Good or excellent economic fundamentals combined with tightening credit often result in a falling market.
Mixed Partly true and partly false in roughly equal measure.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
True if historical market data or published research up to April 2007 show that periods with good or strong economic fundamentals (e.g. solid GDP or earnings growth) combined with tightening credit (rising policy rates, wider credit spreads, stricter lending standards) were frequently (not necessarily usually) followed by or accompanied by falling equity markets. Mostly true if the link holds frequently but mainly for one form of tightening, one market, or one era, or with a minor caveat. Mixed if the evidence is evenly split: falls happen in some such episodes but rising markets are about as common. Mostly false if such falls are uncommon and the claim generalises from a few episodes. False if the evidence shows markets typically rose in such conditions and falls were rare.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 The Impact of Tightening Credit on the Economy and the Stock Market Wealth Management (article by Larry Swedroe) · 18 July 2023
“Logically, negative shocks to the cost and supply of credit are likely to lead to significant declines in economic activity and equity prices.”
-
E2 The Impact of Tightening Credit on the Economy and the Stock Market Wealth Management (article by Larry Swedroe) · 18 July 2023
“However, what is likely to surprise most investors is that the empirical evidence, as seen in the table below, shows that average U.S. equity returns have been positive after the onset of a recession:”
-
E3 Your life is a story, not a bank statement. Garde Capital, Inc.
“The S&P 500 saw positive returns in 10 of 11 tightening cycles, with an average return of 12.16%.”
-
E4 Fed rate hikes aren't always bad for stocks ABC News · 22 July 2008
“And, generally, what you'd find is that higher short-term interest rates have often been bad for stocks. But that's not always the case.”
Reasoning
E4 (2008) reports that higher short-term interest rates have often been bad for stocks, though not always, and E1 argues that negative credit shocks are likely to lead to declines in equity prices. Against this, E3 reports the S&P 500 had positive returns in 10 of 11 tightening cycles. E2 notes that average U.S. equity returns were positive after recessions began, but recessions are not the condition the claim describes. None of the sources looks specifically at strong fundamentals combined with tightening credit, and E3 is undated, so the evidence points both ways without settling the question.
Cite this claim
Jeremy Grantham, “Good or excellent economic fundamentals combined with tightening credit often result in a falling market.” (said April 2007). Verdict: mixed. Reliability API, claim c_23c43d98339f, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_23c43d98339f
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Jeremy Grantham
-
Mostly false
“the lowest rates in the history of man,”
Bonds currently offer the lowest interest rates in human history.
-
Mostly true
“31 years later, the land is not back, and stocks are not back.”
-
Mostly true
“one of the two or three lowest relative points in history”
-
Mostly true
“Now we have, since ChatGPT and October and November last year, we have a new little flurry of interest that is very concentrated.”
-
Mixed
“in 1974 the market did turn up, after a horrific 62% real decline in two years, exactly”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.