Shouldn’t the stock market track the real economy?

Updated 27 February 2013
Follow

Shouldn’t the stock market track the real economy?

2012 turned out to be a very different year than most had expected. Personally, I was very negative coming into the year, especially toward the European economies, and was more or less right in my predictions on that account. However, I was also very skeptical of the rising stock markets. It turned out I was right on the real economy, but wrong on the stock markets. But shouldn’t the stock market track or follow the real economy?
With 25 years of experience as a trader, market maker and fund manager, I should have known better! The stock market and the economy are, of course, linked but rarely on a strict day-to-day or even month-to-month basis. Most often it is a mismatch between expectations and the current reality, both amplified by the critical element of monetary policy, that produces sentiment and market pricing that diverge from the real economy. This is very evident today in Europe with the seemingly illogical combination of historical highs in both unemployment and stock markets. Stock markets have reached the pre-crisis highs of 2007/2008.
History shows that such divergence has its limits and expiration dates — either the economy improves dramatically or markets will need to adjust their expectations lower. To grasp such divergences in a historical perspective, it is useful to look at the difference between broad stock indices like the MSCI World and the German IFO. In 2013, the divergence between the underlying weak economic performance as measured by this survey and the stock market has reached the extremes of levels prevailing before markets crashed in 2000. Hardly a good sign, but remember that the difference can be reduced two ways: stocks dropping or the economy improving.
Fundamentally, the stock market is a “sub-component” of the entire economy, or GDP. Therefore, stocks must correspond to some degree with the rise and fall of the economy and relative to other economic factors like inflation and productivity. A long-term bull market in stocks usually coincides not only with economic growth, but increased productivity and risk premiums. Even more importantly, a real bull market makes everyone benefit, rich and poor, through lower unemployment, productivity and investment — all of which are failing in this present run-up in prices.
So how do investors deal with such an investment conundrum? Ironically, to the well-placed investor all the above technical economic understanding does not really matter. Experience shows that an investor willing to risk holding illiquid assets is rewarded with a risk premium for taking on that risk. The risk premium fluctuates based on inflation, current interest rates and income through dividends from a given stock. Stocks must give a higher yield than bonds to compensate for their inferior liquidity.
When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in July 2012 ensured the world that he would do “whatever it takes” to keep the euro alive, he created a massive move into more illiquid assets by removing the presumed negative potential in bonds and hence indirectly fuelling stocks. But again — as investors, we do not need to understand this. If we follow simple rules, we do not need to mix our analysis of the real economy with stock pricing. We can be economic agnostics.
In the 1970s, the American investor Harry Browne crafted the so-called Permanent Portfolio. Its logic is very simple. Invest 25 percent in each of four different assets: stocks, long government bonds, metals and cash. Sounds boring? From 1972 to 2011, the yield from such an allocation has been 9.5 percent. In real terms, no less than 4.9 percent. A much higher yield than the stock market and with a significantly lower risk! An investment of $ 10,000 in 1972 would have grown to $ 377,193 by 2012.
This does not mean that active trading does not pay off, but works to illustrate that it wise to always have a “dumb model” as a backstop or frame of reference. Extra risk or changes in allocation should only be taken when one has an “edge” or strong indicators of being right! The famous hedge fund manager Ray Dalio from Bridgewater has expanded the idea into his All Weather Model. As the name suggests, it is designed to handle any economic condition. The results have been very convincing. Since 1996, the annual yield has been approximately 12 percent, turning Bridgewater into the world’s largest fund with $ 141 billion under management.
The difference between the two is that Harry Brown allocates assets while Ray Dalio and Bridgewater allocate risk. What they hold in common is a total agnostic attitude towards the market. They accept the very important premises of trading: We do not know what tomorrow brings; we do not know where we are going and we will get our yield primarily from extracting the risk premium from assets. The beauty of all this is that we do not have to understand the relationship between the economy and stock markets to invest efficiently. Considering the current unpredictable macroeconomic interventions, such an approach should offer a huge relief from trying to understand everything that is going on, and possibly an advantage to any investor who does not have direct access to the minds of powerful policymakers and central bankers.
As I mentioned above, an investor should only depart from this route if he has a very strong feeling or belief that something is going to happen. Personally, I allocate 70 percent in an All Weather Model. That helped me to get a decent yield in 2012 even though I was almost 100 percent wrong in my very conservative stock market predictions. I used the remaining 30 percent to insure against Black Swan events or place opportunistic investments. I am presently long-term bullish on Sub-Saharan Africa investments. The answer to the title’s question is that the stock market may diverge from the real economy for a limited period, but this has no impact on the rationally placed investor. Investing is about logic and rationality — not genius. And that’s a good thing for all of us.

— Steen Jakobsen is chief economist at Saxo Bank.


Saudi Arabia pulls in most of Partners for Growth $450m capital push

Updated 07 February 2026
Follow

Saudi Arabia pulls in most of Partners for Growth $450m capital push

  • Global private credit fund leans into region’s largest market for growth-stage technology financing

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia has captured the vast majority of Partners for Growth’s capital deployed in the Gulf Cooperation Council, as the global private credit fund leans into what it sees as the region’s largest market for growth-stage technology financing. 

The San Francisco-based firm has deployed about $450 million in commitments in the GCC, and “the vast majority of that is in Saudi,” said Armineh Baghoomian, managing director at the firm who also serves as head of Europe, the Middle East and Africa and co-head of global fintech. 

The company was one of the earliest lenders to Saudi fintech unicorn Tabby, and it’s clear the Kingdom is providing fertile territory for ongoing investments.

“We don’t target a specific country because of some other mandate. It’s just a larger market in the region, so in the types of deals we’re doing, it ends up weighing heavily to Saudi Arabia,” Baghoomian said. 

Partners for Growth, which Baghoomian described as a global private credit fund focused on “growth debt solutions,” lends to emerging tech and innovation companies, particularly those that struggle to access traditional credit. 

“We’re going into our 22nd year,” she said, tracing the strategy back to its roots in a Bay Area investment bank debt practice in the mid-1980s. 

Today, the firm lends globally, she said, deploying capital where it sees fit across markets including Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia, as well as Latin America and the GCC, where it has been active for about six years. 

Shariah structures dominate PFG’s Gulf deals 

In the Gulf, the firm’s structures are often shaped by local expectations. “Most of the deals we’ve done in the region are Shariah-compliant,” Baghoomian said. 

“In terms of dollars we’ve deployed, they’re Shariah-structured,” she added. 

“Usually it’s the entrepreneur who requires that, or requests it, and we’re happy to structure it,” Baghoomian said, adding that the firm also views Shariah structures as “a better security position in certain regions.” 

Growth debt steps in where banks cannot 

Baghoomian framed growth debt as a practical complement to equity for companies that have moved beyond the earliest stage but are not yet “bankable.” 

She said: “The lower-cost bank type facilities don’t exist. There’s that gap.”

Baghoomian added that companies want to grow, “but they don’t want to keep selling big chunks of equity. That implies giving up control and ownership.” 

For businesses with the fundamentals private credit providers look for, she said, debt can extend runway while limiting dilution. 

“As long as they have predictable revenue, clear unit economics, and the right assets that can be financed, this is a nice solution to continue their path,” she added. 

That role becomes more pronounced as equity becomes harder to raise at later stages, Baghoomian believes. 

She pointed to a gap that “might be widening” around “series B-plus” fundraising, as later-stage investors become “more discriminating” about which deals they back. 

Asset-heavy fintechs cannot scale on equity alone 

For asset-heavy technology businesses, Baghoomian argued, debt is not just an option but a necessity. 

She pointed to buy-now-pay-later platform Tabby as an example of a model built on funding working capital at scale. 

“Tabby is an asset-heavy business,” she said. “They’re providing installment plans to consumers, but they still need to pay the merchant on day one. That’s capital-intensive. You need a lot of cash to do that.” 

Equity alone, she added, would be structurally inefficient. “You would not want to just raise equity. The founders, employees, everyone would own nothing and lose a lot of control.” 

We don’t target a specific country because of some other mandate. It’s just a larger market in the region, so in the types of deals we’re doing, it ends up weighing heavily to Saudi Arabia.

Armineh Baghoomian, PFG managing director and head of Europe, the Middle East and Africa and co-head of global fintech

Baghoomian said those dynamics are common across other asset-intensive models, including lending platforms and businesses that trade in large inventories such as vehicles or property. “Those are businesses that inherently end up having to raise quite a bit of credit,” she said. Partners for Growth’s relationship with Tabby also reflects how early the firm can deploy capital when the structure is asset-backed. “We started with Tabby with $10 million after their seed round, and then we grew, and we continue to be a lender to them,” Baghoomian said. 

“On the asset-backed side, we can go in quite early,” she said. “Most of the fintechs we work with are very early stage, post-seed, and then we’ll grow with them for as long as possible.” 

As the market for private credit expands in the Gulf, Baghoomian emphasized discipline — both for lenders and borrowers. 

For investors assessing startups seeking debt, she said the key is revenue quality and predictability, not just topline growth. “Revenue is one thing, but how predictable is it? How consistent is it? Is it growing?” she said. “This credit is not permanent capital. You have to pay it back. There’s a servicing element to it.” 

Her advice to founders was more blunt: stress-test the downside before taking leverage. 

“You have to do a stress test and ask: if growth slows by 30 to 40 percent, can I still service the debt? Can I still pay back what I’ve taken?” she said. 

Baghoomian warned against chasing the biggest facility on offer. “Sometimes companies compete on how much a lender is providing them,” she said. “We try to teach founders: take as much as you need, but not as much as you can. You have to pay that back.” 

Partners for Growth positions itself as an alternative to banks not only because many growth-stage companies cannot access bank financing, but because it can tailor structures to each business. 

HIGHLIGHTS

• Partners for Growth positions itself as an alternative to banks not only because many growth-stage companies cannot access bank financing, but because it can tailor structures to each business.

• The firm lends globally deploying capital where it sees fit across markets including Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia, as well as Latin America and the GCC, where it has been active for about six years.

One of Partners for Growth’s differentiators, Baghoomian said, is how bespoke its financing is compared with bank products. 

“These facilities are very bespoke. They’re custom to each company and how they need to use the money,” she said, adding that the fund is not offering founders a rigid menu of standardized options. 

“No two deals of ours look alike,” she said, framing that flexibility as especially important at the growth stage, when business needs can shift quickly. 

That customization, she added, extends beyond signing. Baghoomian said the firm aims to structure facilities so companies can actually deploy capital without being constrained, adding: “We don’t want to handcuff you. We don’t want to constrain you in any way.” 

As a company evolves, she said the financing can evolve too, because what works on day one often won’t fit nine months later. 

“We’ll revise structures,” she said, describing flexibility as core to how private credit can serve fast-moving tech businesses. 

She added that a global lender can also bring operating support and market pattern recognition, while still accounting for local nuance. 

Baghoomian expects demand for private credit in the Gulf to keep rising. “They are going to require credit, for sure,” she said, pointing to the scale of new platforms and projects. 

“I don’t see it shrinking,” she said, adding that Partners for Growth is seeing more demand and is in late-stage discussions with several companies, though she declined to name them. 

PFG to stay selective despite rising competition 

Competition among lenders has increased since the firm began deploying in the region, Baghoomian said, calling that “very healthy for the ecosystem.” 

Most of what the firm does in the region is asset-backed, Baghoomian said, often through first warehouse facilities for businesses financing receivables or other tangible exposures, “almost always Shariah.” 

Keeping Egypt on its watchlist 

Beyond the Gulf, Baghoomian said the firm is monitoring Egypt closely, though macroeconomic volatility has delayed deployments. 

“We looked at Egypt very aggressively a few years ago, and then the macro issues changed,” she said, adding that the firm continues to speak with companies in the country and track conditions. 

Even as private credit becomes more common in the region, Baghoomian underscored that debt is not universally appropriate. 

“Not every company should take a loan or credit,” she said. “You don’t take it just to take it. It should be getting you to the next milestone.”