businesses not only had more power to adapt to the challenges of globalization, but have found ways to benefit from it, by moving their production to the cheapest and least restrictive locales. In one of my data updates for this year, I pointed to the , where small firms historically have earned higher returns than large cap companies, and globalization is a contributing factor.Blue-collar workers in developed markets: The flip side of the rise of China and other countries as manufacturing hubs, with lower costs of operation, has been the loss of manufacturing clout and jobs for the West, with factory workers in the United States, UK and Europe bearing the brunt of the cost. While the job losses varied across sectors, with job skills and unionization being determining factors, the top line numbers tell the story. In the United States, the number of manufacturing jobs peaked at close to 20 million in 1979 and dropped to about 13 million in 2024, and manufacturing wages have lagged wage growth in other sectors for much of that period.��
Democracy: In my view, globalization has weakened the power of democracy across the world. The fall of the Iron Curtain was greeted by optimists claiming the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism and the dawn of a new age of democratic freedom. That promise has largely been dashed, partly because the biggest winners from the globalization sweepstakes were not paragons of free expression and choice, but also because voters in democracies were frustrated when they voted for change, and found that the policies that followed came from a global script. The Economist, the newsmagazine, measures (albeit with their own biases) democracy in the world, and its findings in its most recent update are troubling. Not only does the world tilt more authoritarian than democratic in 2024, the trend line indicates that the world is becoming less democratic over time. While there are other forces (social media, technology) at play that may explain this shift as well, the cynicism that globalization has created about the capacity to create change at home has undoubtedly contributed to the shift away from democracy.I believe that globalization has been a net plus for the global economy, but one reason it is in retreat ��is because of a refusal on the part of its advocates to acknowledge its costs and the dismissal of opposition to any aspect of globalization as nativist and ignorant.��
The 2008 Crisis and its Aftermath �� Coming into this century, the march of globalization seemed unstoppable, but the wave crested in 2008, with the financial market crisis. That crisis exposed the failures of the expert class, leading to a loss of trust that has never been recovered. ��While the initial public responses to the financial crisis were muted, the perception that the world was still being run by hidden (global) forces, unelected and largely unaccountable to anyone, has continued, and I believe that it has played a significant role in British voters choosing Brexit, the rise of nationalist parties in Europe, and in the elections of Donald Trump in the United States. Trump, a real estate developer with multiple international properties, is an imperfect spokesperson of the anti-globalization movement, but it is undeniable that he has tapped into, and benefited from, its anger. While he was restrained by norms and tradition in his first term, those constraints seem to have loosened in this second go around, and he has weilded tariffs as a weapon and is open about his contempt for global organizations. While economists are aghast at the spectacle, and the economic consequences are likely to be damaging, it is not surprising that a portion of the public, perhaps even a majority, are cheering Trump on.�� To those who are nostalgic for a return to the old times, I don't believe that the globalization genie can go back into the bottle, as it has permeated not only every aspect of business, but also significant portions of our personal lives. The world that will prevail, if a trade war plays out, will be very different than the one that existed before globalization took off. China, the second largest economy in the world today, is not returning to its much smaller stature, pre-globalization, and given the size of its population, it may be able to sustain its economy and grow it, with a domestic market focus. While investors are being sold the India story, it is worth recognizing that India will face much more hostility from the rest of the world, as it tries to grow, than China did during the last few decades. For Europe and Japan, a combination of an aging populations and sclerotic governments limit the chances of recovery, and for the United States, the question is whether technology can continue to be its economic savior, especially if global markets become more difficult to access.

Disruption �� Origins and Extensions�� In the world of my youth, disruption was not used as a compliment and disruptors were consigned to the outside edges of society, labeled as troublemakers or worse. That has changed in this century, as technology evangelists have used disruption as a sword to slay the status quo and offer, at least, in their telling, ��more efficient and better alternatives.
The Disruptor Playbook �� I have written about disruption , and at the risk of repeating myself, I will start with a generalized description of the playbook used by disruptors to break up the status quo.Find a business to disrupt: The best businesses to disrupt are large (in terms of dollars spent on their products/services), inefficient in how they make and sell these products, and filled with dissatisfied players, where no one (or at least very few) is happy. For the most part, these businesses have made legacy choices, which made sense at the time they were made, have long outlived their usefulness, but persist, because systems and practices have been built around them, and changes are fought by the beneficiaries of these inefficient systems.Target their weakest��links: Legacy businesses have a mix of products and services, and it is inevitable that some of these products are services have high margins and pay for other products that are offered at or below cost. Disruptors go after the former, weaning away unhappy customers by offering them better deals, and in the process, leaving legacy businesses with a less profitable and viable product mix. ��Move quickly and scale up: Speed is of the essence in disruption, since moving quickly puts status quo companies at a disadvantage, as these companies not only take more time to respond, but must weather fights within their organizations, often driven by politics and money. With access to significant capital from venture capital, private equity and even public investors, disruptors can scale up quickly, unencumbered by the need to have well formed business models or show profits at least in the near term.Break rules, ask for permission later: One feature shared by disruptive models, albeit to varying degrees, has been a willingness to break rules and norms, knowing fully well that their status quo competitors will be more averse to doing so, and that the rule makers and regulators will take time to respond.��There is no alternative: By the time the regulators or legal system catches up with the disrupters, they aim to have become so ascendant, and the status quo so damaged, that there is no going back to the old ways.In the last three decades, we have seen this process play out in industry after industry, from the retail business (with Amazon), the music business (with Apple iTunes first and Spotify later), the automobile business (with Tesla) and advertising (with Google and Facebook), to name just a few.
Disruption's Winners and Losers �� The obvious winners from disruption are the disruptors, but since many of them scaled up with unformed business models, the payoff is less in the form of profits, and more in terms of their market capitalizations, driven by investors dazzled by their potential. That had made the founders of these businesses (Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg) not only unbelievably wealthy, but also given them celebrity status, and created a host of winners for those in the ecosystem, including the disruptors' employees and investors. As these disrupted businesses prioritized scaling up over profitability, consumers benefited as they received products and services, at bargain-basement prices, sometimes below cost.�� The clearest loser from disruption is the status quo. As legacy companies melt down, in terms of profitability and value, the damage is felt in concentric circles, with employees facing wage cuts and job losses, and investors seeing write downs in their holdings ��The peripheral damage is to the regulatory structures that govern these businesses, as the rule breakers became ascendant, leaving rule makers impotent and often on the side lines. To the extent that these regulations and rules were designed to protect the environment and the public, there are side costs for society as well.�� In short,��disruption may have been a net positive for society, but there are casualties on its battlefield. In the battle for the global economic pie, the fact that so much of the disruption has originated in the United States, aided both by access to a capital and a greater tolerance for rule-breaking, has helped the United States maintain and even grow its share of global GDP. In practical terms, this has manifested in the soaring market capitalizations of the biggest technology companies, and it is their presence that has allowed the United States to ward off the decline in economic power and market cap that you have seen in much of the rest of the developed world.
Disruption goes macro �� For much of its history, disruption has been restricted to the business space and it has had only limited success when directed at systemic inefficiencies in less business-driven settings. Health care clearly meets all of the criteria for a good disruption target, consuming 20% of US GDP, with a host of unhappy constituencies (doctors, patients, hospitals and payers). However, attempts at disruption, whether it be from Mark Cuban’s pharmaceutical start-up or from Google and Amazon’s health care endeavors, have largely left the system intact. I have described education, at the school and college level, as deserving of disruption for more than two decades, but notwithstanding tries at online education, not much has changed at universities (yet).�� Can entire governments be disrupted? After all, it is hard to find anyone who would describe government organizations and systems as efficient, and the list of unhappy players is a mile long. The pioneers of government disruption have been in Latin America, with El Salvador and Argentina being their venues. Nayib Bukele, in El Salvador, and Javier Milei, in Argentina, have not just pushed back against the norms, but have reveled in doing so, and they were undoubtedly aided by the fact that the governments in both countries were so broken that many of their citizenry viewed any change as improvement. As we watch Elon Musk and DOGE move at hyper speed (by government standards), break age-old systems and push rules and laws to breaking point, I see the disruption playbook at play, and I am torn between two opposing perspectives. On the one hand, it is clear the US government has been broken for decades and tinkering at its edges (which is what every administration has done for the last forty years) has accomplished little to reduce the dysfunctionality of the system (and the deficits and debt that it creates). On the other, though, disrupting the US government is not the same as disrupting a business, since there are millions of vulnerable people (social security, Medicare and veteran care) whose lives rest on government checks, and a break in that process that is not fixed quickly could be catastrophic. There is a middle ground here, and unless DOGE finds it quickly, this disruption story will have lots of casualties.
Market and Micro Effects�� As I have wrestled with the barrage of news stories in the last few weeks, many with large consequences for economies and markets, I keep going back to what this means for my micro pursuits, i.e., analyzing how companies make decisions on investing, financing and dividends and what the values of these companies are. It is still early in that process, and there is much that I still don’t know the answer to, but here the ways I see this playing out.
In markets ��  There are two key inputs that are market-driven which affect the values of every company. The first is interest rates, across the maturity spectrum, since their gyrations will play out across the market. In the graph below, I look at US treasury rates and how they have moved since the Trump election in early November:

The ten-year US treasury rate has declined from 4.55% on Election Day (November 5) ��to 4.27% on March 13, 2025, but since that treasury rate is driven of expectations about inflation and real economic growth, Trump supporters will attribute the decline to markets anticipating a drop in inflation in a Trump administration and Trump critics suggesting that the rate drop is an indicator of a slowing ��economy and perhaps even a recession. The yield curve has flattened out, with the 10-year rate staying higher than the 2-year rate, pushing that very flawed signal of economic recession into neutral territory.�� The other number that I track is the equity risk premium, which at least in my telling, is a forward-looking number backed out of the market and the receptacle for the greed and fear in markets. ��In the table below, I show my estimates of the implied equity risk premium for the S&P 500 at the start of every month, since January 2024, and on March 14, 2025.

The equity risk premium at the start of March was at 4.35%, surprisingly close to the 4.28% on Election Day, but that number has jumped to 4.68% in the first two weeks of March, indicating that uncertainty about tariffs and the economy is undercutting the resilience that the market has shown so far this year. In my view, the pathway that the equity risk premium takes for the rest of the year will be the key driver in whether equities level off, continue to decline or make a comeback. If equity risk premiums continue to march upwards, driven by increased uncertainty and the potential for trade wars, stock prices will drop, even if the economy escapes a recession, and adding a recession, with the damage it will create to expected earnings, will only make it worse. In ��I looked at US equities, and valued the S&P 500 at 5262, putting it about 12% below the index level (5882) at the start of the year. Even with the drawdown in prices that we have seen through March 10, the index remains above my estimated value, and while that value reflected what I saw at the start of the year, what has happened in the last few weeks has lowered the fair value, not raised it.
In companies ��  Changes in interest rates and risk premiums will affect the valuations of all companies, but assuming that the tariff announcements and government spending cuts will play out over the foreseeable future, there will be disparate effects across companies. I will draw on a familiar structure, where I trace the value of a company to its key drivers:By narrowing our focus to the drivers of value, we can look at how company exposure to trade wars and DOGE will play out:1. Revenue growth: On the revenue growth front, companies that derive most or all of their revenues domestically will benefit and companies that are dependent on foreign sales will be hurt by tariff wars. To assess how that exposure varies across sectors, I look at the percentage of revenues s in each ��sector that companies in the S&P 500 get from foreign markets:Based on revenues in 2023Collectively, about 28% of the revenues, in 2023, of the companies in the S&P 500 came from foreign markets, but technology companies are most exposed (with 59% of revenues coming from outside the country) and utilities least exposed (just 2%) ��to foreign revenue exposure. It is also worth noting that the larger market cap companies of the S&P 500 have a higher foreign market revenue exposure than smaller market cap companies.��On the DOGE front, the attempts to cut costs are likely tol hit healthy care and defense, the two businesses that are most dependent on the government spending, most directly, with green energy, a more recent entrant into the government spending sweepstakes, also on the cutting block.2. Operating ��margins: A company that gets all of its revenues from the domestic markets can still be exposed to trade wars, if its production or supply chains is set in other countries. The data on this front is far less visible or reported than revenue data and will require more company-level research. It is also likely that if the attempts to bring production back to the United States come to fruition, wages for US workers will increase, at least in the longer term, pushing up costs for companies. In short, a tariff war ��will lower the operating margins for many firms, with the size of the decline depending on their revenues,��3. Reinvestment: To the extent that companies are altering their decisions on where to build their next manufacturing facilities, as a result of tariff fears or in hope of government largesse, there should be an effect on reinvest, with an increase in reinvestment (lower sales to capital ratios) at businesses where this move will create investment costs. Looking across businesses, this effect is likely to be more intense at manufacturing companies, where moving production is more expensive and difficult to do, that at technology or service firms.4. Failure risk: Since 2008, the US government has implicitly, if not explicitly, made clear its preference for stepping in to help firms from failing, especially if they were larger and the cost of failure was perceived as high. It is not clear what the Trump administration's views are on bailing out companies in trouble, but may initial read is that government is less likely to jump in as a capital provider of last resort.�� There is another way in which you can reframe how the shifts in politics and economics will play out in valuation. I have and that to value a company, you have a start with a business story for the company, check to make sure that it is and connect the story to valuation inputs (revenue growth, margins, reinvestment and risk). Staying with that structure, I have also posited that the value of a company can sometimes be affected by its political connections or by the government acting as an ally or an adversary, making the government a key player in the company's story. While that feature is not uncommon in many emerging market companies, when analyzing US and European companies, we had the luxury, historically, of keeping governments out of company stories, other than in their roles of tax collectors and regulators. That time may well have passed, and it is entirely possible that when valuing US companies now, you have to bring the government into the story, and in some cases, a company's political connections can make or break the story. ��The company where you are seeing the interplay between economics and politics play out most visibly right now is Tesla, a company that has had a rollercoaster history with the market. In 2024, its stock soared, especially so after the election, but it has now given up almost of its gains, almost entirely because of its��(or more precisely, Elon Musk's) political connections. I revisited my Tesla valuation from January 2024, when I valued the stock at $182, triggering a buy in my portfolio when the stock price dropped to $170. In the intervening year, there were three developments that have affected the Tesla narrative:A rethiinking the "electric cars are inevitable" story: For the last few years, it has become conventional wisdom that electric cars will eventually displace gas cars, and the question has been more about when that would happen, rather than whether. In 2024, you saw , as hybrids made a comeback, and the environmental consequences of having millions of electric cars on the road came into focus. To the extent that Tesla's value has come from an assumption that the electric car market will be huge, this affects end revenues and value.The rise of BYD as a competitor for electric cars: Since its founding, Tesla has dominated the electric car business, and legacy car makers have struggled to keep up with it. in 2024, BYD, the Chinese electric car company, , and it is clearly beating Tesla not just in China, but in most Asian markets and even in Europe, with lower prices and more choices. Put simply, it feels like Tesla has its first real competitor in the electric car business.The politicization of the Tesla story: There has been a backlash building from those who do not like Musk's political stances and it is spilling over into Tesla's sales, and the United States. As long as Musk remains at the center of the news cycle, this is likely to continue, and there is the added concern, even for Tesla shareholders who agree with Musk's politics, that he is too distracted now to provide direction to the company.��These developments have made me more wary than I was last year on the end game for Tesla. While I do believe that Tesla will be one of the lead players in the electric car market, the pathway to a dominant market share of the electric car market has become rockier, and it seems likely that the electric car market will bifurcate into a lower-priced and a premium market, with BYD leading in the first (lower priced) market, especially in much of Asia, and Tesla holding its own in the premium car market, with a clear advantage in the United States. I remain skeptical that any of the legacy auto companies, notwithstanding the money that they have spend on electric cars and the quality of these cars, will challenge the newcomers on this turf. My updated valuation for Tesla is below:

My estimate of value for Tesla stands at about $150 a share, about $30 less than my value last year, and about $70 below its stock price. As an investor, I have been wary of taking a position in BYD, because of its Chinese origins and the presence of Beijing as a player in its story, but given that Tesla is now a political play, it may be time to open the door to the BYD investment, but that will have to wait for another post.
The Bottom Line��  While it is easy to blame market uncertainty on Trump, tariffs and trade wars for the moment, the truth is that the forces that have led us here have been building for years, both in our political and economic arenas. In short, even if the tariffs cease to be front page news, and the fears of an immediate trade war ease, the underlying forces of anti-globalization that gave rise to them will continue to play out in global commerce and markets. For investors, that will require a shift away from the large cap technology companies that have been the market leaders in the last two decades back to smaller cap companies with a more domestic focus. It will also require an acceptance of the reality that politics and macroeconomic factors will play a larger role in your company assessments, and create a bigger wild card on whether investments in these companies will pay off.
YouTube Video
Links