Category Archives: Q and A

Q & A on the Fed

Q: “What your thoughts are on how the FED is performing with the interest rates and do they understand the cycles and/or are they aware that there is so much they can control?”

Continue reading

Reader Q & A: Dow Upside Targets

Q: “Have you identified upside targets for DOW, SPX, etc IWM out to 20xx?”

Continue reading

Q & A on Real Estate

Q: “I would be curious as to your current view on real estate market in USA. As someone who is looking to purchase something in the Southeast USA I’m trying to grapple with now or wait.”

Continue reading

Q & A on Gold Stocks

Q: May one conclude that you have not lost ALL trust in gold (and silver?) stocks, even today?

Continue reading

Q & A on Gold Upside Targets

Q: Do you have price targets for Gold moving ahead?

Continue reading

Reader Q &A on Intel

Q: “Can I see an updated version of the undervalued and overvalued ranges since 2008 please?”

Continue reading

Reader Q & A

A reader asks:

“Is this a bull case for oil, uranium, or all of the above?”

Continue reading

Reader Question & Answer

Q: “Wondering if the key is to watch for divergence w commodities and equities?”

Continue reading

Reader Q & A

Below is a collection of recent questions on our work: Continue reading

August 12, 2022: Market Q&A

Some recent questions we’re considering: Continue reading

Downside Target Q&A

After our April 30, 2022 S&P 500 Downside Targets assessment there was a very important question raised which requires additional commentary. Continue reading

Dow Theory Q&A

Reader BlueIce comments (found here):

“So for the past four years, the NYSE is up but volume down…What is the root cause, if any? Bank Bernankski ?”

Our Response:

While there is considerable belief that the Federal Reserve has been the main driver in the financial markets since the March 2009 low, we believe that the Fed’s activity has NOT YET been felt in the stock market.  First we’ll explain the two primary reasons we believe this. Afterwards, we’ll explain what we believe are the possible outcomes to the Fed’s current policies.

First, in our January 19, 2011 article titled “Federal Reserve Isn’t to Blame for the Current Market Run” (found here), we concluded with the following thought:

“A cursory review of market data during the periods from 1860 to 1914 makes it clear that declines of nearly -50% or more are likely to retrace +66% to +100% of prior declines. This pattern has been easily demonstrated in the periods after 1914. However, we’re only trying to illustrate that the acceptance of the Federal Reserve’s role as the leading cause of the current +69% retracement of the prior decline (2007-2009) is false.”

We’ve maintained the view that the Federal Reserve’s impact on the stock market has been muted so far. 

Second, regarding the issue of manipulation of the markets, which is implicit in the discussion of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in the rise of the stock market, we take the Dow Theory view on the topic. Charles H. Dow was very specific about market manipulators and manipulation. Dow has said that manipulation is a factor of the market in the day-to-day movement. However, the long-term trend of the market cannot be manipulated as demonstrated in detail from the writings of William Peter Hamilton, former editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Hamilton says of manipulation:

“The market is always under more or less manipulation.”

“Even with manipulation, embracing not one but several leading stocks, the market is saying the same thing, and is bigger than the manipulation”

“Major Movements Are Unmanipulated-One of the greatest of misconceptions, that which has militated most against the usefulness of the stock market barometer, is the belief that manipulation can falsify stock market movements otherwise authoritative and instructive”

“These discussions [of manipulation] have been made in vain if they have failed to show that all the primary bull markets and every primary bear market have been vindicated, in the course of their development and before their close, by the facts of general business, however much over speculation or over-liquidation may have tended to excess, as they always do, in the last stage of the primary swing”

“It has been shown that, for all practical purposes, manipulation has, and can have, no real effect in the main or primary movement of the stock market, as reflected in the averages. In a primary bull or bear market the actuating forces are above and beyond manipulation. But in the other movements of Dow’s theory, a secondary reaction in a bull market or the corresponding secondary rally in a bear market, or in the third movement (the daily fluctuation) which goes on all the time, there is room for manipulation, but only in individual stocks, or in small groups, with a well-recognized leading issue”

(Source: Hamilton, William Peter, The Stock Market Barometer, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1922.)

The Fed and world central bank manipulation has an impact on the day-to-day and maybe the medium-term, however, the long term will exert itself regardless of the manipulation.

Finally, while we are skeptical about the Dow Theory secular bull market indication, we have to accept that it is real. As with most economic policy, the impact is felt long after the implementation. Dow Theory might be saying that we’re about to enter a phase hyper-activity in the stock market. If this is the case, then we just might see the impact of the Federal Reserve’s stimulus of the last several years finally kick in, catapulting the stock market to unbelievable heights.

The lack of trading volume in the stock market since 2009 reflects little or no participation on the part of the public.  If this is true, then any meaningful rise in trading volume (on the buying side) due  to added participation from the public could result in tremendous gains.  This thought sits in the back of our mind as we strategize the best way to take advantage while not being over exposed.

When we say that the public hasn’t participated in the stock market’s rise, who cares?  The answer is the very financial institutions that required bailouts in 2008.  They have been trading amongst each other in a game of hot potato.  If the public doesn’t jump in soon there could be major fireworks to the downside.

Again, if the Dow Theory bull market indication isn’t real then we’ll see another round of “too big to fail” institutions coming with hat in hand to the U.S. government.  The most vulnerable institutions could be those that were forced to merge with companies like Bank of America/Merrill, Wells Fargo/Wachovia and JPMorgan/Bear Stearns.  From our research on this topic, we’ve seen what happens when a sizable failed institution is forcibly merged with an ailing but salvageable company (i.e. our article on CreditAnstalt).

Q&A: Cycles and Their Use

Reader Kerry Comments:

“I’d like to pick up on the problem that untrusting investor has identified ‘The problem is that we have never seen one yet that has much accuracy or predictive ability to any substantive degree or within any reasonable time frame. As such, it becomes a ‘big gamble’ to take action on the predictions of any such cycle models or theories.’

“I like cycles myself, but I struggled with cycles that appeared great but then tended to be slightly off when forecasting the future, and therefore are difficult to use in trading. This led me to conduct my own research that has culminated in my own cycle work and the discovery of a 2.2/4.4 year cycle. I am of the opinion that the secular bear is about to strike back in the second half of 2013 as the 17.6 year stock market cycle continues until 2018, when the next great bull market will properly begin.”

Our Response:

Implicit in the discussion of cycles (observations of the past) is the eventual application of the analysis for the future. Unfortunately, some who do the best research on the study of cycles have the worst record of application. Our view is that we’ll be wrong about the actual cycle range and the application of the timing. Therefore, we are never disappointed about the outcome.

However, as students of the market we are constantly working to find quality research on the topic. Already we know that Charles Dow’s work on stock market cycles is useful when applied with skepticism and moderation.

As an example, based on the Wenzlick model for when real estate would bottom (18.3 years) it suggested that the low would be in 2009. In our January 2010 article titled “Real Estate: The Bottom is Calling” we said the following (found here):

“…tendency has been to include the years 2008 and 2010 just to play it safe.”

We understand that the markers for a bottom or top are like sand dunes in a desert, they are constantly on the move. This does not negate the cyclical nature of market moves, it just means that flexibility is required when thinking on the topic of cycles.

We followed up the January 2010 article with what we believed was the definitive call in the real estate bottom based on the work of Wenzlick. In a December 2010 article titled “Real Estate: The Verdict is In” (found here) we felt the title said it all.

Naturally, we could have been completely wrong and in select markets, a bottom may not be in at all. However, we’re trying to think in terms of the broader context. Based on the metrics that we tracked, real estate did hit bottom on or fairly close to the December 2010 low as highlighted in our follow-up article titled “Real Estate: A Sustainable Rise” (found here).

Within the general context of “being accurate” on our call of real estate based on the cycle work of Wenzlick, there are a couple of MAJOR ASPECTS THAT WE DID NOT GET RIGHT and that is the recommendation and investment in homebuilder stocks and the purchase of the home in our specific county.

First, we did not recommend homebuilder stocks because we simply didn’t think of it. That was a huge missed opportunity as shown in the chart below of the SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF (XHB).

image

Second, our purchase of a home in September 2009 was not at the low point, for our region of the country, as real estate prices had bottomed in January 2009.  By the time of the 2009 purchase, median prices for our county had increased by +40% as seen in the chart below (www.car.org).

image

Also, as seen below, existing home sales for our county bottomed a year after the home purchase.

image

However, the overall point is that we're closer to the low in the respective cycles rather than near the peaks in the cycle with out investments and purchases.  Additionally, we’re taking the lessons for the current cycle and hoping to apply it to the next cycle move.

We also have cycle targets for gold and interest rates which have been fairly accurate. Do we go “all in” on the cycle turns? No. However, we do factor in the chance that the change in the cycle could exert its force on our best intentions.

Again, the emphasis should always be on skepticism and moderation when attempting to apply cycles for predictions of the future.  With this in mind, a good analyst will hedge their commentary on cycles and allow for a wide margin of error. After all, we’re all students of the market (real estate, jobs, stocks, cars, groceries etc.) and therefore open to changing conditions.

As mentioned earlier, we’re always factoring the downside risks and acting accordingly (most of the time, except when our subscriber SD pointed out the awesome buying opportunity on DELL from our own watch list at the low…Great call SD!).

Investment Strategy: Let Profits Run?

Subscriber M.C. asks:

“I have a couple questions - I know you often let your profit "run" after selling your principal investment in a stock. We're almost certainly investing in different sums, so this is likely a difficult question to answer, but is it worth me hanging to shares if my profit portion is small (maybe only a few K) and only allows me to hang to a handful of shares? Do you always retain your profit portion regardless of %?”

Our Response:

We’re incredibly risk-averse even though we put so much into a single stock and incur transaction fees to buy and sell after a stock has attained a 10% gain (ideally within a year).

The good news is, the amount of the money being invested has little to do with our strategy.  Our approach is calibrated to work with large and small pools of funds since it is based on the percentage of the portfolio and not the dollar amount.  As long as the amount that you’re initially investing is a sizable portion of your overall portfolio (5% and above) for each stock that you buy, then you’re in a good position to see the value of our approach.

Regarding holding on to the profit portion of a couple thousand dollars, more specifically, equaling ½% to 1% of the portfolio, we always recommend taking advantage of the low prices that a stock is acquired. As time has passed we have realized that the best way to do this is to keep the profit portion which allows for compounding by reinvesting the dividend and any capital appreciation that usually occurs after the principal portion is sold.  The added benefit of this strategy is the ability to methodically build a diversified portfolio over time.

There are a couple of nice attributes to this approach that is worth re-iterating.  First, we always participate in any addition increase in the price.  Second, we get to compound our way to long-term wealth.  Finally, the stock that we’ve sold the principal portion on would have to fall to zero in order for us to experience a loss.  This allows us to comfortably wait out the long-term rather than wring our hands about short-term gyrations and possible risk of loss to principal.

The question of whether “…we always retain the profit portion regardless of %…” is not always the case.  The short answer is no, we don’t always retain the profit portion.  With stocks from our dividend list we tend to retain the profit portion while stocks from our Nasdaq 100  list and speculations in gold and silver are usually sold entirely.

Here is a breakdown of the most recent non-speculative transactions that we’ve entered into and actions that we’ve taken once sold (links to articles within stock symbols, if available):

symbol price bought price sold gain/loss % retained current price % change since sold
CRR 64.94 74.18 14.23% 8.16% 77.99 5.14%
WAG 32.94 36.14 9.71% 9.00% 33.95 -6.06%
XEC 54.97 64.15 16.70% 16.00% 63.8 -0.55%
RGA 59.39 62.87 5.86% 6.66% 53.67 -14.63%
RGA 48.42 59.63 23.15% 20.00% 53.67 -9.99%
SYY 27.96 32.14 14.95% 10.00% 30.87 -3.95%
SYY 26.61 29.33 10.22% 9.43% 30.87 5.25%
BOH 38.24 47.15 23.30% 18.91% 44.76 -5.07%
AMAT 11.11 13.8 24.21% 19.21% 11.44 -17.10%
TR 24.05 22.97 -4.49% 3.00% 27.04 17.72%
UNM 18.68 20.63 10.44% 9.33% 21.03 1.94%

Of the stocks listed in our NLO Portfolio, 29.24% is due to acquisitions of INTC, EXPD and MKL that have not yet gained 10% or more.  The Alleghany (Y) position, at 9.52% of the portfolio, is the result of our initial position in Transatlantic Holdings (TRH) being acquired as outlined in our posting dated March 9, 2012.  The remaining shares that we have in the companies listed, comprising 11% of the portfolio, are all strictly the profit portion of our prior investments.  As we’ve said earlier, these stock continue to compound at no additional cost, enjoy the benefit of any additional capital appreciation and would literally have to go to zero before any loss is incurred.

Whenever possible, we hope to eliminate the element of risk when investing in the stock market.  So far, 11% of our portfolio is on that path.  We hope this basic outline demonstrates what we’re trying to accomplish from both a short and long-term perspective.  Thanks for the great question.

Dow Theory Q & A

A reader writes:
 
"Without the Obama stimulus and intervention from the FED it would already be below 5000. The existing position is totally artificial, unsustainable and downright ephemeral. Any one that claims that this synthetic bull market is sustainable is full of it.
 
"It is interesting to note how much you can derive from the historical shape of a line with zero analysis of why it was that shape. You have not even quoted a single example of a similar pattern resulting in a similar outcome to your predictions. In other words, this is not a scientific approach. It not even a logical approach. I can only conclude that the sole purpose of such analysis is to influence the market in a desired direction. In other words it is a propaganda approach."
 
Our Response:
 
Manipulation is a factor of the market in the day-to-day movement. However, the long-term trend of the market cannot be manipulated as demonstrated from the writings of William Peter Hamilton, former editor of the Wall Street Journal.
 
Using Dow Theory, Hamilton called the top in the stock market on October 25, 1929 in a WSJ editorial titled “A Turn in the Tide.” It should be noted that the comments on manipulation made by William Peter Hamilton were done when it was well known who and when manipulation took place prior to the institution of the SEC.
 
In his book The Stock Market Barometer, Hamilton outlines many methods of manipulations as they took place and its relevance to the overall market. In his book, Hamilton says of manipulation:
 
  • “The market is always under more or less manipulation.” page 37.
  • “Even with manipulation, embracing not one but several leading stocks, the market is saying the same thing, and is bigger than the manipulation” page 42.
  • “Major Movements Are Unmanipulated-One of the greatest of misconceptions, that which has militated most against the usefulness of the stock market barometer, is the belief that manipulation can falsify stock market movements otherwise authoritative and instructive” page 49.
  • “These discussions [of manipulation] have been made in vain if they have failed to show that all the primary bull markets and every primary bear market have been vindicated, in the course of their development and before their close, by the facts of general business, however much over speculation or over-liquidation may have tended to excess, as they always do, in the last stage of the primary swing” page 50.
  • “It has been shown that, for all practical purposes, manipulation has, and can have, no real effect in the main or primary movement of the stock market, as reflected in the averages. In a primary bull or bear market the actuating forces are above and beyond manipulation. But in the other movements of Dow's theory, a secondary reaction in a bull market or the corresponding secondary rally in a bear market, or in the third movement (the daily fluctuation) which goes on all the time, there is room for manipulation, but only in individual stocks, or in small groups, with a well-recognized leading issue” page 73.
Hamilton, William Peter, The Stock Market Barometer, Wiley & Sons, New York, 1922.
Another great Dow Theorist, Richard Russell, editor of the Dow Theory Letter which has been published consistently since 1958, called the market bottom in October 1974 and called the top in November 2007 (read Barron's article here). The extensive history of reasonably accurate and well-documented calls of market direction make examining Dow Theory worthwhile. The purpose of showing Russell’s remarks on the topic of manipulation is to demonstrate that, although there is a distinct difference between the pre-1934 SEC market of Hamilton era and today, the rules, according to Dow Theory, remain the same.
 
In The Dow Theory Letters, Richard Russell reiterates the fact that:
 
“One of the most difficult concepts to get across to subscribers is the concept of primary trend of the market. This may be old hat to my veteran subscribers of 10 or 20 years, but the whole idea of the primary trend bears repeating now.
 
“There are three trends in the market, all working with each other simultaneously. There is the great primary trend, lasting usually a few years up to 15 years or even longer. There is the secondary trend lasting usually a few months up to a year. And there is the minor or daily trend lasting a few days to a few weeks or so.
 
“The minor trend of the market is open to manipulation. This shortest of trends may reflect a news event, a sudden scare, a sunny word from the president or any of a thousand other possibilities.
 
“The secondary trend often reflects a short-lived expansion or recession that the economy or some very major news event. The secondary trend is also open to manipulation, usually on the part of the Fed in that the Fed can make money tight or loose (the Fed can even bring on a recession by restricting credit or the Fed can see a boom by opening the money spigots wide).
 
“The primary trend is the great tidal trend of the market. When the tide is coming in we term it a bull market. When it is going out we call it a bear market. One of the basic tenets of Dow theory is that the primary trend of the market cannot be manipulated. That’s a point that every investor must understand. The primary trend is more powerful than the power of the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the president combined. When the primary trend of the market turns down (as it did early 1973) stocks will decline until the market discounts the worst that can be seen ahead. When the primary trend turns up (as they did in late 1974) the market will rise until the best that can be seen ahead is fully discounted in the price structure.
 
“But the point I want to get across to subscribers is that once the direction of the primary trend is set, the market will fully express itself in the primary direction. The primary trend may be held back for a while, secondary reactions may interrupt the primary trend, but ultimately the trend will run to conclusion, it will express itself fully.”
 
Russell, Richard, Dow Theory Letters, January 24, 1990, Letter 1035, 2
Keep in mind that Dow theory isn’t a cure all for investment success. As aptly stated by yet another great Dow Theorist Robert Rhea in his book “The Dow Theory," he states:
 
“The Dow theory is not an infallible system for beating the market. Its successful use as an aid in speculation requires serious study, and the summing up of evidence must be impartial. The wish must never be allowed to father the thought.”
 
Rhea, Robert, The Dow Theory, 1932, Barron’s Publishing, 26
Rhea is known for having called the market bottom in 1932 with the publishing of the book The Dow Theory as well as in his newsletter Dow Theory Comment. Despite the clarity in the fact that Dow Theory is not “infallible” the point is made that the use of Dow Theory has the significant value of synthesizing all current and foreseeable economic, political, and social information. Rhea quotes Hamilton with the following thoughts:
 
“The Averages Discount Everything -- The fluctuations of the daily closing prices of the Dow-Jones rail and industrial averages afford a composite of all the hopes, disappointments, and knowledge of everyone who knows anything of financial matters, and for that reason the effects of coming events (excluding acts of God) are always properly anticipated in their movements.”
 
Rhea, Robert, The Dow Theory, 1932, Barron’s Publishing, 19
For the fact that Dow Theory is supposed to include all information, there is little reason for me to speculate on the reasons why and how the market will do what I interpret the averages to be saying. Furthermore, the idea that Dow theory is about a bunch of lines is an unfair assessment at best. Suffice to say, Dow Theory is founded primarily on values then market sentiment and finally explained in a technical fashion (using lines.) Those wishing to understand the value component of the theory can find it throughout the New Low Observer website. However, keep reading for more insight on how value plays a role in your investment strategy.