Category Archives: Dow Transports

Dow Jones Transportation Average Review

Below is the review of the Dow Jones Transportation Average from 1970-2023. Continue reading

Dow Jones Transportation Average: On Target

Review

On December 23, 2018 when the Dow Jones Transportation Average (DJTA) was at 8,874.79, based on the work of Edson Gould, we said the following in our closing paragraph:

“We have a range from as low as 6,465.65 to as high as 19,992.65 in period from 2019 to 2023. The Dow Jones Transportation Average is currently undervalued.  It is best to expect that it will decline to the extreme level of 6,465.65.”

Since late 2018, the DJTA has had the following price activity:

image

On March 18, 2020, the DJTA declined as low as 6,481.20, falling short of our 2018 estimated low by 0.24%.

Because the DJTA is slightly above our fair value estimate for 2021 (made in 2018), we expect that even if the Index does not achieve the overvalued level in the current year, the historical precedent is for it to be able to achieve the upper range (overvalued level) that we’ve set for it between now and 2023.

1899-2020: Dow Industrials and Transports

Bear Markets for the Dow Jones Industrial & Transportation Averages from their peaks to their ultimate lows.

image

see also:

Golden Cross Analysis: Transports & Russell 2000

As the market continues to move higher, there will be more companies and indexes reaching the Golden Cross technical pattern. This is evident by the recent article, Dow transports and Russell 2000 see ‘golden cross’ materializing, which suggests that this pattern is bullish for the two indexes. Our recent article on this technical indicator shed light on how successful this pattern is when it’s applied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

The tool we developed allows us to quickly analyze the pattern against various indexes. Let’s see how successful the Dow Jones Transportation Average and Russell 2000 are with technical pattern known as the Golden Cross. Continue reading

Dow’s Railroad Index 1872-1899

image

The railroad index consisted of leading rail stocks that exhibited the high average trading volume.  Industrial stocks* as defined by Charles H. Dow as:

“…stocks of trust companies and banks are simply industrial stocks... (Dow, Charles H.Wall Street Journal. Review and Outlook. October 12, 1900)."

*See also December 10, 2016 for more on the 1899 definition of industrial stocks.

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.

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 Theory

Continue reading

Dow Jones Utility Average Downside Targets

As the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Dow Jones Transportation Average have achieved highs above their respective 2007 peaks, the Dow Jones Utility Average has not fared as well.  In fact, the Utility Average has been in a declining trend since April 2013.

Continue reading

Dow Theory: Downside Targets

It has been almost two months since our last Dow Theory posting.  This is as it should be, since Dow Theory does not require a daily accounting of changes to the market.   As indicated in Robert Rhea’s The Dow Theory:

“There are three movements of the averages, all of which may be in progress at one and the same time.  The first, and most important, is the primary trend: the broad upward or downward movements known as bull or bear markets, which may be of several years’ duration.  The second, and most deceptive movement, is the secondary reaction: an important decline in a primary bull market or rally in a primary bear market.  These reactions usually last from three weeks to as many months.  The third, and usually unimportant, movement is the daily fluctuation.” (source: Rhea, Robert. The Dow Theory. Barron’s, New York. 1932. Page 32.)

Continue reading

Apple’s Pain May Be a Warning for the Dow Indices

Since the bull market run began in 2009, Apple (AAPL) analysts have been making persuasive arguments for the stock.  The fundamental case for Apple includes price-to-earnings, price-to-sales, cash reserves, China as an untapped market, etc.  However, as investors have found out, it is the price that matters most as Apple’s stock has taken a hit from the high of $702 on September 19, 2012 to the current price of $443 (March 18, 2013).  While fundamentals are important, there is one obvious problem and that is the trading volume.

In the section on Dow Theory, in the Edwards and Magee book Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, volume is interpreted in the following manner:

“…in a Bull Market, volume increases when prices rise and dwindles as prices decline; in Bear Markets, turnover [volume] increases when prices drop and [volume] dries up as they [prices] recover (33).”

When we compare the previous bullish moves in Apple’s stock price, we find that the most recent run-up stands out as trading volume has not only failed to increase with the stock price, it has been on a divergent path by declining.  However, we need to see how different this most recent rise in the stock price is in contrast with the previous bullish moves.

In the bull market run of Apple from December 30, 1997 to February 29, 2000, the stock price rose +900% while average trading volume increased +1,000%.

image

In the bull market run of Apple from April 1, 2003 to December 30, 2007, the stock price rose over +1,400% while average trading volume increased +1,000%.

image

In the bull market run of Apple from January 21, 2009 to the present, the stock price rose nearly +900% while average trading volume decreased -51%.

image

The obvious problem with the current rise in the price of Apple from the January 21, 2009 low to the September 19, 2012 high is that while the stock price has increased dramatically, the trading volume has fallen precipitously. Already, Apple has inexplicably declined –36% from the high. There is little in the way to indicated that the blood-letting is over.

According to Robert Rhea, in his book The Dow Theory, “…the volume of trading has proved to be such a useful guide in attaining proficiency in the art of forecasting market trends that it is necessary to urge all students to study intently the relation of volume to price movement (88).”

It would be foolish for us to think that the decline in volume, from 2009 to the present, while the stock price increased wasn’t a warning sign. It is suggestive of the fact that all was not well and therefore the party had to end at some point in time.  This is despite the otherwise glowing fundamentals that are associated with Apple.

Now, if the almighty Apple can decline –36% in spite of the glowing fundamentals as the Dow Industrials and Dow Transports keep going higher, then what is the fate of two main components of Dow Theory?  By all indications, we should be considered to be in a bear market based on the fact that the price of the Industrials and Transports is increasing as the trading volume dries up.

From our vantage point, there are two distinct outcomes possible for the stock market, based on the above quoted sources.  Either the stock market explodes higher than anyone has ever imagined possible or the stock market declines, –20% to –30% from the current level, as average trading volume skyrockets.  However, our experience so far has been for volume to decrease as the price increased.  Therefore, by our logic, when and if volume starts to increase it will be because institutions will be selling instead of buying the market.

While we have constructed two possibilities, the probabilities are something else altogether.  We think that the fact that volume has been in a clear declining trend, the probabilities favor a decline of the stock market over a sustained increase.  To put this idea into perspective, when we wrote our April 14, 2012 article titled “Consider the Downside Prospects for Apple,” we said that Apple would decline to $424 (found here).  After the article was written, Apple increased by +11%.   However, after Apple peaked, the stock declined –30% from the price where our article was written.  Our only question is, was it worth seeing a rise of +11% only to realize a loss of –30%?

Notes:

  • Because we have a substantial amount in cash and a majority of our holdings that are the profit portion intended to compound over time, we are only compelled to sell those positions that are recent short-term purchases that are more than 5% of our existing portfolio.
  • Our Canadian Dividend Watch List should be coming out this week

Dow Theory: Not Broken, Just Misunderstood

Barron’s attempts at Dow Theory has failed miserably…again. In the September 29, 2012 article by Jacqueline Doherty titled “Broken Dow Theory,” it is suggested that “A lagging transportation sector historically has been considered a bad omen…” and then recites the standard, sub-standard nomenclature “…less shipping means fewer goods are being produced and purchased, which means the economy is slowing and the stock market could be headed for a fall.” Doherty goes on to cite data from Bespoke Investment Group asserting that even though the Transportation index has fallen behind the market in general, it may not mean that the stock market, as represented by the S&P 500, necessarily needs to follow the same script.

Fortunately, Dow Theory is very specific about how to interpret the Dow Jones Industrial and Transportation Averages since the publication of Robert Rhea’s book The Dow Theory. Nowhere in the rules of Dow Theory is there any indication that the vacillations of the S&P 500 are remotely part of the interpretation of the theory. Especially since the S&P 500 came onto the scene over 60 years after the creation of the Dow Industrials.

Despite the fact that there are some Dow Theorists who frequently use the S&P 500 as a substitute for indications of a rising or falling market (this isn’t Dow Theory), there is little evidence that using the additional index is necessary. Alternate indexes are only necessary when and if the Dow Jones Industrial and Transportation Averages no longer exist.

While the prevailing opinion is that the Dow Industrials isn’t a relevant index reflective of the market as a whole, a distinction should be made between a “lagging” index and a “divergent” index. A lagging index is one which is going in the same direction as the other but is not increasing/decreasing at the same rate. A divergence is when one index goes up while the other index is going down. The chart below shows two failures and one divergence between the Industrials and Transports.

image_thumb[8]

When one index cannot make new highs in accordance with the other index, it should be considered a significant failure and a warning sign. A perfect example is when the Transportation Index made a new high in 2008 and the Industrial Index could not follow through. The subsequent decline in both indexes was staggering.

In situations where there has been a divergence between the Dow Industrials and Transports, it is the Transports that typically leads the divergence to the upside or downside, meaning that the Transports will provide a clue as to the potential market direction in spite of the action of the Dow Industrials. Although historically this has been the case, Barron’s has unwittingly legitimized the view that the spread between the Dow Industrials and Dow Transports is some form of Dow Theory. In no way is this the case. In fact, in the period from 1896 to 1984, the Transports have exceeded the Industrials, on a percentage basis, 15 out of 25 Dow Theory bull and bear market moves.

Year DJI beat by DJT beat by Year DJI lost by DJT lost by
1896 33.50%   1899 -13.30%  
1900   51.00% 1902 -6.40%  
1903 88.60%   1906 -7.30%  
1907 24.50%   1909 -5.30%  
1910 10.10%   1912 -13.80%  
1914 78.70%   1916 -3.10%  
1917 64.80%   1919 -26.00%  
1921 18.40%   1922   -2.30%
1923 192.30%   1929   -3.80%
1932   15.60% 1937   -21.40%
1938   20.60% 1938   -6.40%
1939   20.30% 1939 -5.30%  
1942   64.40% 1946   -16.50%
1947   39.40% 1948   -20.50%
1949   92.50% 1953   -6.50%
1953 3.80%   1956   -27.80%
1957   819.90% 1959   -12.40%
1960 5.80%   1961 -2.90%  
1962   48.80% 1966   -7.00%
1966   19.20% 1968   -22.30%
1970   82.40% 1972   -14.50%
1974   10.00% 1976 -13.10%  
1978   86.50% 1981   -10.60%
1982   44.00% 1983   -9.70%
1984   177.80% 1984   -31.00%
           
  DJI DJT   DJI DJT
Total 520.50% 1592.40% Average: -9.65% -14.18%

The table above reflects the percentage by which the respective indexes exceeded the other from either the bull market low or the bear market top. In the timeframe indicated above, the Transports have routinely exceeded the Industrials to the upside by nearly three times. The same is true for Dow Theory bear market moves where the Transports have excessive downside moves as compared to the Dow Jones Industrial average by nearly 50%.

The pattern of excessive gains and losses in the Transports versus the Industrials has remained the case since 1984. As an example, at the peak in 2007, the Dow Industrials declined –54% while the Transports declined –60%. On the rise from the 2009 bottom, the Industrials and Transports registered gains of +110% and +162% based on their respective peaks. Excessive gains and losses, by the Transports above that of the Industrials, demonstrates that the Transports usually act as a leading indicator of market direction.

It should be noted that before the work of Wall Street Journal editor William Peter Hamilton and author Robert Rhea on the topic of Dow Theory, Charles H. Dow (co-founder of the Wall Street Journal) created and analyzed the Rail Index (now Transports) without the existence of the Dow Industrials for 12 years, from 1884 to 1896, for indications of market direction. Those 12 years are the basis of what Dow was able to formulate his observations on the market.

Unfortunately, the Barron’s article goes on to quote a CIO who states that the “…Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 are better leading indicators than the transports.” Based on the available data, the Nasdaq 100 has not been able to exceed the all-time high set in January 2000. Additionally, the S&P 500 has not managed to exceed the all-time high set in October 2007. In the bull market run since the 2009 low, the Transportation Average has managed to exceed its all-time high unlike the Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500.

Finally, Barron’s quotes data from Bespoke which reviews, “…periods when the S&P 500 exceeded the transport index by 10 percentage points over a 50-day trading period. Going back to 1928, the S&P 500 gained 1% in the subsequent six months, not awful although below the average six-month gain of 3.5%.” Using a “50-day trading period” to arrive a conclusion about the next six months is inadequate in making even a cyclical determination of a bull or bear market based on Dow Theory, let alone a secular indication. Dow Theory is about the primary trend of the market which tends to last from 3-4 1/2 years at a time.

In order to make a “complete” secular and cyclical analysis based on Dow Theory, interpretation should begin at the prior dual Industrial and Transport peaks in 2007/2008, at minimum. Until there is a dual Industrial and Transport new high, cyclical new highs in one index or the other would be a bear market reaction as indicated in our August 9, 2011 note titled “Bear Market Rally Targets.” Our indication that a bear market rally was about to take place was with 2% of the October 3, 2011 low, giving full opportunity to seek out new investment opportunities before the bear market rally to the current peak in the Industrials. The current divergence of the two indexes is confirmation of the fact that we’re still in a bear market rally until the prior 2009-2011/2012 highs are exceeded for a cyclical bull market and all-time highs for a new secular bull market.

Until 1956, Barron’swould include Dow Theory analysis in the Market Laboratory section every week. Since 1956, Dow Theory would show up only in feature articles from experts on the topic. Now, it seems that anyone making mention of either the Dow Industrials or Dow Transports can suffice as knowledgeable on the topic of Dow Theory.

Naturally, there are many critics who adamantly speak out against Dow Theory, which is surprising since Charles H. Dow’s work of creating the Wall Street Journalalong with his theories of the stock market are the foundation of both fundamental and technical analysis in the United States. However, the critics, even without knowing the nuances of Dow Theory, are justified in their claims especially when the “analysis” is so incomplete and inaccurate.

If the goal is to do away with Dow Theory and eliminate the indexes then that is fine. However, if the goal is to actually interpret the theory in some mediocre fashion then it should be done by someone who has actually studied the topic extensively. Barron’s, a place where William Peter Hamilton and many other great Dow Theorists were prominently featured, is doing a disservice by connecting unrelated and disparate themes and suggesting that somehow the theory is “broken.”

“Apple-Less Dow” is a Good Thing

An article titled “Apple-less Dow faces changes to make-up,” found in the Financial Times, suggests that the current owners responsible for the composition of the Dow Industrials are considering ways to make it possible to add Apple (AAPL) to the 116-year old index. The myopic view of changing the Dow Industrials simply for the purpose of adding AAPL will haunt the index managers and investors alike.

In the past, the changes in the composition of the Dow have been ill-timed to begin with.  In our article titled "Dow Jones' Decline Largely Impacted by Index Changes," we highlight the fact that composition changes routinely negatively impacted the Dow Industrials. Additionally, we have demonstrated that the changes to the Dow Industrials from 1929 to 1932 was the sole contributor to the decline of the index by -89%, when compared to the Barron's 50 Index in the same time frame.

In a follow-up article titled “After the Crash, Recovery was Faster Than Most People Think” we show how the irresponsible changes to the Dow Industrials from 1929 to 1932 was the reason for the index to take 25 years to get back to the 1929 high.

We’ve shown that many high quality stocks (the purpose of the Dow Industrials is to represent “high quality” stocks) were able to reach their 1929 high in 8-9 years instead of 25 years like with the Dow Industrials (as reflected in the Monsanto Chart below).  The extended delay in getting back to the prior high was due solely to a losing trader's mentality of buying high and selling low applied to addition and subtractions to the Dow Industrials.

The recent addition of Unitedhealth Group (UNH) to the Dow Industrial Average, replacing Kraft Foods (KFT) exemplifies the "buy" high mentality of those who manage the index. United Health is being added after nearly 215% gains in the stock since the March 2009 low. This compares to "only" a 100% gain in Kraft Foods since the same starting point, see chart below.

image

To emphasize our point, since the March 9, 2009 low, the following are the major index returns:

  • NYSE Composite: +98.22%
  • Dow Industrials: +107.41%
  • S&P 500: +115.98%
  • Dow Tranports: +128.74% (does not contain AAPL)
  • Russell 2000: +149.23% (does not contain AAPL)
  • Nasdaq Composite: +150.66%

As the theory goes, the performance of a well diversified index should achieve moderate gains and moderate declines.  The Dow Industrials have performed as though it was a well diversified index, rather than one composed of only 30 companies.  On the flip side of the diversification theory, a highly concentrated portfolio should have higher volatility both up and down.  For a sense of perspective, the Russell 2000 does not contain Apple while the Nasdaq Composite does.  The absence of Apple in the Russell index did not inhibit its ability to effectively match the performance of the Nasdaq Composite.

As we’ve pointed out in our article titled “Broader Market And Dow Theory Suggest Proceeding With Caution,” if the Value Line Geometric Index is any indication, broad participation of the rise from 2009 is faltering (see chart below).

image

This is a warning that the narrow focus on a few companies at the top (based strictly on market cap) is going to collapse upon itself or more focus on values not related to the largest cap stocks is necessary.  Market history suggests that broad based equal-weighted indexes that don't make new highs is the canary in the coal mine.  Anyone seeking Apple’s (AAPL) inclusion to the Dow Industrials are fated to repeat the mistakes of the past with unsurprising outcomes to follow.

Dow Theory: Downside Prospects

We have indicated in our August 2, 2011 posting (found here) the fact that we are now in a bear market.  According to Dow Theory, the primary trend remains in place until the opposite indication has been signaled.  This is best described by Richard Russell in the following remark:

…the Dow Theorist has learned that the last trend should be considered to remain in effect until the contrary has been proved”[1].

We believe that there has not been a reversal of this bear market indication as outlined in our August 7, 2012 Dow Theory analysis (found here).

Despite getting a bear market signal only days earlier, on August 9, 2011 we indicated that a bear market rally (found here) was likely to take place.  Our work on the topic of Dow Theory at that time indicated that there was upside potential to go as far as the prior highs (12,807.51).  From the August 9th low, the Dow Industrials rose as high as 13,338.70, or +23.38%.

From our experience on the topic, bear markets usually connote declines of -30% or more.  However, the bear market that we’ve experienced so far can be characterized from a slight dip to a nice market run to the upside.  While the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Dow Jones Transportation Average have diverged overall, there has been nothing that we’ve seen since August 2, 2011 to make a person feel like any confidence in the indication.  After all, it has been over a year since the signal and no real fireworks.  Was it really worth reducing market exposure for a non-event?

Since this bull market move began on March 9, 2009, there have been sizable declines of -14% or more in 2010 and 2011 before the stock market continued higher.  The best we can do at this point is assume that 2012 is due for a correction in line with the two previous years and see what the downside prospects might be.

period of decline Dow Industrials % change
April 26, 2010-July 2, 2010 -14.60%
May 2, 2011-October 3, 2011 -19.19%
May 1, 2012-???? -2.09%
   
   
period of decline Dow Transports % change
May 3, 2010-July 6, 2010 -18.72%
July 7, 2011-October 3, 2011 -28.11%
March 15, 2012-???? -6.39%

Because a bear market decline of -30% or more has not taken place, the best we can do is assume that a similar decline to 2010 and 2011 is the most likely outcome…for now.  The previous declines, within the context of a bull market, have averaged –16.90% for the Dow Industrials and –23.42% for the Dow Transports. 

If the Industrials were to decline from the current level by –16.90% it would fall to 11,035.12.  If the Transports were to decline from the current level by –23.42% it would fall to 4,096.84.

As described in our Dow Theory analysis from August 7, 2012 (found here), there are two overhanging non-confirmations of a bull market.  This means that the overall trend of the Industrials and Transports should eventually be down.  In our negative bias against an new bull market, particular emphasis is weighted against the Transportation Index which has been falling while the Industrial Index has been rising.

However, the last week of August has provide the Dow Industrial Average with what we consider a double-top.  Although not the most classic double top, it is still a double top. 

image

Double tops and double bottoms were indicated to be very important formations according to Charles H. Dow.  Alternatively, William Peter Hamilton and Robert Rhea arrived at the conclusion that such formations bear little importance when considering the price movement of the indexes.

From our own work on the topic of double tops and double bottoms, we have found that Dow was right about the importance of such a price characteristics and have been able to prove, with significant evidence throughout the history of the Dow indexes, that double tops and double bottoms are critical indicators for determining market direction when applying Dow Theory. 

In this case, a double tops mean that the direction for the stock market is down.  Since the bear market signal, based on Dow Theory, hasn’t resulted in a decline of over -30% for either the Transports or Industrials, were proposing that at the very minimum a decline of 13%–15% should be expected.

[1] Russell, Richard. Richard Russell’s Dow Theory Letters. Issue 166. December 27, 1961. page 1.