The Scream of the Lizard

Bob Veres writes a well-respected newsletter for financial planners. Recently Russ Thornton posted one of Mr. Veres’ articles, The Scream of the Lizard.

I loved this article, because I believe that Veres captures, so perfectly, the fear that is motivating, not just many inexperienced investors, but himself, as well. What’s interesting is that, while he has a very well developed and rational understanding of what investing in the stock market sometimes entails, he is still gripped by the fear of the “roller coaster ride” and the scary (but unrealistic) feeling that we are about to fall into the abyss.

Even though he knows better, he still can’t help the way he feels, because of what he refers to as “the lizard-like part of the back of (the) brain” which screams “against all logic and against many things I (know) to be true.”

If you are extremely fearful and cannot possibly imagine that there is a bottom to the stock market, give yourself a little understanding and possibly a little more TLC. You are not alone; in fact, you are in good company.

I recommend that you read the whole article, but here is the conclusion.

I’m one of those financial media types, and also a pundit on occasion, and I can tell you that I can hear the lizard’s scream echoing across the financial landscape, so loudly that it’s hard to remember that stocks are on a fire sale now and they are certainly a hell of a lot less risky than they were last August, and that these rides are seldom fatal to those who stay in their seats, and they are usually at least harmful to those who panic, unhook their seatbelts and jump over the side toward the distant anthill below.

I can hardly wait to look back on those charts and wonder what the hell we were thinking getting so panicky about a blip, and I know at that time that the lizard will be giving me a different message: that if only I’d had the sense to buy when everybody else was selling…

This too shall pass, and 99% of your brain knows it. The market belongs to the lizard now, and I am ashamed to admit that I, the pundit, the media guru, still feel that sense of panic on the way down, irrational as I know it is. I feel it so much that sometimes I can barely hear the rational part of my mind over the screaming that echoes that are calling up from a deeper part of my consciousness. I would curse the designer of this roller coaster, as I did the fiend who put that damn thing up at Sea World, but I’m afraid this time it is us, collectively, who designed our own fear machine.

Searching for a Better Investment Guru

U.S. stocks declined yesterday to the lowest prices in more than 12 years. The Standard and Poor’s 500 closed at 700. You would think that now would be a very good time to have a reliable investment guru offer sage advice and words of wisdom. Times are tough, the economy is tanking and there is panic in the streets (Wall Street and Main Street, both). What is an investor to do? Should she buy, sell, hold? “Surely,” you think, “the ‘experts’ must know.” Unfortunately, you’d be thinking wrong; the correct answer is that he or she really doesn’t.

Last month, in an article titled Why the Experts Missed the Crash, Money Magazine published an interview with UC Berkeley Haas Business School professor Philip Tetlock. The professor has spent his career evaluating experts and authorities in a variety of fields, and he is not at all surprised that the vast majority of financial “gurus” failed to predict the recent steep market decline.

Here is a summary of the article:

Despite everything, we can’t shake the belief that elite forecasters know better than the rest of us what the future holds.

The record, unfortunately, proves no such thing. And no one knows that record better than Philip Tetlock, 54, a professor of organizational behavior at the Haas Business School at the University of California-Berkeley. Tetlock is the world’s top expert on, well, top experts. Some 25 years ago, he began an experiment to quantify the forecasting skill of political experts.

Tetlock has analyzed “not just what the experts said but how they thought: how quickly they embraced contrary evidence, for example, or reacted when they were wrong. And wrong they usually were, barely beating out a random forecast generator.”

Why did so many experts miss the economic crash?

The people intimately involved in packaging [financial derivatives like] CDOs must have had some sense that they were unstable. But their superiors seem to have been lulled into complacency, partly because they were making a lot of money very fast and had no motivation to look closer. So greed played a role.

But hubris may have played a bigger one. … In this case the biggest source of hubris was the mathematical models that claimed you could turn iffy loans into investment-grade securities. The models rested on a misplaced faith in the law of large numbers and on wildly miscalculated estimates of the likelihood of a national collapse in real estate. But mathematics has a certain mystique. People get intimidated by it, and no one challenged the models.

Money has written about human mental quirks that lead ordinary folks to make investing mistakes. Do the same lapses affect experts’ judgment?

Of course. Like all of us, experts go wrong when they try to fit simple models to complex situations. (“It’s the Great Depression all over again!”) They go wrong when they leap to judgment or are too slow to change their minds in the face of contrary evidence.

An Alternative to Finding a Better Forecaster

A good part of the article explores the question “What makes some forecasters better than others?” Professor Tetlock has a detailed answer, which makes interesting reading. He recommends looking for “self-critical, eclectic thinkers who were willing to update their beliefs when faced with contrary evidence, were doubtful of grand schemes and were rather modest about their predictive ability.”

But my answer to the same question is radically different. I believe that it is futile to rely on gurus who have been right more often than others. Various “experts” will be right or wrong at different times, and you cannot, regrettably, know in advance when that will be. So if in essence, the future is unknowable, and experts are so unreliable, you need to have a strategy that does not depend on “accurate” forecasts.

No one, yes no one, knows how markets will behave in the short term. Accordingly, my recommended approach has been and continues to be a disciplined long-term strategy. To understand why, it is absolutely necessary to have perspective on financial history:

• There have been many financial crises in the past; none have proven fatal.
• We have experienced a dozen other Bear Markets since World War II.
• Stock prices have rebounded from all previous declines, even steep ones.
• The stock market goes up in roughly 3 out of every 4 years.
• Stock market losses are temporary; stock market gains are permanent.

Furthermore, waiting for the “right time” to invest doesn’t work for most people, most of the time. The likelihood is that you will miss out on the really strong rebounds that happen when you least expect them. In other words, don’t wait until it looks safe to invest in stocks.

Accordingly, I leave forecasting to the “experts” who according to Professor Tetloc “barely beat random guesses – the statistical equivalent of a dart-throwing chimp – and proved no better than predictions of reasonably well-read nonexperts.”

I do believe in controlling what I can:

• Costs (through low cost mutual funds)
• Risk (through global diversification and sensible asset allocation).

I believe in staying the course so as to participate in the eventual and inevitable recovery.

In short, I do not have a forecast; I have a philosophy and an approach. It’s not perfect, nothing in this world is, but experience shows that it works better than any other approach.

Financial Planners’ Reflections on 2008

I recently attended a meeting of financial planners in Northern New Jersey. Ordinarily, we meet once a month to listen to presentations given by experts on a variety of topics such as insurance, portfolio management and estate planning. This time, though, our group met specifically to discuss the recent upheaval of the stock markets and how that has affected, not just our clients, but us. (It’s been a very stressful year for planners.)

The members of our group are very experienced, individually and collectively, and they take financial planning and investment management very seriously. The consensus was that almost everyone has been adversely affected in some way or another by this year’s stock market decline. “It’s been a humbling experience,” said one planner.

Some members of the group expressed dissatisfaction with various mutual fund managers. Others revealed that they have revised their asset allocation recommendations, according to their changed outlook for various asset classes.

Here are some observations of general interest:

A great many people are genuinely frightened about the current economic situation, perhaps because the media continuously emphasizes the bad news. Some clients believe, rightly or wrongly, that the bad news will likely continue and things will probably get worse.

As various Wall Street industry icons went out of business, some clients became concerned about the financial stability of their custodians and Money Market accounts. Fortunately, planners were able to reassure their respective clients about these issues.

Planners are referring to 2008 as a “black swan” event, a comparison drawn from the book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable  by Nassim Taleb.

While diversification is a valuable strategy in a typical year, 2008 has been anything but typical. As one participant said, “Diversification works over time, but not every time.”

While 2008 was a very difficult year, it was not totally unprecedented. Planners with long memories looked back to 1973 – 1974 and 1987 for some solace. Those were also difficult times, but we got through them.

All planners agreed that it was time to revisit their clients’ Investment Policy Statements and their personal financial plans.

One planner admitted to being right about one issue (investing in commodities), but not necessarily for the right reasons. (It was that kind of year.)

Naturally, the Benard Madoff mess came up. Providentially, the clients of only one manager were affected, and then, only by a very small amount. In this particular case, diversification definitely paid off.

Special concern was expressed for those individuals who have recently retired or are just about to retire. The markets may not recover in time enough for these people to fully and thoroughly enjoy what is supposed to be their golden years. As these retirees draw down funds, they will have less and less available to keep invested for the eventual rebound which most people expect. Various strategies were discussed for retirees.

Some technical issues were discussed such as Roth conversions, tax loss harvesting and the best strategies for rebalancing, when markets are volatile and people are worried.

One planner expressed concern about municipal bonds, since many states are under heavy fiscal and financial pressure.

The group consensus was this: We will all be very relieved to say goodbye to 2008.

Intelligent Investing, Part 1

“Instead of concentrating on the central issue of creating sensible long-term asset-allocation targets, investors too frequently focus on the unproductive diversions of security selection and market timing.” – David Swensen, chief investment officer of Yale University.

To many people, investing can seem a bit like a game of chance. Tracking the daily fluctuations in the equity markets can make it difficult (some might say impossible) to make any sense of investing.

Turn on the television to learn about the stock market, and too often, what you will find is talking heads.  They are no help; they are misleading, because they generally  speak only of the short term. These TV stock market commentators are always predicting future prices for stocks, bonds, currencies, etc.  It doesn’t matter if they disagree (which they regularly do, since it makes for more interesting conversation) or whether one or another turns out to be correct or way off. You never hear how their predictions turned out.

A Better Way

Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) is a very different approach to investing. It does not depend on predicting the future or analyzing individual stocks. It is based on decades of academic research. In fact, several individuals have won Nobel prizes as a result of their discoveries related to the way securities markets work. MPT has also influenced the way many pension funds and college endowments are invested, including Yale’s.

Think of Modern Portfolio Theory’s message as the opposite of what Wall Street wants you to believe, which is that their analysts have the secret to successful investing through superior stock selection.

For a good solid introduction to the practical implications of Modern Portfolio Theory, you can view Henry Blodget’s recent interviews with Ken French, Professor of Finance at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College.

The first video is Buy and Hold Versus Timing the Market.

The second video is Stock Picking Versus Index Investing.

Each video is about 5 minutes long.

Dimensional Fund Advisors

Ken French is not merely a prolific academic researcher; he is also the Director of Investment Strategy for Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA). DFA applies academic research on capital market behavior to the practical world of managing investment portfolios. The firm maintains close ties with the University of Chicago and other research centers for financial economics.

DFA’s approach is firmly rooted in the belief that markets are “efficient,” and that investors’ returns are determined primarily by asset allocation decisions, not market timing or stock picking. DFA has no economists forecasting business cycles or interest rates, no investment strategists shifting allocations between stocks and bonds, and no analysts seeking “underpriced” stocks.

With $140 billion under management, Dimensional Fund Advisors is the leading provider of structured investment strategies in the world. DFA funds are carefully constructed to capture the returns of a well-defined asset class that has historically provided investors with a substantial premium for the risks those investors took.

DFA funds are only available to institutional investors and through a select group of fee-only financial advisors who subscribe to the passive asset class investment philosophy.

Along with other select funds, I recommend DFA funds be included in my client portfolios.

The Economy and the Stock Market

“Something that everyone knows isn’t worth knowing.” – Bernard Baruch. 

Baruch was referring to individual stocks, but I take his meaning to include the economy and “the stock market” as a whole. If something is already known, it will have no further influence on individual stocks or the stock market. It is only something new that will affect prices.

Larry Swedroe is the co-author of The Only Guide to Alternative Investments You’ll Ever Need.

In a recent interview with HardAssetsInvestor.com, he talked about commodities, portfolio construction and investing strategy. He also related his outlook for the U.S. economy as a whole to his view on future returns in the stock market. Surprisingly, he is optimistic.

I know, firsthand, that a great many investors are discouraged and/or disgusted with the downturn in the economy, in general, and the decline in the markets, specifically, over the past months. Some investors have fled the stock market for safer investments. And, yes, I realize that it is difficult to find any silver lining in the current dark clouds of the economy.

Certainly, the volatility of the stock market cannot make anyone feel peaceful. It’s clear that optimism is in short supply.

Nevertheless, Swedroe thinks this may be a good time to invest in stocks. Please, consider his logic, which I personally find very persuasive.

HardAssetsInvestor.com: What are your general thoughts about the economy and the stock market here?

Swedroe: The big picture is simply this: Clearly, this is the worst economic crisis we’ve seen since the Great Depression. But wait … did I tell you anything you didn’t already know? The markets know that too. This is the worst market since the Great Depression.

We all know the economic news is going to get worse. Unemployment is going to go up; retail sales are going to go down. But while everyone’s focusing on the bad economic news, they’re forgetting that the market has already understood this.

People are saying, why can’t this be another Great Depression? And it could; you can’t rule that out. But what people fail to understand is this: In the Great Depression, the policy responses were all in the wrong direction. We raised taxes and raised interest rates, increased margin and reserve requirements, and started a trade war. The policy responses this time, whether you agree with them or not, have not only been in the right direction – cutting interest rates, flooding the markets with liquidity, etc. – but they have been the most massive effort ever.

The effort is coordinated around the globe, and countries are pledging to maintain free trade. Every major country is enacting fiscal stimulus programs, all the central banks are cutting interest rates, etc. So while we have had a massive economic crisis, offsetting that are the largest policy responses in history coordinated around the globe. Policy responses take a while to work through the system, while the economic news will continue to look bad for a while.

Remember: Just when things look darkest, stocks tend to have good returns. Prior to this year, when consumer confidence has fallen below 50, the average return for stocks the next year was 16%.

Or consider this: When the unemployment rate is below 4.3%, the average return to stocks is 2%. When the unemployment rate is over 6%, the average return to stocks is 15%.

In the 11 recessions in the post-war era, the cumulative return to stocks is up 7%, and T-bills are up 5%. Returns were positive and better than the risk-free rate. Every time an investor sold stocks and paid taxes, they would have been better off sitting pat in stocks. The only way to do better would have been to forecast the recession, and who can do that?

I cannot guarantee that we will get out of this crisis, but we have gotten out of every other crisis quite well.

(Emphasis added)

Conclusion

Certainly, there is no shortage of bad economic news: Home prices are falling, unemployment is rising, the stock market has had one of its worst years on record, and the automobile industry is asking the federal government for bailouts, like the financial services industry before them. Where will it all end? Is there any good news?

Indeed. Unfortunately, we do not know when the good news will arrive. But, what we do know is that whatever negative that can be said about the economy is already known. If it is widely known, then the bad news is already reflected in current stock prices.

If history has any relevance, and I think it does, after a stock market decline, when pessimism is commonplace, is a very good time to expect stocks to have higher returns.

This may be counterintuitive, but it is true, historically.

Are We Nearer To A Market Bottom?

Milo Benningfield, a fee-only Certified Financial Planner in San Francisco, asks a very good question – Are we closer to the stock market bottom, now that some well-known pundits have turned bearish?

Huh? Market “experts” are worried, so we should get ready to BUY stocks?

To the novice, this may seem perverse, but some stock market observers believe that when “everyone” has become bearish, there is no one left to sell “at any price.” Therefore when “everyone” is fearful, the stock market is likely to go up. So “negative sentiment” is bullish, and vice versa, at least at the extremes (at turning points).

I am obviously delving into the dangerous area of technical analysis by even considering whether stock market sentiment can be an indicator of the future direction of prices. As far as I know, there is no independent academic research showing that this approach results in improved investors’ returns.

For most people, at most times, a buy-and-hold strategy works just fine. And when you think, “this time is different” you are just as likely to be wrong.

On the other hand, I can’t resist.  I simply find this line of thinking fascinating, so here is Benningfield’s post, Pundits Capitulating — Are We Nearer To A Market Bottom?

After months of good-faith efforts to bolster investors’ spirits, several prominent financial journalists threw in the towel this week and turned gloomy. The pundits, at least, are capitulating. Could this mean we’re closer to a market bottom?

Example 1 — Ben Stein
Back in the summer of 2007, after the first wave of the credit crisis hit, New York Times columnist Ben Stein told us the market sell-offs were “nutty,” since “This economy is extremely strong. Profits are superb. The world economy is exploding with growth.”

Over ensuing months, while acknowledging the steady stream of poor economic news, Mr. Stein continued to maintain an upbeat attitude, encouraging investors not to panic and telling them “this big, strong economy will sail on through.” That changed this week. Mr. Stein asks, “What if a slowdown is a never-ending story?” His column raises the specter of a depression, telling us, “This time it’s different . . . The problem now, as in 1929 to 1940, is that the economy is not functioning normally.”

Example 2 — Jason Zweig
Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig has done a valiant job these past several months urging investors to avoid panic and to see the silver lining that has emerged with cheaper stock prices and higher expected returns.

But this week, he, too, turned to the Great Depression in his Wall Street Journal column, “1931 and 2008: Will Market History Repeat Itself?” In the gloomiest terms I’ve ever read from him, Mr. Zweig warned us:

“It is vital to realize that markets are never under some obligation to stop falling merely because they have already fallen by an ungodly amount. It also is vital to explore how bad the worst-case scenario can get and to think about how you would respond if it comes to pass.”

Example 3 — Floyd Norris
The chief financial correspondent for the New York Times, Mr. Norris has done a great job reporting on the credit crisis and, unlike many shyer souls, has been willing to stand up and be counted with his predictions for where a market bottom will likely be found. Not this week. As Mr. Norris put it in his blog, “P.S. I am following the suggestion of several commentators on this blog. I am giving up on trying to identify a market bottom.”

Market bottoms typically require a “capitulation” where the vast majority of investors finally sell most of their assets and walk away in disgust. By many measures, we’re not there yet (and may not be for months). But pundits capitulating is at least a good start.

Nice job, Milo.  I have added your blog Margin of Safety to my list of recommended blogs.

How Bad Is This Bear Market?

“Technically, a bear market is when stocks fall 20% or more from their highs. But there’s a saying that a bear’s true signature is making a fool out of everyone. Based on that, we’re all laughingstocks, because there has been virtually no way to avoid this bear market’s claws.” – Matt Krantz.

An article in today’s edition of USA Today, Bear Market Swipes at More Than Just Stocks by Matt Krantz, spells out just how bad the markets have been this year. Here is a summary:

Following a 445-point slide to 7552 Thursday, the Dow Jones industrial average is down more than 6,600 points from its high. The broad stock market is at it lowest level in 11½ years, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index off 52% from its high in October 2007 and on pace for its worst year ever, S&P says. Only 13 of its 500 stocks are not down for the year, and more than 100 trade for less than $10 a share.

The pain extends far beyond stocks. Oil has crashed 66% from its record close in early July. Even the so-called safe harbor of gold is down 25.5% from its high in March.

This bear has trashed nearly every investment strategy and asset class. It has humbled some of the most powerful names in the stock market and blown holes through long-held tenets in investing. Market historians strain to think of previous bear markets that have disproved so many investing philosophies at the same time.

“There is nowhere to run and hide,” says Ken Winans of investment management firm Winans International. “You have gotten bludgeoned in every direction.”

The extent of the earth that’s been scorched is breathtaking. Brand-name investors such as Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn and T. Boone Pickens have suffered massive losses. Do-no-wrong mutual fund managers, such as Legg Mason’s Bill Miller, are down big. Hedge funds run by managers once thought to be infallible are having their worst years ever.

Even investors who saw the bear coming have been mauled. Those that rushed into commodities or foreign currencies to sit out problems with the U.S. economy have suffered massive losses.

The pros are struggling

Even investors who’ve sought professional help have been stung. Money poured into mutual funds, hedge funds and private-equity firms run by experts known for out-foxing markets in good times and bad. The bear has proved to be smarter than the fox.

Legg Mason’s Value fund (LMVTX), famous for the longest streak beating the S&P 500 under the leadership of portfolio manager Miller, is struggling. It is down more than 65% this year, the third year in a row that it has lagged behind the market. It now has just a one-star rating, out of a possible five, from Morningstar.

Eddie Lampert, the hedge fund manager for celebrities such as David Geffen and Michael Dell who was routinely compared with Warren Buffett just a few years ago, has seen his investments sour. His personal worth has fallen to $2 billion from $4.5 billion just two years ago, Forbes says. His hedge funds’ biggest investment, Sears Holdings (SHLD), has collapsed 70.5% this year.

Speaking of Buffett, the bear snagged the Oracle of Omaha, too. … Buffett’s personal worth is getting mauled, too. Forbes estimated his net worth at $62 billion in February, but that is based mostly on his large holdings of Berkshire Hathaway stock, which is now down $74,150, or 49%, from its high of $151,650 a share.

Commodities aren’t shelter

Investors who thought they saw the stock crash coming figured they had the answer: commodities. Fears of inflation and economic problems pushed many investors into gold. An ounce of gold soared 53.6% in the year leading up to its peak on March 18 as investors poured in. But investors who piled into gold in March have been dealt a 25.5% loss.

A similar story with oil. The price of crude was soaring earlier this year, and gas prices were a national fixation. At the closing peak of $145.29 a barrel on July 3, crude was up 51% for the year. With predictions of it hitting $200 or more, it seemed like a can’t-lose proposition. Speculators lost and lost big as the price crashed nearly $100 a barrel to about $49 now.

The Reuters/Jefferies CRB index of 19 raw materials dropped more than 4% Thursday, hitting its lowest level since April 29, 2003, according to Bloomberg News.

Global diversification is making things worse

We’ve heard it before. Own both U.S. and foreign stocks, and your portfolio’s ups and downs will be moderated. When domestic stocks zig, foreign stocks are supposed to zag.
But that hasn’t worked either. The iShares MSCI EAFE index fund (EFA), which tracks stocks in developed nations in Europe, Asia and the Far East is down 54.5% this year. That’s worse than U.S. stocks’ decline.

What about emerging markets stocks? Up-and-coming nations such as China, Brazil and India were supposed to be growing fast independent of the U.S. Well, the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets (EEM) index has fared worse, tanking 64%. Every major nation’s stock market is down this year, says S&P’s Capital IQ.

Buy-and-hold investors are getting hurt

Buy-and-hold investors know short-term swings are normal. They hold through tough times, knowing returns come to those who wait. But investors who invested in the S&P 500 10 years ago have seen the value of their stocks decline 35%. Even investors who used dollar-cost averaging and invested $500 a month starting Dec. 31, 1996, and reinvested dividends lost $13,225, or 17%, as of Oct. 31, says Winans.

Bonds are eating away at portfolios

Rather than buffering losses on stocks, corporate bonds are falling apart. The iShares iBoxx Investment Grade Corporate Bond fund (LQD), which invests in bonds with high credit ratings, has a negative return of 14.4% this year. That may not sound that bad, except investors buy bonds because they want very little volatility.

Sam Stovall of S&P says that it’s usually not wise to give up on investing in the depths of a bear market. While it takes five years on average for investors to get their money back after a 40%-plus decline, those who keep investing when stocks are cheaper are made whole faster.

Conclusion

A small point: The article overstates the damage to bond investments. Not all have suffered. In fact, Treasury securities have done quite well this year, as investors have fled to these very safe investments. (As the yield of a bond goes down, the price of the bond goes up.)

But the article is generally correct. Unless the stock market recovers from these low levels, which certainly could still happen, 2008 will go down in history as the worst year ever, as measured by the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index. I believe, though, that this is not the time to get discouraged and abandon your well thought out portfolio. In this instance, doing nothing is preferable to selling everything.

There are some opportunities out there. If you can do it, this is a good time to convert your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. It might also be a good time to rebalance your portfolio. For more information on these two issues, you should consult your financial advisor.

Going forward, we all must re-examine our actual risk tolerance. When times are good, it’s easy to tell yourself that you can weather the (hopefully) temporary storms of declining stock markets. This year certainly proves that living through a substantial bear market, in real time, is another matter entirely.

Finally, if you are so worried about the stock market that you are having trouble sleeping, consider scaling back your equity allocation. That way you will still maintain some exposure to stocks, rather than making an emotional decision to “sell everything.”

photo credit: lexdennphotography

Investor Capitulation, Part 3

“Bear markets sometimes end with a bang, sometimes with a whimper. You’re more likely to see a unicorn in your backyard or a chimera in your kitchen than you are to spot an indisputable sign of market capitulation.” – Jason Zweig.

Of late, I have been writing about the possibility that the current stock market decline could end with a great big bang, followed shortly thereafter by investor disgust and despondency. It’s more of an intellectual exercise, because I am basically an agnostic on the subject. Frankly, no one really knows whether or not we will have such a “selling climax.”

Jason Zweig’s Intelligent Investor post on October 25 is called Capitulation: When the Market Throws in the Towel. Surprisingly, Bear Markets Don’t Always End With a Bang — Sometimes It’s Just a Whimper. His point of view is worth reading and emphasizes that we just never know what will happen.

There’s a belief that the market can hit bottom only when vast numbers of investors finally capitulate, throwing in the towel and selling off the last of their stock portfolios. In theory, if you could spot this moment, you could make a killing buying at the bottom.

There are two problems here. First, capitulation is almost impossible to define. Second, even if you could get a positive ID on capitulation, that might not do you any good. Market lows aren’t necessarily marked by tidal waves of frantic selling; just as frequently, stocks bottom out in a dull and lonely atmosphere as trading dries up and most investors no longer even care. Bear markets often end not in capitulation but stupefaction.

Oddly, even market pundits who believe in capitulation admit they can’t define it. “Capitulation is a state of mind, without any specific definition,” says Al Goldman, chief market strategist for Wachovia Securities. “You can’t measure it; it’s best identified in hindsight.” Hugh A. Johnson, chief investment officer at Johnson Illington Advisors, says almost wistfully: “I wish I could quantify it for you so I could say, ‘Here, this is capitulation.’ But a lot of this is anecdotal. Talk to enough investors and you get an idea of whether we have capitulation.”

“The most interesting thing about [the 1974 market bottom] was its dullness,” veteran fund manager Ralph Wanger recalled to me. “It wasn’t a crash, it was a mudslide. You came in, watched the market go down a few points and went home. The next day you went through the same thing all over again.” And then, without a moment’s warning, the bull woke up and took off. By Jan. 6, 1975, the market had shot up 10%, and a year after that the Dow had risen 54% from its 1974 low.

In short, bear markets sometimes end with a bang, sometimes with a whimper. You’re more likely to see a unicorn in your backyard or a chimera in your kitchen than you are to spot an indisputable sign of market capitulation.

Conclusion

The obsessive attention so many investors are paying to the huge swings in the Dow suggests that we may not have hit bottom yet; stupefaction seems not to have set in yet. What we can be quite certain of, however, is that stock markets around the world are already on sale. If you have cash to spare, put some to work. If you don’t, save up until you do. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that you will ever get a clear signal out of such an unclear indicator.

I sincerely hope that my posts have not added to the “obsessive attention” to the stock market swings. I believe that when an investor owns, even a single share of stock, he actually owns a share in a business. A share of stock is not like a lottery ticket, and it’s more than just a piece of paper based on numbers that crawl across the bottom of a TV screen.

As providers of capital, investors are entitled to a return. In the short term, returns can vary tremendously. Historically, over the long term, stocks have returned more than safer investments.

As for the short term, i.e. what we are living through now, there are dramatic factors that have been causing stock prices to decline – specifically, margin calls and hedge fund redemptions.

An example of a margin call is a company’s CEO who had earlier borrowed money to exercise company stock options. Because the company’s stock price has since declined in value, the CEO must either put up more capital or sell the stock in the account to meet the broker’s margin requirement.

Hedge funds have been selling stocks, currencies, commodities – basically whatever they could sell – to prepare for imminent redemptions. This is, in effect, “forced selling,” similar to margin calls. And there is just no way to know when this will all end.

Since everyone knows this, it is possible that stock prices already reflect the negative situation. If that’s the case, this could be a great “buying opportunity” for stocks. Unfortunately, we will only know if we were right in retrospect.

photo credit: erin MC hammer

The Cloudy Crystal Ball, Part 6

 

 

“These types of forecasts are wildly off-base. What they’re always about is extrapolation. People are always extrapolating recent trends. And you don’t know how far the trend is going to really run.” – William A. Fleckenstein.

This post is a continuation of articles on how no one can predict the stock market or any other market, for that matter.

Going for the Gold in Gloom and Doom by Michael M. Grynbaum has an analysis of the phenomenon of people who make predcitions that are extreme.  They not only confidently assert their forecasts, but they are frequently wrong.  And they are not held accountable for their mistakes.

“Financial forecasters are in a race to call the bottom to the bear market. And just as on the way up, when analysts competed for attention with their forecasts of bigger and bigger gains, the financial pundit class now seems compelled to out-gloom the next guy.

“To make a crazy forecast today is not crazy,” said Owen Lamont, a former professor at Yale who has studied economic forecasting. “It’s not crazy to predict the Dow is going to 2,000. That’s in the realm of possibility.”

“Even in normal times, forecasters have a strong incentive to make extreme predictions, which is why those “Dow 1,000!” reports persist. “It’s eye-popping. It’s relevant. It seems exciting,” Mr. Lamont said. Such predictions attract publicity, name recognition and a bigger client base in a business where investors pay thousands, if not millions, for stock advice and investment guidance.

And even if a forecast is off-base, there are few repercussions because they are almost always quickly forgotten. “The reason that people do these games is because no one’s really tracking accuracy,” said Mr. Lamont, who now works at DKR Capital, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Conn. “No one is carefully, prudently giving more business to the guy who is 2 percent more accurate than the next guy.”

Some say this is a system that propagates ignorance and poor advice.

“Anyone that invests 10 cents on the basis of someone’s forecast of the Dow is desirous of losing a good portion of their 10 cents,” said William A. Fleckenstein, president of Fleckenstein Capital, a money management firm in Issaquah, Wash. “It is almost the height of arrogance to say this is where the Dow is going to trade.”

“These types of forecasts are wildly off-base,” Mr. Fleckenstein said. “What they’re always about is extrapolation. People are always extrapolating recent trends. And you don’t know how far the trend is going to really run.”

Some financial pundits, however, are all too happy to broadcast their predictions to the public, no matter how apocalyptic.

Peter Schiff, the president of Euro Pacific Capital in Darien, Conn., and a prominent financial Cassandra, has seen some of his most dire forecasts confirmed amid this year’s turmoil. On Friday, he predicted plenty more pain to come.

Forecasters who get too far ahead of themselves would do well to remember an instance of notoriously poor prognostication. One of the few times that a financial strategist has been widely taken to task came in 1999, when Kevin A. Hassett and James K. Glassman published “Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market.”

The book, which arrived just months before the technology bubble burst and stocks plummeted to earth, was actually an argument that bonds and stocks should be considered as equally risky investments. But the title — cartoonish in hindsight and, in its authors’ defense, proposed by the publisher — has since become a popular punch line for jokes about irrational exuberance in turn-of-the-century Wall Street. (The Dow closed on Friday at 8,378.95).

Still, while the reputation of its authors may have taken a hit, “Dow 36,000” has not seemed to hurt their careers.

If you had taken their book seriously, you would be much poorer.  But while their predictions were way off the mark, both authors have done just fine.  One has a prestigious position with the American Enterprise Institute and one with the Bush Administration. 

Conclusion

Wildly optimistic forecasts and wildly pessimistic predictions are often wrong. Frequently the prognosticators are merely extrapolating the recent past. The main thing they accomplish is to gain attention for themselves. If you listen to such predictions and act on them, you do so at your own risk.

Investor Capitulation, Part 2

“The most common cause of low prices is pessimism – some times pervasive, some times specific to a company or industry. We want to do business in such an environment, not because we like pessimism but because we like the prices it produces. It’s optimism that is the enemy of the rational buyer.” – Warren Buffet.

In a previous post, I raised the possibility that we might witness a kind of panic selling called capitulation. This was not meant to be a prediction. It was an observation that sometimes a bear market ends in a very sharp decline, and it is generally associated with investors’ extreme discouragement and/or disgust. This is not an exact science, but more like Justice Potter Stewart’s comment on pornography – you’ll know it when you see it.

Well at 7:30 this morning, the futures markets indicate a very weak opening for U.S. stocks. This is happening after markets had steep declines in Asia, with the Japanese stock market falling almost 10%. European stocks have also declined by 7-10%. Right now it looks like we are going to have a “Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.” (Judith Viorst) Of course, no one knows where the market will close today or what will happen next week.

For more context, Mark Hulbert’s column Anatomy of a Bottom, written for MarketWatch on October 21st, describes the difference between a “Panic” and “Capitulation.”

Capitulation has a number of distinguishing psychological characteristics, such as investor disgust and exhaustion. Having been burned by the market for so long, investors capitulate by resolving never, ever, to trust the market again.

In the wake of capitulation, therefore, interest in the market declines. Apathy rules.

To be sure, this definition cannot be mechanically measured. It is hard to pinpoint when investors become maximally dejected and apathetic. But my hunch is that we have yet to experience capitulation.

One illustration of capitulation that I find particularly instructive, even though it is from a pre-Internet era: During bull markets, as well as during bear markets up until capitulation finally occurs, investors turn to the business sections of their morning newspapers to see how much they made or lost the previous day. At times of capitulation, in contrast, investors don’t even bother to open the business section at all.

From the perspective of this illustration as well, capitulation is yet to occur: Far from being ignored, business news is now splashed all over the front pages of newspapers’ lead sections.

My guess is that, when that low does finally occur, we’ll be witnessing, and experiencing ourselves, a lot more of the psychological traits associated with capitulation: Exhaustion, disgust, lack of interest, even apathy.

Interpretation and Advice

Investors, by definition, are “in it for the long run.” If the recent events on Wall Street, and indeed, across the globe, have you so discouraged that you question whether stocks really do provide higher returns than bank CDs, then you are in the grips of capitulation. How you behave or how you react, at this moment, will be what determines your rate of return for a long time to come.

If you sell when everyone else is selling, you may get some immediate psychological comfort that you have come in out of the storm. My belief, which is based on extensive experience, is that you will do yourself harm in the long run.

What happens to stock prices in the short term is anyone’s guess, but if investors are not rewarded for taking risk by investing in stocks, capitalism cannot function.

photo credit: JdeePanIII

Next Page »