Category Archives: Dow Industrials

Fastest 1,000 Points or Slowest +4.17%?

Saw this headline and almost did a spit-take.

image

Fortune Magazine claimed to “fact check” whether history shows that this was the fastest 1,000 points.

image

Sadly, Fortune never actually compares the current +4.17% gains to any other in the 122-year history of the DJIA.   You have to wonder if Fortune included the 15 years after 1972, when the Dow finally crossed over 2,000. 

To their credit, Fortune does say, “…the Dow has grown larger over time, meaning a 1,000 point move today is less significant percentage-wise compared to such a movement 20 years earlier.

Again, for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), going from 24,000 to 25,000 is equal a +4.17% change. As noted in Fortune, on a percentage basis, +4.17% isn’t much.  However, we have listed the gains above +4.18%  that took less than 34 calendar days since 1896.  Although there are too many to show, we’ve only relegated this to the last 45 incidents from the lowest percentage gain excluding multiple events in the same year.

Date DJIA % change days
July 21, 1897 4.21% 10
June 29, 1938 4.21% 1
November 27, 1905 4.22% 1
April 5, 2001 4.23% 1
November 30, 2011 4.24% 1
March 4, 1926 4.38% 1
December 24, 1902 4.43% 8
November 1, 1978 4.46% 1
November 2, 1904 4.50% 7
November 26, 1963 4.50% 1
January 15, 1934 4.52% 1
January 17, 1991 4.57% 1
February 9, 1931 4.62% 1
June 19, 1930 4.63% 1
May 29, 1962 4.69% 1
October 28, 1997 4.71% 1
October 9, 1974 4.71% 1
June 12, 1940 4.73% 1
February 11, 2010 4.75% 3
August 17, 1982 4.90% 1
March 16, 2000 4.93% 1
November 16, 1933 4.93% 1
November 12, 1896 4.93% 8
September 8, 1998 4.98% 1
May 17, 1915 5.02% 1
May 27, 1970 5.08% 1
October 16, 1903 5.11% 1
January 27, 1899 5.36% 20
August 17, 1898 5.41% 12
August 11, 1909 5.43% 22
December 22, 1916 5.47% 1
November 22, 1920 5.51% 1
February 5, 1917 5.77% 1
October 20, 1987 5.88% 1
October 20, 1937 6.08% 1
January 19, 1906 6.08% 14
October 7, 1929 6.32% 1
July 24, 2002 6.35% 1
May 10, 1901 6.37% 1
March 15, 1907 6.69% 1
March 23, 2009 6.84% 1
January 6, 1932 7.12% 1
November 10, 1911 8.27% 14
January 14, 1908 8.61% 11
September 5, 1939 9.52% 1

Stock Market Context is Invaluable

As market pundits either celebrate or examine the stock market crash of 1987, there comes point when all analysis becomes a form of paralysis. Some say a crash won’t happen again while others proclaim, almost daily since the 2009 low, that a crash is just around the corner.  When posed with such a question, we always ask, what is our point of reference?

To arrive at a point of reference, we read an article that says that the S&P 500 has had it “Too good, Too Long.”  We liked this reference point as it charts the S&P 500 from 1996 to 2017.  We decided to use the same number of trading days for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going backwards from the 1987 peak at 2,722.42, which led us to the beginning of 1966.  When you contrast the price activity of the S&P 500 against the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the two periods, we get a point of reference that is all too telling.

image

 

Our observations of the market leading up to the the peak in the Dow Jones Industrial Average on August 25, 1987 contrasted with the S&P 500 since 1996 tells us a few things that need pointing out.

First, nothing that has happened in the exact same number of trading days between the two indexes is unique.  The Dow had declines of –35%, –44%, and –26% in the late-1960’s and 1970’s.  Likewise, the S&P 500 experienced declines of –49% and –56% in the period of late-1990’s and 2007-2009.

Second, the rise from the lows could be considered to be almost equal. If we take the low of 2009 for the S&P 500 and compare it to the corresponding low in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, based on the same number of trading days, we find that the increase in the S&P 500 is not unusual at this point as compared to the Dow.  From the 1978 low in the Dow, the index gained +266% to the 1987 peak.  The 2009 low in the S&P 500 Index the gain has been +278% so far.  If we take the ultimate low in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from 1974, the increase was +371%.  This puts the S&P 500 well within the range of “normal” for a market rise.

Third, looking at where the Dow Jones Industrial Average was and where it currently is, there is little to suggest that the action of the S&P 500 cannot go a significant distance above the current level with moderating declines in between.  Does the S&P 500 have to do in the future what the Dow Jones Industrial Average has done in the past?  Absolutely not!  However, looking at what has happened could help to put the coming decline in the market into proper context.  As our latest bull market ranking has demonstrated, there is still a lot of upside potential in this market. 

In reality, a market crash is always on the horizon. Also, when data is provided, if there is no context then there is no meaning or value. So, what should investors being doing now in preparation for the next crash? Our opinion is that investors should stockpile cash as the stock market increases.  Use that cash for when the next stock market decline ensues.  Educate yourself on investment values and be ready to hold your nose and buy those values at significant lows relative to prior peaks.

Earnings Recession Over?

The chart below outlines the Year-over-Year (Y-o-Y) percentage change in the S&P 500 earnings since 1960.  From what we can tell, the slide from the 2010 peak in Y-o-Y earnings in the S&P may have bottomed in 2015 and is on a path to the 2013 peak which could be followed by the 1964 recovery peak.

image

What stands out about the current move upward is the fact that the decline went into negative territory.  While the decline wasn’t as low as we’d like, at or below the 1970 level, we have to accept that there are few times this indication went negative without a very strong recovery to the upside.  For now, we’re hedging our commentary by watching for the 2013 level before going on to the 1964 peak. 

However, we suspect that the recovery in S&P earnings could test the 1976 peak.  What does that translate into for the stock market.  Although not as low as the 1975 trough, the Dow Jones Industrial Average nearly doubled within a two year period.  Let’s call for a +50% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from the 2015 low.  This would bring the index to 24,153.57 by 2018.

Resource Links:

Analyst Estimates: DJIA November 2016

Below are the price projections based on analyst earnings estimates for the Dow Jones Industrial Average as of November 4, 2016. These estimates project the price change for the respective stocks over the next 12 months and the risk profiles associated with the estimates.

Continue reading

Analyst Estimates: Dow Jones Industrial Average

Below are the price projections based on analyst earnings estimates for the Dow Jones Industrial Average as of October 22, 2016. These estimates project the price change for the respective stocks over the next 12 months and the risk profiles associated with the estimates.  We also propose a variation of the “Dogs of the Dow” theme for future analysis.

Dow Jones Downside Targets

Below are the downside targets for the Dow Jones Industrial Average applying Dow’s Theory and the Dow Jones Transportation Average applying Edson Gould’s Speed Resistance Lines.

Dow Theory: The Misunderstood Barometer

Dow Theory is a fickle beast.  While the theory is sound, those that interpret it have their challenges.  A recent article dated May 21, 2015 titled “Transportation Average – A Big Concern for Stock Bulls?” by Chris Ciovacco presents some of the difficulties with the topic of Dow Theory. In this article, we’ll attempt to clarify some issues that should be discussed when making interpretations of Dow Theory.

The article by Ciovacco starts off by pointing out the recent divergence between the Dow Jones Transportation Average and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  A divergence exists when one index makes new highs or lows while the other index fails to go in the same direction.  According to Dow Theory, if there is a divergence, it could indicate that the previous trend will be reversed.  As the prior trend in the stock market from 2009 to 2015 has been bullish, the implication is that the bull market could be coming to an end.

image

In explaining whether investors should be worried about the “non-confirmation” exhibited by the divergence between the Industrial and Transportation Averages, the article identifies the period from 1989 to 1993 when there appeared to be a divergence between the same indexes.  However, at the time of the divergence, according to the author, the S&P 500 managed to gain as much as +25%.  What is not shown or discussed are the key indications of a bull or bear market in the period from 1989 to 1993.  These elements will complete a picture that is necessary for anyone hoping to understand and possibly benefit from Dow Theory.

Identifying the Bear Market

Below is a charting of the period 1989 to 1993 in smaller segments for a more accurate Dow Theory assessment.  First is the indication of a bear market based on Dow Theory which occurred on October 13, 1989.

image

Our ex post interpretation of when a bear market was signaled by Dow Theory is supported by the Dow Theorist Richard Russell in his Dow Theory Letters publication. In his official investment stance on October 4, 1989, Russell said:

image

This is contrasted by what Russell said in his October 18, 1989 posting:

image

Russell made clear that from a Dow Theory perspective, a bear market had been signaled.  As a side note, Russell’s PTI or Primary Trend Indicator did not confirm the bearish signal until February 7, 1990 (four months later).  The PTI is not a part of Dow Theory but has proven to be a useful market tool.

Identifying the Bull Market

Using our own ex post analysis of the charts of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Dow Jones Transportation Average, we find that a new Dow Theory bull market was signaled on January 18, 1991.

image

Richard Russell was suspicious of the Dow Theory bull market that was signaled on January 18, 1991 and chose to wait for his PTI to give the all clear.  Russell said the following on February 6, 1991:

image

But even the preceding commentary was buried by the following overriding thoughts by Russell:

image

The question is ultimately asked by Ciovacco, “Would it have made sense to sell all our stocks because the Dow Transports failed to make a new high?”  The point being, why get caught up in a “signal” that potentially will result in lost investment gains? After all, the S&P 500 index increased by +25% in the period when it appeared that there was a divergence between the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Dow Jones Transportation Average.

This is where a significant problem comes up in the analysis of Dow Theory.  First, if we assume that a divergence did occur in Ciovacco’s selected time frame, rather than a bear market indication, then an adherent of Dow Theory would accept that a divergence is merely a caution signal.  This would have meant that whatever the previous trend of the market was, it remains in place until a definitive reversal occurs.  In our most recent market action, a bull market was still the indication and thus there would be  no need “… to sell all our stocks…”

Another issue not mentioned is that Dow Theory does not give buy or sell signals as we pointed out in our July 25, 2011 article. Among the many things overlooked about Dow Theory is that it is intended to reflect the changes in the stock market, investment values, and the economy.  As a barometer, it merely indicates the direction that the stock market and economy might go three to nine months into the future. Those who take bull or bear market indications as buy or sell signals still need to be well versed in understanding values and compounding and their role in investing. If a person, not versed in values and compounding, believes that any indication means that they can haphazardly buy or sell stocks then they are most likely to suffer severe losses and quickly become disenchanted with the accumulation of assets.

Identifying Recessions

In the past, Dow Theory was often heralded as a peek into the future for the economy.  In the 1989 example above, the Dow Theory bear market preceded the National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) definition of a recession by nine months.  Dow Theory signaled a bear market in October 1989 and the NBER indicated that a recession began July 1990.  However, the NBER announced their conclusion about when the recession began on April 25, 1991, a full year and a half after the Dow Theory bear market signal and nine months after their own designation of when the recession began.  Additionally, Dow Theory indicated that a new bull market was in place on January 18, 1991 or three months before the NBER announced that the recession ended in March 1991.

Final Thoughts

What some market bears would like to accomplish with Dow Theory is to anticipate scenarios where divergence leads to an actual bear market of significant magnitude like what happened in the period from 1972 to 1974.

DT '72

The decline experienced from the respective peaks was –59% and –44% for the Transports and Industrials.  Since the outcome of a divergence cannot be accurately anticipated, it is far “safer” to wait for the confirmation of the trend before considering any potential actions.  However, if investors had sold their stocks on October 13, 1989 and repurchased stocks on January 18, 1991 (and held until December 31, 1993), the gains would have been +40%, +41% and +76.04% for the S&P 500, Industrials and Transportation Index, respectively.

What some market bulls would like to accomplish without Dow Theory is not selling if the net effect is for the market to ultimately climb well beyond the point of the initial divergence.  As an example,  if we take the October 13, 1989 date and calculate the returns for the S&P 500, Dow Industrials and Dow Transports until December 31, 1993, we find that the returns were +39%, +46% and +25%, respectively.

Dow Theory only works as a barometer for the stock market when taken in the context of investment values and compounding.  As an indicator of coming recessions, as defined by NBER, Dow Theory has an unrivaled track record.  The translation of these ideas often get confused as recessions don’t necessarily result in jarring –50% declines in the stock market every time.

Our tactic on the divergence is to dump more funds into the cash portion of the brokerage account so that we can make large purchases if a precipitous decline ensues.  If a decline does not materialize, we will continue our slow and selective investment buying program for compounding purposes.

The Real Heavy Hitters of the Dow

On January 5, 2015, Yahoo!Finance published an article titled “CAT Crushing the Dow” in which it indicated:

“Caterpillar (CAT) is getting smacked down by nearly 4% adding considerably to the Dow's (^DJI) pain. The earth moving machine maker was downgraded to underweight from neutral by analysts atJPMorgan (JPM).  The team notes that crude is now down some 50% and that's probably going to be a headwind for companies like CAT that make machines that in part help other companies find oil. Beware of obvious downgrades in skittish tapes.”

On the surface, the fact that CAT ultimately closed down –5.28% clearly impacted the Dow.  In fact, CAT was the stock that had the largest percentage decline of all the stocks in the index.  However, looking at the stocks that are part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and noting that it is a price weighted index we can easily see that far from “…adding considerably to the Dow’s pain…”, CAT was merely a footnote in the decline of the index.

Below is the ranking of the Dow stocks from the most impact to the least for January 5, 2015.

Symbol Name Price pt. decline % decline % impact on Dow
V Visa Inc. 259.17 -5.85 -2.21% 20.72%
GS Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 188.34 -6.07 -3.12% 11.05%
MMM 3M Company 160.36 -3.7 -2.26% 7.94%
IBM IBM 159.51 -2.55 -1.57% 7.81%
BA Boeing Company 129.05 -0.9 -0.69% 5.06%
UTX United Technologies 113.12 -1.92 -1.67% 3.92%
CVX Chevron Corporation 108.08 -4.5 -4.00% 3.67%
TRV Travelers Companies, Inc. 104.17 -1.27 -1.20% 3.32%
JNJ Johnson & Johnson 103.79 -0.73 -0.70% 3.27%
HD Home Depot, Inc. 101.26 -2.17 -2.10% 3.16%
UNH UnitedHealth Group 99.12 -1.66 -1.65% 3.01%
NKE Nike, Inc. 93.5 -1.53 -1.61% 2.68%
DIS Disney Company 92.38 -1.37 -1.46% 2.62%
MCD McDonald's Corp. 92.23 -1.03 -1.10% 2.60%
AXP American Express Company 90.56 -2.46 -2.64% 2.54%
XOM Exxon Mobil Corporation 90.29 -2.54 -2.74% 2.53%
PG Procter & Gamble Company 90.01 -0.43 -0.48% 2.46%
CAT Caterpillar Inc. 87.03 -4.85 -5.28% 2.41%
WMT Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 85.65 -0.25 -0.29% 2.22%
DD du Pont de Nemours 71.72 -1.99 -2.70% 1.59%
JPM JPMorgan Chase & Co. 60.55 -1.94 -3.10% 1.14%
MRK Merck & Co. Inc. 58.04 0.85 1.49% 1.00%
VZ Verizon Communications Inc. 46.57 -0.39 -0.83% 0.66%
MSFT Microsoft Corporation 46.33 -0.43 -0.93% 0.65%
KO Coca-Cola Company 42.14 0 0.00% 0.54%
INTC Intel Corporation 35.95 -0.41 -1.13% 0.39%
T AT&T, Inc. 33.55 -0.32 -0.94% 0.34%
PFE Pfizer Inc. 31.16 -0.17 -0.54% 0.30%
CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc. 27.06 -0.55 -1.99% 0.22%
GE General Electric Company 24.6 -0.46 -1.84% 0.19%

Of the 30 stocks, CAT was ranked 18th in terms of impact on the decline in the index.  This is a far cry from dragging the Dow lower.  What is most interesting is that the decline of Boeing (BA) had nearly four times the impact on the index than did CAT even though BA declined only -0.69%. 

What investors really don’t want or need is for the first five stocks (V, GS, MMM, IBM, BA) to have a bad day at the same time as these stock comprise 52% of the Dow’s movement.

2015 Estimated Price Changes for Dow Industrials

Below are the estimated price changes for the components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the coming year.  The price estimates are based on the current analyst low expectation of annual earnings assuming the stock retains the p/e ratio at the end of 2014.

image

Our experience has been that stocks that are expected to underperform generally do much better than those stocks that are expected to increase in the coming year.

As a test, we’re comparing the performance of the “end of 2014 p/e ratio” against the performance of the stocks if they all had a p/e ratio of 15 as depicted below.

image

Dogs of the Dow – A Look Back at 2014 & Forward to 2015

As the year 2014 comes to an end, we can't help but review a strategy known as The "Dogs of the Dow" which suggests that investors buy the top ten highest yielding stocks from the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the beginning of the year. The table below highlights the performance of the 2014 "Dogs of the Dow."

Dog of the Dow 2014

Ticker Company Beginning of 2014 Price End of 2014 Price Dividend  Yield (1/1/2014) Dividend Yield (12/31/2014) YTD % Chg
T AT&T, Inc.  35.16    33.6 5.2% 5.5% -4.5%
VZ Verizon Communications Inc.  49.14    46.8 4.3% 4.6% -4.8%
MRK Merck & Co. Inc.  50.05    56.8 3.5% 3.1% 13.5%
INTC Intel Corporation  25.96    36.3 3.5% 2.5% 39.8%
PFE Pfizer Inc.  30.63    31.2 3.4% 3.3% 1.7%
MCD McDonald's Corp.  97.03    93.7 3.3% 3.5% -3.4%
CVX Chevron Corporation 124.91  112.2 3.2% 3.8% -10.2%
GE General Electric Company  28.03    25.3 3.1% 3.5% -9.8%
CSCO Cisco Systems, Inc.  22.43    27.8 3.0% 2.7% 24.0%
MSFT Microsoft Corporation  37.41    46.5 3.0% 2.5% 24.2%
  Dog of the Dow Average     3.56% 3.49% 7.04%
S&P 500 1831.98 2058.9 12.39%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 16441.35 17823.07 8.40%

The overall performance of the group was subpar when compared to the S&P 500 but nearly matched the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Looking at the subgroup, within the top ten highest yielding stocks, you can clearly see that the big name technology companies outperformed the market, with Intel (INTC) gaining as much as +40%. Not only was Intel the best performer in the group but it was also the best performer in the entire index.

Cisco (CSCO) and Microsoft (MSFT) also had exceptional gains for the year, excluding dividend, of +24%. The worst performing was Chevron (CVX) which was hit by the large declines in the price of oil.

Looking broadly at the index, it was the energy sector and large industrial companies such as General Electric (GE) that was hit the hardest. Large telecoms like AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) didn't do as well but their large dividends provided enough of a buffer that the total return was in positive territory.

While we don't have a strong view of the strategy, whether it works or not, we are often curious about the actual performance of other strategies. As such, the table below highlight the 10 companies that are consider the Dogs of the Dow for 2015.

Ticker Company Beginning of 2015 Price Dividend  Yield (1/1/2015)
T AT&T, Inc.  33.59 5.5%
VZ Verizon Communications Inc.  46.78 4.6%
CVX Chevron Corporation 112.18 3.8%
GE General Electric Company  25.27 3.5%
MCD McDonald's Corp.  93.70 3.5%
PFE Pfizer Inc.  31.15 3.3%
MRK Merck & Co. Inc.  56.79 3.1%
XOM Exxon Mobil Corporation  92.45 2.9%
KO The Coca-Cola Company  42.22 2.9%
CAT Caterpillar Inc.  91.53 2.8%
  Dog of the Dow Average   3.59%

It shouldn't surprise anyone that many companies which appeared on the 2014 list are also in the 2015 list. Interestingly, this list consists of various sectors. The telecom sector generally has the largest payout of dividends which put AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) on the list by default.

The energy sector has two companies, Chevron (CVX) and Exxon (XOM). Sectors that rely heavily on consumer discretionary spending are McDonald's (MCD) and Coca-Cola (KO). If you believe in big pharma, look no further than Pfizer (PFE) and Merck (MRK). Last but not least are the large industrial names which are pegged to world growth, Caterpillar (CAT) and General Electric (GE).

It seems that investors can select a winner based on the sector that they believe to be the top "theme" for 2015 but a study of what has worked in 2014 may provide some edge to how one can maximize the use of this list.

Technology companies obviously did extremely well in 2014 and if you look back the normal dividend yield for the sector, you would see that they're in the range of 2.0% - 2.5% yield. At the beginning of 2014, Intel was yielding 3.5%, Microsoft and Cisco both yield 3.0%.

Clearly all companies were trading much higher than their historical average yield. As for the strategy highlighted in Dividend Don't Lie by Geraldine Weiss, we should really look at the relative yield rather than the absolute yield when assessing the valuation of a company.

Dow Theory: September 18, 2014

NOTE: In our  Dow Theory posting of May 18, 2014, we revealed an issue with Dow Theory that had gone unaddressed since S.A. Nelson’s book, The ABC of Stock Speculation, coined the term “Dow’s Theory.” We believe the acknowledgment of this issue adds clarity to the writings of Charles H. Dow and may produce new insights that have not previously been explored.

Continue reading

Dow Altimeter Review

As the Dow Industrials meander near all-time highs, it is necessary to review Edson Gould’s Altimeter for the index.

Continue reading

Dow Theory

On September 30, 2013, we posted our Dow Theory analysis.  In that assessment, we acknowledged that our June 2013 review of Dow Theory was incorrect.  Additionally, we pointed out the importance of using Dow Theory as an asset allocation tool rather that a strict “buy” or “sell” indicator.  A couple of excerpts appear below:

“Since June 21st, as indicated in the chart below, the Dow Industrials and Dow Transports have managed to achieve successive new highs in early August 2013 and mid-September 2013.  In addition, the call for a bear market came slightly before the bottom in the market in late June 2013.”

“In short, we use Dow Theory indications as asset allocation signals rather than strict buy/sell signals.”

Accepting the reality that we were not in a bear market was challenging.  However, realizing it in enough time, along with the fact that Dow Theory is used as an allocation tool, has spared us excessive losses and/or missed opportunities.

Traditional Dow Theory

Recently Dow Theory has registered a confirmation of the bullish trend.  On May 12, 2014, the Dow Jones Industrial Average confirmed the new highs in the Dow Jones Transportation Average.  In fact, on the same day, both indexes made new all-time highs.

image

That this is still a bull market requires a review of various factors that could be at play, both positive and negative.  As an example, already the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased +151% since the March 9, 2009 low.  The amount of the increase is less than the average for the period of 1836 to 1914, a time when the Federal Reserve never existed.  As stated in the article titled “Is the Fed Responsible for the Stock Market Rise Since 2009?” the average increase when the Federal Reserve didn’t exist was +167%.  This suggests that the current rise may have some room to go on the upside.

Dow Theory Reconsidered

There are many who follow the traditional Dow Theory which is really a refined version of William Peter Hamilton’s writings from his Wall Street Journal and Barron’s newspaper columns as well as his book Stock Market Barometer.  The theory itself is generally sound.  More often than not it is the interpreter of the theory that gets it wrong.  However, we can’t help but feel it necessary to point out the specific words of Charles H. Dow which possibly leads to a market theory slightly different from what the legions of modern Dow Theorists are willing to accept.

The following excerpts from the Wall Street Journal outline Dow’s theory on the role of the industrials as it originally was stated:

“This is preeminently the period of industrial speculation, yet the creation of industrial stocks has become pronounced only within a year.”

“…it follows that there must be a very strong body of [venture] capitalists prepared at present to resist anything like a collapse in the industrial market and to promote by every means in their power firm or advancing prices for the market as a whole.  and this effort on their part is being powerfully supported by the excellent conditions of practically all branches of trade.”

Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook. Wall Street Journal. April 22, 1899.

Our interpretation of the preceding quotes is that industrial stocks were, in 1899, considered to be the equivalent to modern small cap stocks which are more speculative in nature and often prone to manipulation and collapse.  The best confirmation of this concept is found in the following New York Times quote:

“Our London correspondent, in yesterday’s Financial Supplement, gave expression to the feeling which the English investor or speculator very naturally has as to the securities that usually go under the title of industrials in our markets.  It is one of distrust and hesitation.  It would be very strange if it were not.

“As to the investor, we suppose that no one on this side of the water would claim that our industrials, taking them ‘by and large,’ the older with the new, the more solid with the more inflated, can be regarded as ‘investment’ securities.”

New York Times. “The Industrials and The Boom”. March 14, 1899. page 6.

By most measures, the New York Times article, from one month earlier in 1899, confirms our view that industrial stocks were of low quality.  Now we need to see what Dow intended for the role of transportation and industrial stocks.

“…railway [transportation] stocks generally occupy a position much stronger than that held by the industrials.”

“The growth of the business of the country accrues on the old stocks [transportation stocks].  The Industrial list occupies an entirely different position.  There has been a very large creation of securities [initial public offerings].  Stocks have been bought on very limited information as to the value of the property acquired.  Attack of these stocks brings selling from those who know little in regard to the worth of what they have bought; also from those who got in at low figures [company insiders] and who propose to get out as well as they can.  This is the ideal condition for bear attacks, checked only by the possibility of not being able to borrow stock [for short selling].  The thoughtfulness of promoters [investment banks] in providing ample capital relieves this danger to great extent and will relieve it altogether when the new Industrials come to be distributed.”

Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook.  Wall Street Journal. May 31, 1899.

Our views is that Dow’s theory was intended to be based on blue chip high quality stocks to be compared against small cap speculative stocks.  At the time, railroad stocks were the “old stocks” that had a blue chip status while the industrials were the newer [non-railroad] more speculative stocks.  We no longer live in a world where railroad stocks dominate the landscape of companies to invest in. Also, transportation stocks generally don’t provide consistent and/or rising dividend payments as was the case of railroad stocks in the last quarter of the 1800’s.

What would be the equivalent indexes of Dow’s comparison between old blue chip stocks to newer more speculative stocks? We believe that the Dow Jones Industrial Average qualifies as the blue chip barometer and the Russell 2000 small cap index qualifies as the speculative barometer.  Using all of the other elements of Dow Theory except for the Dow Jones Transportation Average, we believe that we would be following Dow’s theory exactly as it was intended.

Just to reiterate, Dow was not specifically concerned with the comparison between industrial stocks because they made the goods and transportation stocks because they shipped those same goods, a popular and logical story that is expounded on what Dow had intended.  However, based on the quotes above, we believe Dow was comparing companies of older blue chip quality that were well established and could be relied upon for their dividends in contrast to newer companies with little in the way of verifiable earnings, nascent but unstable dividends and highly susceptible to manipulation (i.e. small illiquid stock).

If we look at a comparison between the Industrials and the Russell 2000 index, the picture is very different from the confirmation of the bullish trend in the review of the transportation and industrial index above.

image

As can be seen above, while the Dow Industrials has managed to exceed the previous peaks of December 2013 and April 2014, the Russell 2000 has not been able to exceed the peak of March 2014.  Under the rules of Dow Theory, this would be considered a non-confirmation of the rising trend.  However, this does not signal a new bear market.  Instead, it only suggests that investors remain cautious about new investments.

A bear market would be signaled if the Dow Industrials and Russell 2000 were to simultaneously decline below the previous retracement levels during the rise from the March 2009 low to the current market levels.  In the chart above, the initial warning would come if the Russell 2000 and Dow Industrials declined below their respective February 2014 lows.

Dow Theory

Continue reading

Dow Jones Industrial Average Additions and Deletions 1884-2013

image