Monday, December 29, 2025

A return to relative tranquility


This is a short note to highlight the significant decline in market volatility over the course of the past year.

Price volatility is often thought of as "fear" that stems from uncertainty. The Vix Index, technically defined as the implied volatility of equity options, is the most common measure of volatility in the stock market, while the MOVE Index uses the implied volatility of Treasury bond options. The expected and implied volatility of prices underlying each index is a key determinant of the price of related options contracts. Higher expected volatility drives the price of options higher, and vice versa. Since purchasing options contracts reduces and investor's risk, options are highly prized (and thus more expensive) during periods of market distress. During periods of relative calm, investors are less likely to purchase options, and thus their prices decline. 

Chart #1

Chart #1 compares the Vix Index (white line) to the MOVE Index (orange line). Not surprisingly, both tend to move in tandem, but not always to the same degree. The last significant increase in volatility occurred last Spring, when Trump shocked the world with huge tariffs on U.S. imports. As the chart shows, volatility has subsided meaningfully since the Spring peak, and it now approaches levels which in the past have been associated with relatively calm (and often optimistic) equity and bond markets. 

The current relatively low level of both volatility indices is in many ways equivalent to a market-based measure of investors' confidence or sentiment. The market has lost its fear of tariffs, as many have been reduced or eliminated, and those remaining have failed to move the needle on inflation (as any economist worth his salt would have predicted) and do not appear to have posed much of an obstacle to growth (though I think the economy would be stronger without them). The principal value of Trump's tariffs derives from his ability to use them to achieve certain worthwhile objectives (e.g., reciprocal reductions in tariffs with some of our trading partners).

Improved confidence in the future is a good thing in and of itself, since it surely promotes greater saving and investment, which ultimately translate into more and better-paying jobs and higher living standards. On the other hand, finding good values in a period of tranquility becomes harder, and the market becomes more susceptible to disappointments. There's no free lunch, but things could certainly be a lot worse than they are today.

10 comments:

Rob said...

Thanks Scott. What do you think of Buffet clearly regarding the current market as ripe for a big fall by stockpiling record amounts of cash ?

wslome said...

Agree whole heartedly. Job of finding opportunities is more difficult when volatility is lower (i.e., valuations higher), and vice versa.

Scott Grannis said...

Re Buffet:t I am planning to do a post on the Buffet rule. Stocks are not nearly as overvalued as his rule suggests. That's because corporate profits as a percent of GDP today are double what they were a few decades ago.

duongquy said...

long time no see. happy new year.

Al said...

Happy news years Scott. Low vol!

Yes I’d love ur take on valuations. Add in there the case chiller PE long term graph thoughts.

Adam said...

Scott,
All the best for you and your family.
As for now, we see some "green shoots", of, maybe, US economy coming back to 3% or even higher growth path.The plan laid out in NSS of December 25 gives a chance to unleash Arctic abundant energy resources to further increase supply of a cheap energy to the world, on top of a current succesfull increase of a US oil production. That is needed to fuel the AI driven profitability increase.

Chris_in_NJ said...

Love your work, Scott! <- very glad to hear you're well.

ML said...

Dear Scott, could you please take into account the expected changes in the calculation of gross domestic product in the United States? The conquest of Venezuela and of Greenland will be negligible, but the conquest of Bavaria (the southern part of Germany) by the United States, which is likely to occur due to the region’s economic strength, will indeed have an impact. Best regards!

Thomas said...

Of course, it would make more sense for the United States to conquer Taiwan first. However, it must be clear to everyone that military resistance in the event of a conquest of Bavaria would be much lower. Therefore, I expect the conquest of Bavaria to take place before the conquest of Taiwan.

Roy said...

Can the USA "grow out of its debt"?