Category Archives: Dow

Dow Jones Industrial Average Price Momentum

Below is a chart of Dow Jones Industrial Average from January 1, 2007 to November 11, 2022, reflecting Price Momentum data.

Continue reading

1920-2020: Dow YoY Dividend Change

image

See also:

Dow Doesn’t Deserve 17K Level?

In an article titled “3 reason the Dow doesn’t deserve to be at 17,000” (found here), author David Weidner outlines why “…the bull market in stocks is running for all the wrong reasons.”  The three reason that Mr. Weidner gives are lack of public participation, corporate earnings are flat and few alternatives investments for savers.

We actually believe the opposite is true, the Dow is short of the mark in terms of where it could or should be based on historical precedence.  On the topic of public participation, although Mr. Weidner is correct that the public isn’t as active in direct ownership of stocks, an alternative view could be that when and if the public does get involved, usually the late stage in a bull market, the Dow could easily over-shoot on the upside by a wide margin.

In our March 13, 2013 article (found here), we pointed out that the average trading volume has been in a declining trend since June 2, 2009.  Our concern was that with the decline in trading volume, indicating a lack of participation by the public, there may be a point at which stocks could not sustain their climb higher.  We said the following: 

“When the increase in volume arrives, the question then becomes, will there be a dramatic increase or decrease in stock market price?  Will the general public’s lack of participation be the catalyst that charges the market to move higher?  This situation has to be resolved at some point.”

As time has passed, we’re starting to believe that if the public finally does begin to participate, even on a marginal scale, the stock market could effectively skyrocket.

Continue reading

“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.

After the Crash of 1929, Recovery was Quick

As a stock market historian, the single best benchmark for all market analysis is the years from 1929 to 1954. This is the period when the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at 381.10 in 1929 and fell to the astoundingly low level of 41.20, a decrease of 89.19% in a period less than three years. 1954 was the year when the Dow Jones Industrial Average finally went above the 381.10 level and never looked back.

In my article titled "Dow-Jones' Decline Largely Impacted by Index Changes" on SeekingAlpha.com, I explained that the Industrial Average probably would have never gone as low as it did nor would it have remained below the 1929 peak for as long as it did had it not been for the frequent changes to the index which resembled a trader’s mentality rather than a “long-term” investor. In the following article, I wish to demonstrate that, the market actually recovered much faster than most people think. Additionally, if we were to experience a similar 89% decline in the stock market, we probably can expect that the subsequent recovery would come faster than we think.

Below are a list of 28 companies that reflects their respective high price of 1929 and the low price of 1932. The percentage decline in some cases mirrors what happen to the Dow-Jones Industrial Average with all of the changes to the index during the same timeframe.

As we can see, many companies were dramatically impacted by the decline from 1929 to 1932. However, what is most surprising is the time it took to achieve the break-even point. Exactly half of the companies on the list managed to break even after only eight years in 1937. This is less than the time it took for our current market to get back to the 2000 break-even point. One of the more fantastic recoveries that I’ve seen is the price of Dow Chemical, which recovered all of its losses by 1933. This required a 233% gain in less than a year after hitting bottom.

Another point that can be made for these companies is that if taken as a group (similar to a stock index) it took an average of 12 years for the index to break even. This is in stark contrast to the Dow Industrials finally closing above the 1929 peak in 1954, some 25 years later. This also splashes considerable water on the theory that it was WWII that finally got the stock market (economy) out of the “Great” Depression. The break even of the market based on my calculations explains why 1941-1943 was the beginning of a new bull market according to Dow Theory (depending on the Dow Theorist that you want to believe). That bull market indication was in force until 1966.

If this data seems suspect, then it probably is. After all, I selected the companies that fit my model. Critics could also claim that my retrospective analysis works great in theory but doesn’t hold up to the real world. Others could say that changes to the Industrial Average was necessary and meant that the prior companies didn’t reflect the qualitative standards of a premier index of the Dow. However, a careful analysis of Poor’s High and Low Prices for the periods from 1924 to 1940 would show that an alarmingly large number of companies, both high and low quality, achieved a break even in their respective prices long before the year 1954.

see also: