• What We Do
    • Wealth Counseling
    • Investment Advisory Services
  • Who We Are
    • Our Team
    • Research Roundtable
  • How We Invest
    • Our Fiduciary Pledge
    • Investment Approach
    • Questions To Consider
    • Our Transparent Approach
  • Insights and Research

Insights and Research

Home  »  Investment Philosophy   »   If We Had A Chief Economist We Would Have to Pay Them

If We Had A Chief Economist We Would Have to Pay Them

By Preston McSwain, April 4, 2015

Here we are at quarter end and, get ready, here come all the market predictions from Wall Street Chief Economists and strategy professionals.

The title of this post speaks to our feelings about these market prognostications.  It comes from the founder of Neuberger Berman, Roy Neuberger.  When I joined Neuberger Berman years ago, I had the opportunity to meet with Roy and speak with him about his philosophy, which included a general skepticism about those who made market predictions.  For much of firm’s history, Neuberger Berman never had a Chief Economist or firm-wide strategist.  When asked about this, Roy would famously, and gruffly, say,

“If I had one I would have to pay them.  And, if I pay someone, I feel compelled to listen to them.”

In a fun way, he was saying that he did not think Wall Street economists were worth much.

Much has been written about the inaccuracy of economic and market forecasts to include a study by a Federal Reserve bank on the prowess of their own forecasting.  Below is a quote from a report published in February of this year by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF) based on a study of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee’s Summary of Economic Projections (SEP):

“Over the past seven years, many growth forecasts, including the SEP’s…, have been too optimistic. In particular, the SEP forecast (1) did not anticipate the Great Recession that started in December 2007, (2) underestimated the severity of the downturn once it began, and (3) consistently over-predicted the speed of the recovery that started in June 2009.”

Beyond words, the below chart says it all.

Capture

The following is how the Fed explains this illustration:

“Figure 1 shows that the SEP growth forecast for 2008 never turned negative. At the time, the mainstream view was that the U.S. economy would avoid a recession despite the ongoing housing market turmoil. The actual growth rate for 2008 turned out to be -2.8% (the largest annual decline since 1946). The SEP growth forecast for 2009 did not turn negative until January 2009…, after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September 2008.”

For those you wish to read the full report, it can be found by clicking on the following link:

FRBSF Economic Letter – Persistent Overoptimism About Economic Growth – February 2, 2015

Some might say, “this doesn’t tell the full story”, “the 2008-2009 financial crisis was hard to predict” or, my favorite, “economic conditions are indeed hard to predict, but with hard work we can accurately estimate future earnings.”  

Unfortunately, independent analysis of analysts’ estimates and projections suggests that “this just ain’t so.”

As an example, McKinsey & Co. produced a study in 2001 about the accuracy of earnings estimates, which was then updated in 2010.  The following quote summarizes their findings:

“Analysts, we found, were typically overoptimistic, slow to revise their forecasts to reflect new economic conditions, and prone to making increasingly inaccurate forecasts when economic growth declined.  On average, analysts’ forecasts have been almost 100 percent too high.”

Like the FRBSF chart, pictures can speak louder than words.  In the chart below, the light green line represents Wall Street earnings forecasts.  The blue line reflects what actually happened.

Capture 3

The full McKinsey & Co. reports can be found at the following:

Equity Analysts: Still Too Bullish – McKinsey Quarterly – April 2010

Prophets and Profits – McKinsey Quarterly – October 2001

What the charts above highlight, and the McKinsey study has twice observed, is that Wall Street economists and analysts can be herd animals and get anchored on a trend.  They tend to be late to revise up, late to revise down and tend to move in groups.  

Beyond anchoring, I believe this is also due to pain avoidance.  

It is painful to be right – early – on Wall Street.

If an analyst is out in front and seems to be wrong for a quarter or two, the pain in terms of job security and reduced bonus potential can be high.

In writing this, I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t follow useful information being published or not to strive to make informed decisions based upon all of the available information.  I am just cautioning that we should not get overly anchored on estimates of the future.

Versus hiring a Chief Economist or strategist, or paying Wall Street to provide us with research that the evidence consistently says is wrong, at Fiduciary Wealth Partners we try to stay anchored on Roy Neuberger’s old line. 

Why? 

This additional quip about forecasts that Wall Street professionals often say in private might say it the best:

“Never in Doubt, But Often Wrong.”

 


Related Reading:

Falliable Forecasts

Your Brain on the Market

Ground Hog Day

Preston McSwain
+ posts
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Transparency, Simplicity and Peace of Mind®
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Fiduciary Wealth Partners Reading List
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Is Trying to Pick Active Managers a Loser's Game?
  • Preston McSwain
    https://fwpwealth.com/author/preston/
    Say It Ain't So, Joe
SHARE
Tags:
Economics, Fiduciary Duty, Forecasting, Investments, Wall Street, Wealth Management
RELATED ARTICLES
Recessions – What Should Investors Do?
The evidence may surprise you.
Trillions – Our Talk With Robin Wigglesworth About Index Funds
It seems like we have been continuing to have the same debates over and over for almost 100 years.
Should We Be Tactical?
We should be open and humble about our tactical ability to add value.
All articles

Follow us on social media

Search Our Ideas

Subscribe to Our Posts


Important disclosures

Most Popular

  • The Simple Alternative – Keeps On Winning
  • The Simple Alternative
  • Say It Ain’t So, Joe
  • Are We Baking Portfolios with Bad Ingredients?
  • Crucial Elements in Wealth Management: Simplicity and Transparency

Browse by Theme

  • Fees
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Investment Philosophy
  • Managing The Market
  • Peace of Mind
  • Performance Measurement
  • Private Investing
  • Quarterly Letter
  • Simplicity
  • Taxes
  • Transparency
  • Uncategorized
  • Values

FWP Logo Dark

Fiduciary Wealth Partners is a 100% employee owned firm that serves clients in a transparent, fiduciary manner.

We do not have any fee sharing arrangements with managers and do not have any broker-dealer conflicts. In addition, you will never see an arbitration clause in our contracts.

Everything we do is focused on assisting trustees, institutions and families with investment consulting, management and overall asset planning strategies.

  • Disclosures
  • ADV
  • Privacy Policy
  • Form CRS

Useful Links

  • Investment Advisory Services
  • Wealth Counseling
  • Our Team
  • Research Roundtable
  • Our Values
  • Questions To Consider
  • Insights and Ideas
  • Contact Us

Contact us

Phone

(617) 602-1900

Email

info@fwpwealth.com

Address

177 Huntington Avenue
20th Floor
Boston, MA 02115

 

View larger map

© 2020 FWP. All Rights Reserved. Fiduciary Wealth Partners Is An SEC Registered Investment Adviser.