Some of Wall Street's most prominent bears are turning bullish right now. But that doesn't mean that your small-cap portfolio is safe. Here's why these brilliant minds think that we're back on the path to recovery — and why they're wrong.

I was in Manhattan last week attending Grant's Fall Investment Conference. The U.N. General Assembly is meeting there, and the streets were blocked off in places. The NYPD was out in full force. I heard one passerby complain about the inconvenience of it all to one police officer. He responded, "Don't blame the NYPD, blame the General Assembly."

With the General Assembly in Manhattan and the G-20 in Pittsburgh, government has taken over the headlines this week. It seems half the world is mostly preoccupied with telling the other half what to do. No doubt, bossiness is in a bull market.

At Grant's conference, I heard presentations on gold, the dollar, oil, real estate and more by a slate of luminaries, including John Paulson. Paulson is one of the best hedge fund managers in the world. There were many others, including Grant himself, who has created something of a stir lately.

Jim Grant, the host and editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, has turned bullish on the recovery. In a Wall Street Journal piece on Saturday, the great bear turned in his claws and picked up the horns of a bull.

In a phrase, Grant's thesis runs this way: The sharper the decline, the stronger the rebound. For this, he finds ample evidence in the historical record. The economy bounced back strongly after each sharp contraction — such as those in 1893-94, 1907-08, 1920-21 and 1929-31.

In the current recession, GDP (a rough measure of economic activity) contracted nearly 4% from peak to trough, which is a sharp recession as these things go. So, Grant reasons, the rebound will follow the historical pattern.

Grant loves to challenge the consensus. And the consensus this time around is that the recovery will be weak. I loved the quote he pulled from economist A.C. Pigou: "The error of optimism dies in the crisis, but in dying it gives birth to an error of pessimism. This new error is born not an infant, but a giant."

Grant makes an eloquent and thoughtful case, as he always does. He goes on to conclude in his editorial: "The world is positioned for disappointment. But in economic and financial matters, the world rarely gets what it expects. Pigou had humanity's number."

I hope Grant is right. It is an appealing case, but I don't buy it. Too many of the problems of the prior boom remain unresolved. There is still too much leverage and debt in the system. And on a more basic level, business is not good across a spectrum of sectors. The contraction is still ongoing. I'm inclined to remember the old bearish refrain that things are never so bad that they can't get worse.

It's All About Markets

It's true we've had a sharp contraction, but there is no rule that says we can't contract more. A nearly 4% decline in GDP could turn into an 8% contraction when all is said and done. The move from 4% to 8% would be painful, indeed. Even then, we would be a far cry from the dark woods of the Great Depression.

In some ways, the whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. As investors, we care about markets, and not GDP growth. There is a great fallacy out there that if the economy does well, stocks should do well (or if the economy does poorly, stocks should do poorly). Hence, too many so-called investors waste an inordinate amount of time talking about recovery, or lack thereof.

It's possible that Grant is right: GDP does expand strongly. But investors could still lose. We have one glaring historical example: From 1964-1981, GDP grew 370%. And the sales of the Fortune 500 more than sextupled. Yet the Dow Jones industrial average went from 874 on Dec. 31, 1964 to 875 on Dec. 31, 1981.

As Warren Buffett once wrote: "Now, I'm known as a long-term investor and a patient guy, but that is not my idea of a big move."

For investors, it is all about the price paid. The really relevant question is not one of whether or not the economic recovery is real. The question is: are stocks cheap enough? To answer that, you have to look at stocks and compare them with the alternatives.

My answer is some stocks are cheap and some are not. It is hard to generalize. In my view, investing is a craft of the specific. It is in the picking of the trees in which investing skills pay off the most, not in assessing the forest. There are, undoubtedly, specific stocks that will prove nice investments over the next few years. Finding them is what we are all about.

Sincerely,
Chris Mayer

September 30, 2009