fbpx
Financial Market Recap for Q3: Gimme Some Truth Podcast

Financial Market Recap for Q3: Gimme Some Truth Podcast

How did the markets fare in the third quarter? What trends are unfolding this year? And what’s on the horizon for the rest of the year?

Nate Condon and Clint Walkner unearth the answers to those questions (and more) in this bonus episode of Gimme Some Truth, our Q3 market recap. Armed with data from JPMorgan’s Guide to the Markets, Clint & Nate explore the drivers of inflation, U.S. market outperformance, bonds, and more.

Questions related to this podcast or topics you’d like us to cover in future episodes of Gimme Some Truth? Send an email to [email protected].

As Fall Falls: A Market Perspective

As Fall Falls: A Market Perspective

As fall falls and the temperatures signal a new season, we are reminded why we love this time of year in Wisconsin. We are replacing our shorts and swim trunks with flannel shirts and hooded sweatshirts. Even though most of us have been through the Midwest seasonal pattern for decades, every season feels new and different from last year or the year before. We know that it isn’t different. Leaf colors will change and eventually drop. Snow will fall and temperatures will once again have a minus in front of them. 

The investment markets tend to run in similar cyclical patterns. Albeit not as predictable as the seasons, stock and bond markets have a familiar rhythm. Investment markets peak, then fall, eventually bottoming out before rising again. While we all know this and have likely been through the cycle, it is very easy to get lost in the noise, feeling as though this time it is different

Proper perspective is one of the most essential traits of successful long-term investors. While it is sometimes difficult to deal with freezing temperatures day after day in January and February, we know that by April and May things will improve. It is harder to have a solid perspective when the investment markets fall and show no indication of recovery. The majority of stock and bond markets started 2022 sliding downhill and have continued that negative momentum through the third quarter. If the first nine months of 2022 were an “investment market winter,” we don’t have the luxury of looking at a calendar to tell us when spring will arrive. 

Market Perspective: The Last 30 Years in the S&P 500

When I begin to lose sight of the big picture, I tend to look at history as a way to get my bearings. Here is a chart of the S&P 500 annual returns for the last 30 years. 

There are two significant takeaways from this chart. First, in the last 30 years, the S&P 500 has only had five years of negative returns of more than 2%. Second, only one of these years occurred in the last 13 years. The first takeaway helps to provide context. Most investors define themselves as long-term, with a time horizon of more than 10 years. Therefore, seeing the last 30 years of returns can give us a useful long view. The second takeaway helps us to better understand the unique nature of the most recent bull market. From 2009 – 2021, there was one meaningful down year over these 13 years. Most bull markets last just under three years. While a market downturn was inevitable, predicting when it would start and the depth of the downturn is impossible. Coming off the down year in 2018, many respected economists and market professionals were predicting a difficult year for the US stock markets in 2019. As we can see from the chart, the S&P 500 index posted a total return of over 28% for 2019 and started a three-year run of double-digit positive returns. This isn’t throwing stones at the economists and market professionals who got it wrong in 2019, simply pointing out that predicting market returns or when markets will fall in any given year is incredibly difficult. 

Raising of the Fed Funds Rate and Bond Markets

Now that we have a better understanding of the recent history of the U.S. equity markets, let’s turn our attention to the fixed income or bond markets. As jarring as 2022 has been for the equity markets, it pales compared to what has transpired in the bond market, particularly due to the Fed raising interest rates. The Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate most often adjusted by the Federal Reserve, began the year at .25%. As of Oct. 3, the current Fed Funds Rate sits at 3.25% as a result of three straight .75% increases. 

The Fed is raising interest rates to combat soaring inflation. While this is necessary to help contain the current inflationary environment, it is leading to an incredibly challenging bond market. This coalescence of events has led to the worst start to a bond year since 1842. Here are three popular bond indexes to illustrate the negative 2022 performance.

The positive byproduct of the Fed aggressively raising interest rates is that we are finally in a higher-yielding bond environment. Newly issued bonds from the U.S. government and corporations are paying much more attractive interest rates than in the past 15 years. 

Perspective is easily lost in light of the turbulent market conditions. Much like the despair you feel when we receive that early March snowfall, it is helpful to keep in mind that the current stage of this cycle will run its course and the markets will grow again. This is the time to review your portfolios and investment strategy to ensure that you are well positioned for your long-term goals.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

NATE CONDON

FINANCIAL ADVISOR

Nate Condon is one of the co-founders and managing partners of Walkner Condon Financial Advisors. He is a fee-only, fiduciary financial advisor who works with clients locally in Madison and around the country.

Reviewing Sector Performance in 2021 and Positioning in 2022

Reviewing Sector Performance in 2021 and Positioning in 2022

A LOOK AT SECTOR PERFORMANCE

Every single U.S. sector, as determined by S&P Dow Jones Indices, posted gains in 2021. You heard that correctly, every single one! Of course, each sector doesn’t move in unison, so let’s explore this a bit further. 

The energy sector was the big winner in 2021, whether it be large-cap, mid-cap, or small-cap companies. They posted 2021 gains of 53.4%, 71.3%, and 60.0%, respectively. Real estate also had a solid 2021, posting gains of 46.2%. 

One thing that we talk a lot about is cyclicality and reversion to the mean. When we are talking about sectors, cyclicality means that sectors generally go in and out of favor. Said another way, a sector that outperforms one year may underperform the following year or vice versa. For example, let’s look at what energy did in 2020 (keep in mind we just talked about it being the big winner in 2021). Returns for large, mid, and small-cap energy stocks were -32.8%, -42.8%, and -40.0% respectively. From 2020 to 2021, energy went from the worst-performing to the best-performing sector. 

Financials is a sector that many are looking at opportunistically in 2022. The reason being is that banks are one of the few places that benefit from rising interest rates. One of the key points to take away is that it’s unlikely that a single sector can consistently be the “winner” year-in and year-out over the long haul.

A Look at Factor Performance

Factors are another variable, like sectors, that move in and out of favor. Most people are familiar with sectors, but might not be able to list as many investment factors off the top of their heads. BlackRock describes factor investing as “an investment approach that involves targeting specific drivers of return across asset classes.” Factor investing is not passive; one tries to find attractive attributes of a security that will enhance returns and/or reduce risk. There are macroeconomic factors and style factors. Similar to the sector discussion above, each of the seventeen factors (among S&P 500 companies) delivered positive returns in 2021. The top performing factor in 2021 was High Beta, at 40.9%. 

One item that many clients have asked about over the last several years is growth versus value. Growth has dominated value in recent memory, including in 2020 when it outperformed value with a 33.5% return vs. 1.4% return. In 2021, S&P 500 growth again outperformed S&P 500 Value, 32.0% to 24.9%. In 2022, we might see growth and value continue to have less of a dispersion compared to the 2010s, where growth significantly outperformed value. Momentum, the worst performing factor in 2021– granted it still produced a 22.8% return – was the third-best performing factor the year prior when it returned 28.3%. Momentum is another good example of a factor that outperformed the general index in one year (2020), only to underperform the index the following year (2021). 

Where to go from here?

Does this mean that you should only own energy? Or only own high beta? Of course not. There is generally a reversion to the mean. Again, most investors need exposure to a diversified portfolio and a disciplined investment process. Rebalancing is one technique to help take small gains over time and not become too concentrated on a single sector or factor. 

Note that diversification doesn’t imply that owning every sector equally-weighted is always the best approach, either. If you own an S&P 500 index fund, you own every sector, but in different weights. If we’re looking at the end of 2021, 29.2% of your S&P 500 exposure would be in information technology alone. Also, keep in mind that true diversification includes more than just sector diversification. Having a mix of uncorrelated assets from a geographic, asset class, and allocation perspective must all be considered when building a diversified portfolio.

Mitch DeWitt, CFP®, MBA

2022 Investment & Market Outlook Guide

Mitch DeWitt’s piece is part of Walkner Condon’s 2022 Investment & Market Outlook Guide, a comprehensive reflection of 2021 and glimpse at the factors impacting the year ahead in 2022.

2022 Investment and Market Outlook Guide

2022 Investment and Market Outlook Guide

Walkner Condon’s team of experienced financial advisors explores key topics that are top-of-mind as we transition out of 2021 and into a new calendar year, featuring the market outlook and review from Syl Michelin, a Chartered Financial Analyst™. Other topics include index funds, sector & factor performance, a pair of U.S. expat-focused pieces, and more.

Below you can find a breakdown of the individual pieces in this year’s outlook. 

1. The Year of Impossible Choices: 2021 Market Recap & 2022 Outlook
Syl Michelin, Chartered Financial Analyst™

Through a lens of current and historical data, Walkner Condon’s resident CFA® explores the last year in the markets, with an eye on factors that may impact 2022. 

2. It Only Gets Harder from Here: Valuations, Bond Environment & Wage Growth
Clint Walkner

With a multitude of market highs throughout 2021 and a long stretch of gains post-2008 financial crisis, it would appear the “easy” money, if we can call it that, has been made. In this piece, Clint dives into the three main challenges as we move forward into 2022.

3. Reviewing 2021 Sector and Factor Performance and Positioning in 2022
Mitch DeWitt, CFP®, MBA

The markets were up routinely throughout 2021, but that doesn’t mean the gains were shared equally. Mitch discusses the sector winners (and losers) of the last year, along with what factors – things like high beta, value, and quality – had their day in the sun. He also goes into what might be on the horizon this year.  

4. Exploring Index Funds: History, Construction, Weightings & Factors
Nate Condon

The goal of this piece from Nate is to provide a general overview of indexes, the differences in how indexes are constructed, including equal-weighted indexes versus market capitalization-weighted indexes, and passive and factor indexing strategies.

5. Three Reasons to Look at Investing Internationally in 2022
Keith Poniewaz, Ph.D.

Though the U.S. dollar had its best year since 2015 in 2021, Keith explains several reasons to think about international investments in 2022, including the very strength of that U.S. dollar, valuations, and the rest of the world’s growth in GDP.  

6. Top Five International Destinations for U.S. Expats in 2022
Stan Farmer, CFP®, J.D.

One of our U.S. expat experts, Stan jumps headfirst into possible locations for Americans to consider in 2022 if they’re thinking about a move abroad – or even if they’re just wanting to dream a little bit. Stan covers ground in South America, Europe, and Asia in this thorough piece, perhaps his first crack at being a travel journalist in his spare time. 

QE & Adventures in a Fed-Driven Market: 2020 Market Recap and 2021 Outlook

QE & Adventures in a Fed-Driven Market: 2020 Market Recap and 2021 Outlook

Technically, the record-breaking bull market that started in 2009 ended in 2020. I say “technically” because the sell-off was so short-lived that it almost didn’t feel like a true bear market, and the rebound was so sharp that it didn’t feel like a proper recovery. As we continue to emerge from the Q1 shock, our new bull market sure feels a lot like the continuation of the previous decade-long uptrend, with the same drivers (low rates, central bank intervention) and the same dominant sectors (with big tech leading the way). 

Last year’s events left many investors with a feeling of unease at the disconnect between the economy and the market. Many were already skeptical about valuations prior to COVID. When a brief collapse was immediately followed by a moon-shot to unthinkable new highs, investor skepticism rose along with it. This is perhaps the most common point of concern for our clients: how can weak economies, with falling demand and rising unemployment, justify higher equity prices? When faced with this question, I’ve often tried to draw our clients’ attention to the prodigious scale of the monetary measures being implemented, and to the fact that the link between markets and the economy isn’t always as direct and linear as many investors expect, as we will discuss later. 

One way or another, it’s largely been about the Federal Reserve and their international counterparts (ECB, BOJ…), and while 2020 will probably be remembered as the year when everything changed, as far as markets are concerned, we seem to be trapped in the same powerful dynamics that were in place a year ago, and which have become even more deeply entrenched as a result of the pandemic.

Fun With Trillions

At the beginning of 2020, many observers would have described global monetary policy as extremely loose, historically so. Part of the bearish narrative was that central banks had run out of ammunition: with both ECB and Federal Reserve balance sheets hovering around all-time highs, and interest rates near zero, surely there wasn’t much left for central banks to do. 

As it turns out, they were just warming up. 

Keeping up with monetary policy and high-flying government finance requires a rare skill: the ability to make sense of large — very large — numbers. Can anyone really wrap their minds around numbers like 665,900,000,000,000 — or 666.9 trillion — the approximate size of the Bank of Japan’s balance sheet in Yen? 

Central bankers and politicians seem to deal only in rounded trillions nowadays: the first COVID relief bill was 2 trillion dollars, the ECB expanded its Quantitative Easing (QE) program in June by 1.3 trillion Euros, and so on…and with every new trillion-dollar headline, the world of big finance grows increasingly disconnected from reality, almost like it exists in its own parallel universe. 

Trying to relate the idea of trillions of dollars to something tangible would look something like this: if you had 1 million dollars in a compact stack of 1,000 dollar bills, the stack would be approximately 4 inches in height. A million is a lot of money by any standard, yet it’s small enough to carry in a handbag. To get to a billion dollars, the stack of 1,000 dollar bills would have to grow to about 358 feet, or about 50 feet higher than the Statue of Liberty. To get to a trillion, the stack would need to grow to a length of approximately 67.9 miles. (1)

Central bankers don’t need to worry about the logistics involved in printing and shipping 70-mile long stacks of bills, they save themselves the hassle by creating currencies in electronic form, but the impact on markets of their various trillion-dollar endeavors are just as real. 

To understand why 2020 was truly the year of “Fun with Trillions”, consider the following chart:

The main global central banks have added nearly 8 trillion dollars to their combined balance sheet in 2020 alone. Source: Atlantic Council global QE tracker

The Federal Reserve added 3.2 trillion dollars to its balance sheet in 2020 alone, more than it did in the entire 2009 to 2019 period. Source: fred.stlouisfed.org

Over 20% of the U.S. money supply (measured a Money of Zero Maturity) was created in 2020 alone. Source: fred.stlouisfed.org

So what does this all mean? Therein lies the issue for investors — we can observe trillions of dollars being (digitally) printed and hear about it on the news, but what does it mean for markets? How does that relate to the size of our 401k’s? Or Apple’s share price? What would today’s markets look like if QE had never existed?

One team of analysts at Société Générale did attempt to answer this thorny question. (2) Sophie Huynh and Charles De Boissezon, of the bank’s equity research group, used a regression analysis to estimate the impact of QE on treasury yield. They estimate it at about 180 basis points cumulatively since 2009 (in other words, without QE the 10-year yield would be close to 3%). They then used a dividend discount valuation model and the bank’s proprietary model for equity risk premiums (the excess return of equities of bonds) to derive a hypothetical valuation of stocks without QE. 

Their results are rather striking.

As shown above, the impact on stocks’ prices has been dramatic according to their model and even more pronounced in the NASDAQ than the S&P 500.

Overall, the bank’s model estimates that 44% of today’s S&P 500’s price level can be attributed to QE. In the tech-heavy NASDAQ, the percentage rises to 57%. The pace of change has not been linear, and 2020 saw a massive spike in the percentage of price level explained by QE.

We’ll never know how accurate this model truly is, but I believe it captures one fundamental truth about current market conditions, which is simply that QE changes everything. 

With the 10-year yield over 3%, and the S&P 500 at 2000, markets would certainly not be as exciting as they are today, but some might say that they would be a more honest reflection of the economy.

The eternal bullishness of a stagnant economy 

Whatever QE’s impact on the market might have been, it’s unclear whether it has benefited the economy in any meaningful, lasting ways. The pace of U.S. economic growth has generally been around 2% for nearly a decade until 2020.

Early forecasts indicate a decline in U.S. GDP of around 3.5% in 2020, though it’s expected to rebound in 2021. Meanwhile, corporate earnings have barely grown in the last few years, even as markets soared to all-time highs.

This environment of stagnant economies and earnings growth has prompted many to speculate that markets have risen too far, too fast, and these concerns are valid. After all, QE or not, one would expect economic realities to eventually catch up with markets. All else equal, slowing earnings growth should result in lower stock prices. With that being said, we must also keep in mind that the market and the economy are two distinct entities.

In a recent research piece, Vincent Deluard (StoneX’s head of macro research) makes a simple yet counter-intuitive point which I think helps capture a lot of today’s market dynamics. His view can be summarized as follows: in an environment of secular stagnation, where discount rates and growth decline, stock prices will soar. To understand his point, it helps to review some very basic concepts of equity valuation. 

Stocks are ultimately just claims on a future stream of cash flow, a dividend for example, or whatever might correspond to the liquidation value of a company. Any stream of future cash flow is valued by dividing the periodic cash flow by a discount rate, which accounts for the time value of money, and for risk. For example, a hypothetical annual payment of 10 dollars that lasts forever would be valued by simply dividing 10 by 5% (if we assumed a 5% discount rate): 10 / 0.05 = 200, so this perpetual cash flow of $10/year is worth $200 dollars today.

Equity valuation works in a very similar way, but the discount factor is slightly more elaborate. One example of a basic stock valuation model is the Gordon Growth Model, which works with the formula on the left.

This is conceptually very similar to our perpetual annuity example. The discount rate “r” can be thought of as the rate of return that investors require for the stock, the constant cost of equity capital. Because company earnings grow over time, “g” is added to account for growth, and reduces the discount rate, causing the value of the ratio to increase (the stock price to rise).

Going back to our example, imagine a company (let’s call it Stagnant Inc.) that pays a $10 annual dividend per share. Stagnant Inc’s share price could be valued as follows using the Gordon Growth Model:

10 / (0.10 – 0.5) = $200

In the above example, 0.10, or 10% is the “r”, the discount rate, the return investors expect, and 0.05 is the 5% growth of the company’s dividend. If we assume that Stagnant Inc.’s growth rate declines by 10% a year going forward, and that the expected rate of return “r” also declines by the same 10%, the stocks price over a 50 year period would like this:

In 50 years, Stagnant Inc.’s stock price soared from $200 to over $34,000, a gain of over 11% a year, all happening despite a steady decline in earnings growth. This is what Vincent Deluard refers to as “the crazy math of secular stagnation.” (3)

Source: Vincent Deluard, StoneX research, www.marketintel.stonex.com

As shown above, lower capital costs (discount rate) can justify higher valuations even in the face of dwindling earnings growth. As both growth and discount rates trend towards zero, prices rise to infinity.

This is perhaps what many investors have missed when constantly expecting markets to fall back to earth: while there truly is a disconnect between the economy and markets, there may also exist a causal link between economic weakness and higher stock prices, a self-reinforcing trend of perverse incentives where slow growth fuels market uptrend, where bad news for the economy can quite literally become good news for stocks, and markets may have been riding this stagnation boom for many years now. 

I would add that QE and central bank interventions are factors that will tend to affect expected returns over time. In markets, the cost of equity capital is mainly a function of interest rates, volatility, and risk premia. By keeping interest rates low and dampening volatility, central banks’ activity can really be thought of as one giant exercise in reducing expected returns. When the Federal Reserve announced that it would start buying high yield bond ETFs, the prices of these bonds quickly jumped. There is nothing irrational about this investor behavior. If a high yield bond had a yield of 6% prior to the Federal Reserve’s decision to step in, once the Fed enters the fray, investors were happy to accept a lower yield, maybe 5%, simply because they knew the Fed would step in to support prices as needed. Equities work the same way. In a world where any weakness or volatility is met with the immediate expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet and trillions in government intervention, you would expect equity investors to feel more comfortable and adjust their risk appetite. For example, a stock that an investor would have normally considered too risky to buy (perhaps a high-octane IPO), can suddenly become a very justifiable acquisition once the Fed’s de-facto pledge to support markets is factored in. Coincidentally, more IPOs have doubled in price in 2020 than any year since the tech bubble. (4)

This reasoning can be pushed even further to explain some of the current sector dynamics: in a world of constantly falling cost of capital, equity valuation becomes disproportionately affected by cash flow duration. To draw a parallel from the bond world, if we knew that rates were going to consistently decline, we would naturally look to buy the longest-dated bonds (maybe a 20+ year treasury). Likewise, if the equity cost of capital is constantly falling, winning the equity valuation race becomes a game of who can extend cash flow duration the furthest into the future. 

This may at least partially explain why today’s dominant stocks are to be found in the tech world. As highlighted in StoneX’s report, U.S. tech giants, with their low payout ratios, low book values, and future-proof product lines, can be thought of as the equity equivalent of a very long-dated bond and will benefit the most from the falling cost of capital. The SocGen report referenced earlier also highlighted that the tech sector’s outsized benefit from QE for similar reasons. 

In the game of ever-increasing cash flow duration, current earnings and profitability are secondary to future cash flows. Any company with a semblance of growth enters the race to a near zero-value denominator and is disproportionately favored by investors. Similarly to how aggressive bond traders might look to increase the convexity of their books (buy bonds with the highest duration sensitivity to changes in yield), equity traders could be chasing stocks with the greatest pace of price appreciation for a given decline in capital cost, endlessly bidding up speculative growers in the tech world, at the expense of value and yield. 

These ideas would certainly be consistent with what we witness almost daily in today’s market, which appears to be obsessed not just with innovation, but with all manners of futuristic buzzwords. In today’s world, computing is not enough, you need quantum computing, automation is not enough, you need AI, databases are not enough, you need blockchain, trucks are not enough, we demand cybertrucks.

But of all the tech-obsessed endeavors, my favorite is probably space exploration. When it comes to creating the longest cash flow duration imaginable, I can’t think of anything better than spending the next few decades burning through trillions of dollars building spaceships, all in the hope of one day dominating the intergalactic travel market. So it is perhaps no surprise that just about every billionaire CEO seems in love with the idea: Elon Musk has SpaceX, Richard Branson has Virgin Galactic, Jeff Bezos has Blue Origin. In a day and age when life on earth seemingly requires a constant supply of face masks, antiseptic wipes, and experimental vaccines, perhaps the time has come for us to propel ourselves into outer space in search of less green pastures. After all, life in one of Elon Musk’s planned human colonies on Mars can’t be all that much different from being locked down in a Berlin suburb. (5)

WHEN APPLES AREN’T APPLES

In his book “The Systems Bible” John Gall introduces a concept he calls “operational fallacy”, which describes instances where systems do not do what they say they do. The best way to explain operational fallacy is to think of a simple term like “fresh apples.” Fresh apples can evoke the thought of strolling through your grandmother’s garden on a late summer day, and picking ripe apples right off the tree, perhaps to make a delicious pie later that day. But “fresh apples” could also be an item you grab from the shelf of a suburban supermarket while quickly pushing your cart down the produce aisle one evening after work. In both examples, the term “fresh apples” is technically correct, yet the two products and experiences are nothing alike. What most people really want is grandma’s apple experience, but that’s exactly what the system cannot provide.

2020’s pandemic and the ongoing economic struggles of the last decades have prompted leaders around the world to implement a variety of support measures to stimulate the economy. Those same decision-makers would no doubt congratulate themselves on what they perceive to have been decisive and successful steps that secured the economy, fostered growth, and protected the integrity of markets through difficult times. Yet the results produced by this complex system of incentives hardly match what most would look for in a prosperous economy. The economic equivalent of grandma’s apple would probably involve a combination of plentiful well-paying local jobs, healthy government finances, and growth. Instead, the current economic landscape delivered stagnant growth, gig-economy, and soaring deficits. 

Perhaps these support measures are more likely to produce supermarket apples: the mechanism through which quantitative easing (by far the largest component of all stimulus attempts) benefits the economy is still unclear, and one could argue that QE is in fact counterproductive. Instead of promoting growth, easy money and low rates may instead lead to misallocation of capital, leading to weaker economies and fueling the vicious cycle of stagnation. 

What these measures did achieve was a spectacular rally in stock price, and this may be because QE is more akin to a form of price control than an economic stimulus. Historically, price control has involved various attempts to reduce the price of goods to curb inflationary forces, but we have no need for that type of price control now. In today’s upside-down, hyper-financialized world, we’re instead attempting to generate growth and inflation by controlling the price of risk, the cost of financial capital. Global markets are supposed to be way too large to be controlled by anyone, but trillions of dollars have a way of coercing even the strongest forces of their will. 

Attempts at price control generally have a terrible historical track record, and while I spent a lot of time justifying the market‘s continued rise in my comments, it’s important to note that the same market dynamics can work just as efficiently in the opposite direction to produce sharp sell-offs and volatility.  This may be the greatest challenge our decision-makers will face: how to navigate our way out of the current QE-fueled trap, and back to healthier market dynamics?  

Eventually, market forces always prevail against attempts to control them. Everything has a price, and even if the current trends remain in place for the foreseeable future, sooner or later, the law of unforeseen consequences will cause distortions created in one part of the market to re-emerge somewhere else, the challenge of 2021 and beyond may be to figure out where that might be.

Syl Michelin, CFA®

SOURCES

(1) https://vimeo.com/98550343

(2) https://wholesale.banking.societegenerale.com/en/solutions-services/markets/cross-asset-research/

(3) www.marketintel.stonex.com

(4) https://www.yahoo.com/now/more-ip-os-have-doubled-in-their-debuts-this-year-than-any-year-since-the-tech-bubble-140607697.html

(5) https://www.space.com/37200-read-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-plan.html

2021 INVESTMENT & OUTLOOK GUIDE

This piece was part of Walkner Condon’s 2020 Review & 2021 Investment Outlook Guide, a comprehensive interactive PDF covering a wide range of subjects and trends, including the S&P 500, electric cars, and more. To read the full guide, please click the button below.