I was interested to see that the two most emailed articles from the NY Times were entitled "Those With Sense of History May Find It's Time to Invest" and "Switching to Cash May Feel Safe, But Risks Remain". This fits with the search results I reported for this blog, and it also fits with the general themes of my emails and conversations, which have been variations on the theme of "Are we near a bottom?"
The Times article starts with the idea that the most dangerous words for investors are, "This time it's different." But I follow market indicators and historical trading patterns, and I know that this time *has* been different. Out the window has been the "buy when VIX is above 30" guideline. Levels of oversold--from the number of stocks making new lows to advance-decline figures to rates of price change--that have led to rallies in the past have only led to more selling. In recent years, one of the worst trading strategies you could have implemented would have been to wait until market averages closed below their lower Bollinger Bands and then sell the market. Such a strategy of late has made considerable money.
This time is different in other ways, as well. The devastation to large blue chip companies, from banks to auto makers; the uncertainty about the very foundations of the financial system; and the comic/tragic flailing about by the government (one bank is rescued, another allowed to fail, then we buy bank debt, now we buy banks) all differ from past recessionary declines when a certain confidence in the Fed prevailed. Rightly or wrongly, we thought of Greenspan as the "maestro". There are no maestros today.
All of this is not to say we can't get a meaningful rally from here. If (limited) history is a guide, the sharp declines of 1932 and 1974 led to very sharp rallies. That same history finds that market returns after those rallies were subnormal for years to come. Historic declines tend to produce historic shifts in attitudes toward risk, and those lead to years of base building before a new generation of investors can express confidence in markets.
It's understandable that shattered investors hold out hope of being made whole. But hope is not a financial strategy. As a psychologist, I understand and empathize with the desire to believe that this time isn't different. As an investor, I have to view that desperate hope as a market indicator.
.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


7 comments:
Hi Brett, I was wondering on a related note, since you speak to so many traders, do you have a sense of how well or poorly experienced intraday traders have been doing in Sept/Oct? What about swing traders? This volatility is certainly giving us a lot of opportunity and intraday momentum, but at the same time mistakes can be very costly in this environment. Thanks for your insights.
I just haven't figured out yet if it's an '87 or a '29. While I lean more toward it being a '29, like your article implies, I'm just not certain.
I'm not in the hoping to be make whole scenario, because I'm already liquid, but rather the decision is whether to play for a big bounce with some index etf's for a '29, or go in with specific stocks to hold for a very long time, as in an '87.
Hope I can come to the proper conclusion.
As usual the media encouraging folk to stay long, and be loss adverse. The media advice never changes.
Well, things ARE different today. Lots of things are different but what isn't different is the general psychology of people. Fear and greed are great motivators and the market reflects this quite well.
So while we may have seen market moves that exceed the bounds of history, the motivation is the same.
What do you think Dr. Brett?
Hi Indifferent,
In general, I'm finding that, the shorter the time frame, the better traders are doing. A number of intraday traders are able to ride these volatile swings, but many swing and longer-term traders are having difficulty with the choppy volatility...very easy to get stopped out, even on good ideas.
Brett
Hi Bruce,
FWIW, I don't think it will be a 1929, but I do think it will be a more significant recession than any we've seen in the last 30 years. I'm viewing it as part of a secular bear market starting in 2000 and, if I had to guess (and that's all it is, based on limited market history), I'd say we're roughly halfway through it.
Brett
Hi Marc,
I agree that fear and greed are universal, but the levels of fear that used to move markets higher no longer did so during this recent decline.
Brett
Post a Comment