Investing after WW2

Right after World War II, a widely anticipated global depression was expected a common occurrence after nearly every major world conflict. Surprisingly, in the United States, a major interest in equities prompted the success of a handful of companies that became known as the nifty fifty. These companies dominated in managerial skills, product R&D and financial resources. Investors remained skeptical about economic progress throughout this growth era, and markets faced the traditional wall of doubt, the trellis up which green investment ivy must climb.

''Buy high, sell higher" dominated investment styles over this period. Supply and demand for equities became the watchword more than underlying valuation. To adapt a phrase from a quantum physicist, "there appeared to be an underlying price spin tilted in the direction of the positive" other things being equal, something that had gone up would go up more. Another description might be the economics of increasing returns. Eventually, the era ended with the shock of 1967 and the subsequent decline of growth funds in the sharp market downturn in the United States during the 19734 period.

The developed (ex-US) markets essentially those of the advanced countries that were the major protagonists in World War II, whether victor or vanquished during this period were dominated by international reconstruction programs. The Marshall Plan in Europe and its counterpart under the administration of General MacArthur in Japan and Asia led the way. These programs were typically centered around infrastructure improvement and, with the exception of the UK, did not produce much in the way of private equity development until the second half of the period, when government programs became directly supportive of private development activities.

Style radiation

The spread of investment insights may be visualized as waves radiating outwards in concentric circles from pebbles falling into water. The source of these investment pebbles is the United States. The dynamic force behind the rise of post-World War II equity markets has been academic research coming out of US universities. The availability of cheap computer time, cheap graduate student labor and creative senior professors (six of whom have now received the Nobel Prize in Economics) has contributed to the development of concepts like the capital asset pricing model, the efficient market hypothesis and performance measurement, as well as the growth of derivatives markets.

Not every investment technique is appropriate at every place around the world at the same time. Ideas radiate, interfere with one another and produce new patterns, then reach the periphery at the same time as new stimuli occur at the origin. Technology and communications accelerate the speed of ideas radiating outwards until, finally, the impact reaches emerging markets. As the process is repeated, it is accelerated further.

We can divide the investment world into three parts the United States, developed (ex-US) markets and emerging markets. Most US institutional investors have dedicated teams covering each of these segments. In some cases, they have specialized teams within each team segmented by geography.

The investment world was reshaped immediately after World War II. In fact, if we go back farther, we can gauge the present long-wave bull market from the Battle of Midway in 1942. If we look at equity styles since then, we see that there have been two
major waves, each lasting one or two decades. And a third may have begun.

Paying down debt: the delicate dilemma

As we close our discussion of debt, we must address one of the more delicate dilemmas of modern marriage: how to handle debts each of you may have accumulated before the nuptials. Years ago, such a discussion hardly would have been necessary. People married young, well before they had accumulated significant debts—or assets, for that matter. Today, the opposite is often true. When people wed today, it may be after a decade or longer as professionals, plenty of time to borrow plenty of money. The same is true of people in second or third marriages. It would be hard to imagine people in that situation without some debt burden. When couples bring individual assets to the marital table, that’s a cause for joy. When the baggage includes debts, the issue is more complex and more volatile. Broadly, there are two approaches you can take to premarital debt. You may decide to reduce your debt as individuals, or you may elect to pay down premarital debt as a couple. Each approach brings advantages and disadvantages. Paying down premarital debt as individuals can prevent conflict, particularly if one party incurred substantially more debt than the other. With this approach, the partner with the smaller debt load doesn’t feel financially strapped by decisions made before the marriage. This approach also permits each spouse to maintain a significant level of independence. But there are disadvantages as well. For one, the debt might not be paid down as quickly or as efficiently as possible, because only one partner is focusing on it. In addition, that partner may feel resentment at being abandoned on Debt Island. That could promote continued use of debt, resulting in financial hardships and marital discord.
If you elect to pay down premarital debt as a couple, you can develop an efficient game plan that emphasizes quick payment of high-interest debt. You can get out of debt more quickly and focus on your goals as a couple. This joint process also implies regular communication about debt, an activity that will help you many times over.
The principal disadvantage to this approach is that the partner who kept the slate relatively debt-free may feel exploited; the good spending habits he or she developed might appear to have come to naught.
As we mentioned, this is a sensitive matter, and we don’t recommend one approach over the other. What we do recommend is talking about any premarital debt and developing a game plan that pays off all debts quickly while keeping both partners satisfied with the strategy.