U.S. Stock Market

Greed

Star
Registered
Consumers expect stocks to fall: survey
Friday August 8, 9:49 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Households consider it more likely than ever that their stock holdings will fall in value over the next year, a survey released on Friday said.

The Reuters/University of Michigan survey said consumers saw a 40.6 percent chance their stock holdings would rise in the year ahead, the lowest number since the question was first asked in 2002, compared with 42.9 percent in the second quarter.

ADVERTISEMENT
The results were based on a random nationwide telephone survey of 1,000 Americans in June and July.

Pessimism was consistent in households of all income levels and investor ages, the survey showed. Among those who own stock portfolios worth more than $150,000 -- the top third of households -- the probability of gains was 46.3 percent, down from 50.1 percent in the second quarter.

Investors with the smallest holdings -- under $40,000 -- saw a 41.1 percent chance of price gains over the next year, down from 46.8 percent in the second quarter and 50.6 percent in the first quarter, the survey showed.

The median value of stock holdings was $59,136 across all households in 2008, the survey found. Nearly two-thirds of all households owned stocks.

The Dow Jones industrial average (DJI:^DJI - News) and Standard & Poor's 500 Index (^SPX - News) have each fallen nearly 14 percent so far in 2008, while the Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq:^IXIC - News) is off about 11 percent.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080808/usa_stocks_survey.html
 
Illusions About Inflation

Illusions About Inflation
By MARK HULBERT
Published: August 16, 2008

THERE is widespread concern that high inflation — running at a 5.6 percent annual rate in the 12 months through July — could hurt the stock market. But this investor worry may be yet another example of money illusion: the confusion of nominal prices with their inflation-adjusted equivalent.

The notion that inflation is bad for stocks appears to make a good deal of sense. What’s more, there is reason to believe that this perception — mistaken though it may be — has sometimes driven down stock prices.

With inflation at 6 percent, for example, a dollar of profit that a company will earn a year from now is worth only 94 cents in today’s dollars. But if inflation were just 1 percent, as it was in early 2002, that dollar earned a year from now would be worth 99 cents today. Such differences add up, especially as investors consider a company’s earning power over many years.

Put a different way, if other things are equal, the value of a company’s future earnings will be lower to the extent that inflation is higher. That would make the company’s stock less valuable, and if investors went no further in their analysis, stock prices would deserve to decline.

But other things are not equal when it comes to stocks and inflation. Over the last eight decades, corporate profits have tended to grow faster when inflation is higher. In such periods, companies have been able to pass along higher costs to their customers. As a result, even though higher inflation leads to a greater discounting of future years’ earnings, those earnings tend to be bigger than they would have been otherwise. The net result is that the current value of a company’s future earnings remains relatively stable in the face of rising inflation.

This was the strong conclusion of a study conducted five years ago by John Campbell and Tuomo Vuolteenaho, both economics professors at Harvard at the time. (Mr. Campbell is still at Harvard; Mr. Vuolteenaho is not. Both are now partners at Arrowstreet Capital, a money management firm based in Boston.) Their study, “Inflation Illusion and Stock Prices,” was in the May 2004 issue of the American Economic Review.

In an interview, Professor Campbell emphasized that their study does not mean investors are wrong to worry about developments like high oil prices, which may be damaging the economy in specific ways while also contributing to inflation. But, he said, “inflation should not be an additional source of concern above and beyond those other developments.”

Of course, investors suffering from money illusion could knock down stock prices further than they deserve to be. Historically, this has sometimes occurred as inflation has begun to heat up, as investors extrapolate too low a growth rate for corporate profits into the future.

ONE of the best-known illustrations occurred during the high-inflation 1970s. For the 10 years through 1979, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index had an annualized gain of just 1.6 percent, a far cry from the historical average of close to 10 percent. That dismal performance helped to lower the index’s price-to-earnings ratio to a low of 6.8 by the end of that decade, according to data from Robert J. Shiller, the Yale finance professor. The comparable ratio today is around 20.

Franco Modigliani, who in the late 1970s was a finance professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, realized that money illusion was a major factor in the market’s dismal performance in that decade. In a 1979 article written with Richard A. Cohn, then also an M.I.T. professor, he argued that stocks, in fact, were a good long-term hedge against inflation and that the stock market was therefore significantly undervalued. The strong bull market of the 1980s and 1990s vindicated their argument, and in 1985 Professor Modigliani was the Nobel laureate in economics. (Both men are now deceased.)

There’s no way to know, of course, whether investors will make the same mistake in the next few years as they did in the 1970s, pushing stock prices down to unjustifiably low levels. But even if they did, it doesn’t necessarily mean stocks deserve to be cheaper when inflation is high.

As Clifford S. Asness, managing principal at AQR Capital Management, a hedge fund firm, put it in an e-mail message, “It is a strange leap to observe that investors consistently make an error, and then recommend that error to current investors based on precedent.”

In any case, if inflation keeps heating up and investors fall victim to money illusion, stocks may well decline for a while. But if history is any guide, such weakness would signal an excellent long-term buying opportunity.

Mark Hulbert is editor of The Hulbert Financial Digest, a service of MarketWatch. E-mail: strategy@nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/business/economy/17stra.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
 
Every major index in the world is down. The best performers YTD are the Canadian TSX (down about 2%), Brazil and Mexico (down about 5-10%). Everything else is down at least 10%. The worst is Shanghai down 50%
 
That Uncertain Feeling

That Uncertain Feeling
by James Surowiecki
September 1, 2008

American investors are frazzled. True, oil prices have fallen from their most vertiginous highs, the dollar is a bit stronger, and the stock market has actually risen over the past month. But none of those things have happened in a smooth and steady fashion. The stock market’s “ascent,” in particular, has come straight out of “Sybil.” Since the beginning of July, there have been six days on which the S. & P. 500 has gone up or down by at least two per cent, and daily moves of more than one per cent—like the ones we saw at the start of last week—have come to seem practically routine. Precipitous falls in the market have frequently been followed immediately by sharp rallies, and vice versa. And, while some of these moves have been occasioned by real news, more often it’s been impossible to tell just what made investors so damn exuberant or so gloomy.

Not that long ago, stock-market volatility appeared to be a thing of the past; between the end of 2003 and the end of 2006 there were only two days with moves of two per cent. But, ever since the credit crisis began, big moves have become common. The conventional explanation for this is “uncertainty”: investors’ sense of what the future holds is in constant flux, so stock prices are, too. But, in the dearth of new news, you might expect uncertainty to result in tentative oscillations, rather than in the huge waves of buying and selling that we’ve been seeing. In this market, the same traders who on Tuesday seem convinced that the apocalypse is nigh are, on Wednesday, just as sure that we’ve weathered the storm. If investors are unsure about tomorrow, why are they acting so certain about today?

Much of what’s happening is a function of what economists call “herding.” In conditions of uncertainty, humans, like other animals, herd together for protection. In unstable markets, this leads to trend-following: buy when others buy, sell when they sell. Many studies have found that mutual-fund managers herd, for a couple of important reasons. First, herding offers money managers the reassurance that their performance, whether good or bad, won’t diverge too much from the norm. It also gives them a chance to piggyback on the knowledge of their competitors. That’s why, when a stock starts to rise, traders often assume that there must be a good reason, and therefore buy in order not to miss the party. This can create a feedback loop: as more people buy the stock, the more certain others become that there must be a good reason to do so (even if they don’t know what that is). And these feedback loops have been accentuated by the spread of quantitative-trading strategies that explicitly aim at riding the herd effect. These strategies can magnify trends instead of countering them. The result is that an individual stock can move up or down ten per cent on a day with no real news.

Uncertainty also stimulates big moves because traders react to it in an unusual way. Work done by Daniel Ellsberg in the early sixties suggests that, faced with ambiguity, most people try to minimize possible losses. But there’s considerable evidence that many traders, by contrast, deal with ambiguity by trying to maximize potential gains—thus the familiar dictum that volatility creates opportunities. In part, this is because it’s the job of traders to trade. But it’s also because market professionals appear to be chronically overconfident. A 2005 study of traders and investment bankers at two large banks, for instance, found that they significantly overestimated their knowledge of finance and the accuracy of their predictions. A 2002 survey of experienced foreign-exchange traders found, similarly, that they were far more sure of their market forecasts than performance justified. Overconfidence matters, because it can encourage excess trading. A study of individual investors by the economists Markus Glaser and Martin Weber, for instance, found that investors who thought more highly of their ability also traded more. What’s worse, the effect seems to be magnified in times of uncertainty. The business-school professors Itzhak Ben-David and John Doukas, in a study based on twenty years of trading by institutional investors, found that when there’s a profusion of “ambiguous information” about stocks investors trade more frequently, not less. And they do so even though, on average, they end up losing on their trades.

Oddly, then, the very things—uncertainty and lack of information—that might seem to make less trading and smaller bets advisable are pushing stock-market traders in the opposite direction. And this tendency is exacerbated by the fact that we are in a down market: the S. & P. 500 has fallen almost fourteen per cent this year. Mebane Faber, of Cambria Investment Management, recently did a study showing that, historically, volatility is significantly greater in down markets than in up ones. One likely reason is that traders, like gamblers, often find themselves “chasing losses”—if you’ve lost a lot, it’s tempting to make big bets, in an attempt to get your money back.

So far, all this volatility has had little lasting effect on the value of the stock market. But in the long run volatility is a very bad thing, because it makes ordinary investors less inclined to trust markets. As a corrective to the recklessness of recent years, this might seem desirable, but too much risk aversion makes capital more expensive for everyone from businesses to homeowners, and the economy less dynamic. Once we get a clearer idea about the future, today’s volatility should diminish. But for now we’re stuck in a Yeatsian market: the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Let’s hope the center can hold.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/09/01/080901ta_talk_surowiecki?printable=true
 
Re: That Uncertain Feeling

Nah. You're okay with it. You're just waiting my response?
 
Re: That Uncertain Feeling

Yeah, I know. But thats the way the market bounces, sometimes.

QueEx
 
Memo to the Uneasy Investor: Be Strong

Memo to the Uneasy Investor: Be Strong
By RON LIEBER

It’s pretty hard to stick with a long-term plan for your money when the financial world seems to be unraveling around you.

You were probably already uneasy about home prices, job stability and inflation. Then the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers scrambled for a buyer and the stock of Washington Mutual fell below $3 amid concerns about its own shaky standing — and that’s just in the last week.

The temptation is to climb under the covers, money safely in the mattress, and hide from a world that has surely changed forever.

“The big question that people ask during these things: ‘Is it different this time?’ ” says J. Mark Joseph, of Sentinel Wealth Management in Reston, Va.

And is it? Well, no, not really. And as with any market disruption, you need to start by staring down the volatility and putting it in context. Then, face up to whatever fears led you to stop investing money or to move everything into safer vehicles — or to seriously ponder those alternatives.

Finally, resolve to be brave (and well diversified).

Let’s take these steps point by point:

THE VOLATILITY COULD BE WORSE It’s perfectly understandable if you feel as if you have whiplash right about now. Any single company or industry is increasingly susceptible to the forces of global competition, the rapid flow of information and the variety of ways in which sophisticated investors can place big bets.

On a macro level, too, the markets feel unstable, flying up on Monday with relief over the Fannie and Freddie rescue and then plummeting Tuesday over broader concerns about the health of financial firms.

By certain measures, however, the stock market isn’t bouncing around as much as it has at other times. So far this year, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has risen or fallen more than 1 percent in a single day 42 percent of the time. That’s just the 11th-highest figure since 1928.

Or check the “investor fear gauge,” otherwise known as the VIX, shorthand for the Chicago Board Options Exchange’s Volatility Index. It measures market expectations of near-term volatility as expressed through the prices that people pay for options on the S.& P. 500 index. At many points from 1997 to 2002, the VIX reached higher levels than where it sits now.

That said, for the last year, the VIX has hovered at levels higher than any point in the previous four years, and it has hit those levels for reasons that give everyday investors pause about the markets.

Milo M. Benningfield, of Benningfield Financial Advisors in San Francisco, rattled off a number of them this week, including increased hedge fund activity; lack of guidance on corporate earnings, leading to surprises and stock gyrations each quarter; and opaque company balance sheets, which the companies themselves seem to revalue every few months.

ACCEPT FEAR Your natural inclination is probably to sell everything and invest in certificates of deposit or throw the proceeds in a money market fund. In fact, evolution insists on these feelings.

“We had survival mechanisms built in to avoid sitting around debating whether we should run away from the saber-toothed tiger,” Mr. Benningfield said. “That’s the fundamental problem with long-term investing. Our skills aren’t really that transferable to the challenges involved.”

These skills can be learned, however, and Brent Kessel, the president of Abacus Wealth Partners, thinks yoga offers some crucial lessons. Mr. Kessel, a money manager and financial planner in Los Angeles who is a longtime yogi himself, noted that most people try to get rid of their fear of the markets through some kind of external action, like selling.

“This is where yoga comes in,” he said. “It’s the practice of breathing through discomfort. You intentionally put your body in postures that are right at the edge of discomfort and then cultivate the ability to stay there. You tend to find it passes if you give it time, but instead we rush to the Internet to trade on our portfolios.”

A more constructive move at this particular moment might be to redirect your worry toward other areas of risk in your life. Mr. Kessel said that if he were an estate-planning lawyer, he’d be calling clients right now to get them to address any half-finished paperwork.

“Market corrections are just a foreshadowing of what death is going to feel like,” he said. “We’re all trying to avoid death. That’s what we’re wired to do as human beings.”

NOW, BE BRAVE Investing in the middle of market gyrations isn’t just a question of controlling the urge to sell indiscriminately. It’s also about taking a close look at the contents of your portfolio and then forcing yourself to fix an asset allocation that is out of whack and to buy in sectors of the markets that are out of favor.

At this moment, familiar names in your portfolio may make you feel comfortable. Perhaps it’s a concentrated stock holding in your employer, whose business you know quite well. Or maybe you have some securities from a parent or grandparent, and you feel an almost familial obligation to collect the dividend and preserve the inheritance. Or you live in Cincinnati and are certain that Procter & Gamble can survive any calamity.

Yes, Fannie and Freddie and Lehman and WaMu can go to zero or close to it, but not your holding. “It happened to them, but it’s not going to happen to us,” is the argument that F. John Deyeso of Financial Filosophy, a financial planning firm in New York City, hears frequently.

Maybe not. But consider how concentrated your risk is in other aspects of your life. Most of, if not all of, your income is from a single employer. If your spouse works for another one, then perhaps you’re a bit more diversified, but not much.

Your home, if you own one, may well be your largest asset. But it’s a single property in a particular region. Your portfolio is the only place where it’s even possible to diversify much.

Still tempted to cut off your 401(k) contributions, or funnel them all into cash? Well, how will you know when it’s time to get back into stocks? Chances are, by the time you’re comfortable with the markets you will have missed a good chunk of the rebound.

Better, then, to keep investing in a mix of stock and bond funds, international and domestic, large and small, with some alternative asset classes thrown in for good measure, which are appropriate for your goals and risk tolerance.

Through index funds and various similar investments, Mr. Kessel of Abacus Wealth Partners has his clients in more than 11,000 stocks around the world at any given moment.

Though no financial planners wish losses on anyone, plenty of them appreciate the way market calamities reinforce some fundamental truths. “I think these things are great,” said Mr. Joseph of Sentinel Wealth Management.

“It helps people get back to, as boring as it is, the fact that diversification works. And you never end up getting killed in something like this.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/b...int&adxnnlx=1221329106-AloC5oGGWu/YhfsU1+gg6A
 
Re: Memo to the Uneasy Investor: Be Strong

I hear you; and
I continue to take that advice.
But, do you pay if you're wrong

:hmm:
 
Re: Memo to the Uneasy Investor: Be Strong

The key is empirical evidence is on the side of diversification. The hard part is figuring out what constitutes "proper diversification."
 
Value and Momentum Investing, Together at Last

September 14, 2008
Strategies
Value and Momentum Investing, Together at Last
By MARK HULBERT

FUNDAMENTAL stock analysis takes you only so far. The best time to buy an undervalued stock is not when it’s simply cheap, but after it has already outperformed the market for several months.

At least that’s the finding of a new study exploring the profitability of marrying two otherwise disparate investment approaches: value and momentum. The study began circulating this summer and was produced by AQR Capital Management, the investment management firm in Greenwich, Conn. Its authors are two finance professors, Tobias J. Moskowitz of the University of Chicago and Lasse H. Pedersen of New York University, both of whom also work with AQR, and Clifford S. Asness, managing principal at the firm. A version is at www.aqr.com.

Value-oriented financial advisers, of course, favor investments whose prices are lowest relative to their intrinsic worth. Momentum advisers, by contrast, favor those at or near the top of the performance rankings over the trailing 6 to 12 months. It would seem that few securities would be championed by both approaches at the same time.

But the researchers found that a strategy that simultaneously pursued value and momentum performed better over the long term than value or momentum alone. Consider three portfolios they built from domestic stocks: one pursued a pure momentum strategy, another focused only on value, and a third combined the two. The combination portfolio outperformed the momentum version by an average of 1.1 percentage points a year from February 1973 through February 2008, and beat the value version by an average of 6.4 points a year — all while incurring less risk.

Until now, value and momentum approaches have generally been analyzed separately, Professor Moskowitz said in an interview. And they have been studied primarily for domestic stocks. But the new study also included foreign markets and asset classes besides equities, and found that the combined value-momentum approach worked everywhere the researchers looked.

The study analyzed value and momentum strategies in stock markets of 17 developed countries in addition to the United States, the government bond markets of 10 countries and markets for 10 currencies and 27 commodities. The universal success of the combined value-momentum approach “greatly increases our statistical confidence that investors would do well to focus on both strategies together rather than separately,” Professor Moskowitz said.

TO see how the approach works, consider various countries’ stock markets. Followers of a pure value strategy, who often use the ratio of price to book value when assessing value, might now favor the Belgian market, according to the researchers. That’s because the average Belgian stock has a lower price-to-book ratio than stocks of most other developed countries. But, the researchers add, momentum strategists wouldn’t choose Belgium’s market, since its performance over the last year has been relatively poor. More attractive to investors who focus on both value and momentum would be stocks in Britain because the average stock there also has a low price-to-book ratio but has performed far better in the last year.

The researchers say these findings can also be useful in deciding which markets to avoid or even sell short. One obvious target at the moment might seem to be the Canadian stock market, because its stocks, on average, have relatively high price-to-book ratios. But the researchers say Canadian stocks have good momentum, so a better target might be the Chinese market, which has nearly as high a price-to-book ratio but worse momentum.

The researchers say these examples are chosen only for illustration, since many other factors can affect a market. Their approach is “a quantitative strategy that calls for numerous small bets rather than one or two big ones,” Professor Pedersen said in an interview.

The study makes clear that extreme value or momentum strategies incur unnecessary risk. A pure value investor is prone to buying undervalued securities that languish a long time before recovering, while a pure momentum investor may put money into overvalued securities just before their bubble bursts.

So Aristotle’s maxim applies even to value and momentum investing: Seek moderation in all things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/business/yourmoney/14stra.html?ref=business&pagewanted=print
 
Re: Value and Momentum Investing, Together at Last

90-09162008Siers.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

- Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (September 16, 2008)
 
U.S. Stock Markets Have Lost Less Than Most Other Nations’

U.S. Stock Markets Have Lost Less Than Most Other Nations’
By FLOYD NORRIS
September 20, 2008

IF you put all your money into American stocks this year, congratulations. You may have lost money, but you have also done better than investors in almost any other stock market around the world.

This was the year of the bear, at least until Friday’s worldwide recovery. But the bear was tamer in the United States than in almost any other country.

The accompanying chart shows the performance this year of the Standard & Poor’s Global Broad Stock Market indexes. Those indexes, which include nearly every stock traded in 52 markets around the world, showed losses in 51 of the countries through Thursday. Complete Friday results were not available at press time.

The best performer was Jordan, which was up less than 1 percent. Morocco was second, with a loss of just 2.8 percent.

In third place, outperforming every major stock market in the world, was the United States. The decline of 16.4 percent from the end of 2007 was improved greatly by the rally on Thursday, which came after prices had plunged the previous day. But the United States was near the top even before that recovery in prices.

The big losers include some of the developing markets that until late last year had seemed invincible, and had drawn in buyers from around the world. Share prices in Russia, which had soared along with oil prices, came crashing down, though they shot up on Friday.

Russia and the United States came to similar conclusions on what to do about the problem of falling prices. Russia announced plans for its government to support the stock market. The United States indicated it would find a way for the government to take over the bad loans that were causing banks to fail and driving down share prices.

China and India were also among the big losers, after rising rapidly for years. Those two countries have been vying for leadership as the most attractive large emerging market. But this year each has lost nearly half of its stock market value. India fell earlier, but China has declined more in recent months.

In the current quarter, the worries expressed on Wall Street and in Washington have been so great that it is hard to believe the United States, with a decline of just over 5 percent, had done better than every other market, even before Friday.

The worldwide declines may show that financial markets are interconnected in ways that had never been thought likely before. As the financial crisis grew, firms with illiquid mortgage securities have raised cash where they could, and that included selling stocks around the world.

In addition, it is not clear that the world’s economies have “decoupled” from the United States and will continue to grow even if there is a American recession. It appears that recessions may be under way in Europe and Japan, and markets there have suffered. The emerging markets that prospered from exports may face problems if demand falls in most of the major countries that are their customers.

Floyd Norris comments on finance and economics in his blog at norris.blogs.nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/b...gin&ref=business&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
 
All that money you've lost — where did it go?

All that money you've lost — where did it go?

By ERIC CARVIN, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 11, 12:41 PM ET

Trillions in stock market value — gone. Trillions in retirement savings — gone. A huge chunk of the money you paid for your house, the money you're saving for college, the money your boss needs to make payroll — gone, gone, gone.

Whether you're a stock broker or Joe Six-pack, if you have a 401(k), a mutual fund or a college savings plan, tumbling stock markets and sagging home prices mean you've lost a whole lot of the money that was right there on your account statements just a few months ago.

But if you no longer have that money, who does? The fat cats on Wall Street? Some oil baron in Saudi Arabia? The government of China?

Or is it just — gone?

If you're looking to track down your missing money — figure out who has it now, maybe ask to have it back — you might be disappointed to learn that is was never really money in the first place.

Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale, puts it bluntly: The notion that you lose a pile of money whenever the stock market tanks is a "fallacy." He says the price of a stock has never been the same thing as money — it's simply the "best guess" of what the stock is worth.

"It's in people's minds," Shiller explains. "We're just recording a measure of what people think the stock market is worth. What the people who are willing to trade today — who are very, very few people — are actually trading at. So we're just extrapolating that and thinking, well, maybe that's what everyone thinks it's worth."

Shiller uses the example of an appraiser who values a house at $350,000, a week after saying it was worth $400,000.

"In a sense, $50,000 just disappeared when he said that," he said. "But it's all in the mind."

Though something, of course, is disappearing as markets and real estate values tumble. Even if a share of stock you own isn't a wad of bills in your wallet, even if the value of your home isn't something you can redeem at will, surely you can lose potential money — that is, the money that would be yours to spend if you sold your house or emptied out your mutual funds right now.

And if you're a few months away from retirement, or hoping to sell your house and buy a smaller one to help pay for your kid's college tuition, this "potential money" is something you're counting on to get by. For people who need cash and need it now, this is as real as money gets, whether or not it meets the technical definition of the word.

Still, you run into trouble when you think of that potential money as being the same thing as the cash in your purse or your checking account.

"That's a big mistake," says Dale Jorgenson, an economics professor at Harvard.

There's a key distinction here: While the money in your pocket is unlikely to just vanish into thin air, the money you could have had, if only you'd sold your house or drained your stock-heavy mutual funds a year ago, most certainly can.

"You can't enjoy the benefits of your 401(k) if it's disappeared," Jorgenson explains. "If you had it all in financial stocks and they've all gone down by 80 percent — sorry! That is a permanent loss because those folks aren't coming back. We're gonna have a huge shrinkage in the financial sector."

There was a time when nobody had to wonder what happened to the money they used to have. Until paper money was developed in China around the ninth century, money was something solid that had actual value — like a gold coin that was worth whatever that amount of gold was worth, according to Douglas Mudd, curator of the American Numismatic Association's Money Museum in Denver.

Back then, if the money you once had was suddenly gone, there was a simple reason — you spent it, someone stole it, you dropped it in a field somewhere, or maybe a tornado or some other disaster struck wherever you last put it down.

But these days, a lot of things that have monetary value can't be held in your hand.

If you choose, you can pour most of your money into stocks and track their value in real time on a computer screen, confident that you'll get good money for them when you decide to sell. And you won't be alone — staring at millions of computer screens are other investors who share your confidence that the value of their portfolios will hold up.

But that collective confidence, Jorgenson says, is gone. And when confidence is drained out of a financial system, a lot of investors will decide to sell at any price, and a big chunk of that money you thought your investments were worth simply goes away.

If you once thought your investment portfolio was as good as a suitcase full of twenties, you might suddenly suspect that it's not.

In the process, of course, you're losing wealth. But does that mean someone else must be gaining it? Does the world have some fixed amount of wealth that shifts between people, nations and institutions with the ebb and flow of the economy?

Jorgenson says no — the amount of wealth in the world "simply decreases in a situation like this." And he cautions against assuming that your investment losses mean a gain for someone else — like wealthy stock speculators who try to make money by betting that the market will drop.

"Those folks in general have been losing their shirts at a prodigious rate," he said. "They took a big risk and now they're suffering from the consequences."

"Of course, they had a great life, as long as it lasted."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money
 
What History Tells Us About the Market

What History Tells Us About the Market
The breathtakingly volatile week has left investors numb. A close study of the Great Crash, and the decades that followed, offers some unnerving context, and some reasons for optimism.
By JASON ZWEIG
OCTOBER 11, 2008

July 9, 1932 was a day Wall Street would never wish to relive. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 41.63, down 91% from its level exactly three years earlier. Total trading volume that day was a meager 235,000 shares. "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime," was one of the top songs of the year. Investors everywhere winced with the pain of recognition at the patter of comedian Eddie Cantor, who sneered that his broker had told him "to buy this stock for my old age. It worked wonderfully. Within a week I was an old man!"

The nation was in the grip of what U.S. Treasury Secretary Ogden Mills called "the psychology of fear." Industrial production was down 52% in three years; corporate profits had fallen 49%. "Many businesses are better off than ever," Mr. Cantor wisecracked. "Take red ink, for instance: Who doesn't use it?"

Banks had become so illiquid, and depositors so terrified of losing their money, that check-writing ground to a halt. Most transactions that did occur were carried out in cash. Alexander Dana Noyes, financial columnist at the New York Times, had invested in a pool of residential mortgages. He was repeatedly accosted by the ringing of his doorbell; those homeowners who could still keep their mortgages current came to Mr. Noyes to service their debts with payments of cold hard cash.
[A view of the New York Stock Exchange, taken by Berenice Abbott in 1933] Berenice Abbott/Commerce Graphics

A view of the New York Stock Exchange, taken by Berenice Abbott in 1933

Just eight days before the Dow hit rock-bottom, the brilliant investor Benjamin Graham -- who many years later would become Warren Buffett's personal mentor -- published "Should Rich but Losing Corporations Be Liquidated?" It was the last of a series of three incendiary articles in Forbes magazine in which Graham documented in stark detail the fact that many of America's great corporations were now worth more dead than alive.

More than one out of every 12 companies on the New York Stock Exchange, Graham calculated, were selling for less than the value of the cash and marketable securities on their balance sheets. "Banks no longer lend directly to big corporations," he reported, but operating companies were still flush with cash -- many of them so flush that a wealthy investor could theoretically take over, empty out the cash registers and the bank accounts, and own the remaining business for free.

Graham summarized it this way: "...stocks always sell at unduly low prices after a boom collapses. As the president of the New York Stock Exchange testified, 'in times like these frightened people give the United States of ours away.' Or stated differently, it happens because those with enterprise haven't the money, and those with money haven't the enterprise, to buy stocks when they are cheap."

After the epic bashing that stocks have taken in the past few weeks, investors can be forgiven for wondering whether they fell asleep only to emerge in the waking nightmare of July 1932 all over again. The only question worth asking seems to be: How low can it go?

Make no mistake about it; the worst-case scenario could indeed take us back to 1932 territory. But the likelihood of that scenario is very much in doubt.
[a trader on Oct. 19, 1987.] AFP/Getty Images

A trader on Oct. 19, 1987.

Robert Shiller, professor of finance at Yale University and chief economist for MacroMarkets LLC, tracks what he calls the "Graham P/E," a measure of market valuation he adapted from an observation Graham made many years ago. The Graham P/E divides the price of major U.S. stocks by their net earnings averaged over the past 10 years, adjusted for inflation. After this week's bloodbath, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is priced at 15 times earnings by the Graham-Shiller measure. That is a 25% decline since Sept. 30 alone.

The Graham P/E has not been this low since January 1989; the long-term average in Prof. Shiller's database, which goes back to 1881, is 16.3 times earnings.

But when the stock market moves away from historical norms, it tends to overshoot. The modern low on the Graham P/E was 6.6 in July and August of 1982, and it has sunk below 10 for several long stretches since World War II -- most recently, from 1977 through 1984. It would take a bottom of about 600 on the S&P 500 to take the current Graham P/E down to 10. That's roughly a 30% drop from last week's levels; an equivalent drop would take the Dow below 6000.

Could the market really overshoot that far on the downside? "That's a serious possibility, because it's done it before," says Prof. Shiller. "It strikes me that it might go down a lot more" from current levels.

In order to trade at a Graham P/E as bad as the 1982 low, the S&P 500 would have to fall to roughly 400, more than a 50% slide from where it is today. A similar drop in the Dow would hit bottom somewhere around 4000.

Prof. Shiller is not actually predicting any such thing, of course. "We're dealing with fundamental and profound uncertainties," he says. "We can't quantify anything. I really don't want to make predictions, so this is nothing but an intuition." But Prof. Shiller is hardly a crank. In his book "Irrational Exuberance," published at the very crest of the Internet bubble in early 2000, he forecast the crash of Nasdaq. The second edition of the book, in 2005, insisted (at a time when few other pundits took such a view) that residential real estate was wildly overvalued.
[bears that won't go away]

Click to see long-running bear markets

The professor's reluctance to make a formal forecast should steer us all away from what we cannot possibly know for certain -- the future -- and toward the few things investors can be confident about at this very moment.

Strikingly, today's conditions bear quite a close resemblance to what Graham described in the abyss of the Great Depression. Regardless of how much further it might (or might not) drop, the stock market now abounds with so many bargains it's hard to avoid stepping on them. Out of 9,194 stocks tracked by Standard & Poor's Compustat research service, 3,518 are now trading at less than eight times their earnings over the past year -- or at levels less than half the long-term average valuation of the stock market as a whole. Nearly one in 10, or 876 stocks, trade below the value of their per-share holdings of cash -- an even greater proportion than Graham found in 1932. Charles Schwab Corp., to name one example, holds $27.8 billion in cash and has a total stock-market value of $21 billion.

Those numbers testify to the wholesale destruction of the stock market's faith in the future. And, as Graham wrote in 1932, "In all probability [the stock market] is wrong, as it always has been wrong in its major judgments of the future."

In fact, the market is probably wrong again in its obsession over whether this decline will turn into a cataclysmic collapse. Eugene White, an economics professor at Rutgers University who is an expert on the crash of 1929 and its aftermath, thinks that the only real similarity between today's climate and the Great Depression is that, once again, "the market is moving on fear, not facts." As bumbling as its response so far may seem, the government's actions in 2008 are "way different" from the hands-off mentality of the Hoover administration and the rigid detachment of the Federal Reserve in 1929 through 1932. "Policymakers are making much wiser decisions," says Prof. White, "and we are moving in the right direction."
[a trader on the floor on Oct. 10, 2008] Associated Press

A trader on the floor on Oct. 10, 2008

Investors seem, above all, to be in a state of shock, bludgeoned into paralysis by the market's astonishing volatility. How is Theodore Aronson, partner at Aronson + Johnson + Ortiz LP, a Philadelphia money manager overseeing some $15 billion, holding up in the bear market? "We have 101 clients and almost as many consultants representing them," he says, "and we've had virtually no calls, only a handful." Most of the financial planners I have spoken with around the country have told me much the same thing: Their phones are not ringing, and very few of their clients have even asked for reassurance. The entire nation, it seems, is in the grip of what psychologists call "the disposition effect," or an inability to confront financial losses. The natural way to palliate the pain of losing money is by refusing to recognize exactly how badly your portfolio has been damaged. A few weeks ago, investors were gasping; now, en masse, they seem to have gone numb.

The market's latest frame of mind seems reminiscent of a passage from Emily Dickinson's poem "After Great Pain a Formal Feeling Comes":

This is the Hour of Lead --
Remembered, if outlived,
As Freezing persons recollect the Snow --
First -- Chill -- then Stupor -- then the letting go.

This collective stupor may very likely be the last stage before many investors finally let go -- the phase of market psychology that veteran traders call "capitulation." Stupor prevents rash action, keeping many long-term investors from bailing out near the bottom. When, however, it breaks and many investors finally do let go, the market will finally be ready to rise again. No one can spot capitulation before it sets in. But it may not be far off now. Investors who have, as Graham put it, either the enterprise or the money to invest now, somewhere near the bottom, are likely to prevail over those who wait for the bottom and miss it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368241652024977.html
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

How come you just copy paste this. How about you add your personal comments/opinions/or whatever. Seriously, no one reads this shit. Everyone could just go to the source/wsj/yahoo if they wanted to.
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

How come you just copy paste this. How about you add your personal comments/opinions/or whatever. Seriously, no one reads this shit. Everyone could just go to the source/wsj/yahoo if they wanted to.

Of course, the poster can answer as he pleases but let me add this:
  • If YOU were going to READ the article, it wouldn't matter whether it is pasted into this thread or a link is merely posted; odds are, as you said, you wouldn't be reading anyway; so why the question ???

  • Links typically die and, if so, there would perhaps be no way to go to the article to READ what the others were actuallly commenting upon (of course, that might not be a problem, if you're not into reading, in the first place.

QueEx
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

Of course, the poster can answer as he pleases but let me add this:
  • If YOU were going to READ the article, it wouldn't matter whether it is pasted into this thread or a link is merely posted; odds are, as you said, you wouldn't be reading anyway; so why the question ???

  • Links typically die and, if so, there would perhaps be no way to go to the article to READ what the others were actuallly commenting upon (of course, that might not be a problem, if you're not into reading, in the first place.

QueEx

Well you should expect that the person that comes in here would have an idea of the current issues/events. More people might actually comment in this area if it wasn't a copy paste of article after article that they have read or know about. Some of these threads in here are months old with nothing but that. Add your own personal opinion to actually start a discussion.

Politics and the Topics of the day
This Forum brings together Brothers and Others in a continuous spirited debate and discussion of Politics, Race and People, including Past, Future and Current Events.

debate and discussion, i see none of that.
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

Thats because: You don't care to read.

BTW, one should never "assume" anything. Hence, I no one should "expect that the person that comes in here" knows or has kept up. If that were so, a person like yourself would simply move on and add comment, instead of griping about an article that has been cut and pasted into the thread.

And no, this board is not exactly what it could be but education, one of the missions of the board as I see it, has never been easy. In fact, there seems to be as much resistance to the idea as there is support.

QueEx
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

How come you just copy paste this. How about you add your personal comments/opinions/or whatever. Seriously, no one reads this shit. Everyone could just go to the source/wsj/yahoo if they wanted to.
I'm fine if you get something out of these threads. I'm also fine if you get nothing from these threads.
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

`

I can't believe no one even mentioned the strong showing in the Dow on Monday. Up a record/incredible 932.46 points :eek:

Finally some good news and its, no news ?

`
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

`

I can't believe no one even mentioned the strong showing in the Dow on Monday. Up a record/incredible 932.46 points :eek:

Finally some good news and its, no news ?

`

Don't believe the hype you did read that story about 10 states going bankrupt didn't you?
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

Which states have declared bankruptcy ???

Which ???

Its not hype when my 401K has ANY recovery. REAL talk. Not BGOL.

QueEx
 
Re: What History Tells Us About the Market

`

I can't believe no one even mentioned the strong showing in the Dow on Monday. Up a record/incredible 932.46 points :eek:

Finally some good news and its, no news ?

`

Yea, with the help of governments all over the world. BTW as of 11am 10/14/08 it is in the red. Supply siders refuse to acknowledge the root problem. Good, livable wages are leaving and the economy has become a slave to consumption and money changers rather than savers and producers. Wealth has become "paper wealth". Until we change the fundamental paradigms of this economy the boom and bust cycles will become more and more dramatic.
 
Obama-Pelosi-Reid Is Picture Markets Won't Like

Obama-Pelosi-Reid Is Picture Markets Won't Like
Commentary by Amity Shlaes

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Obama, OK. Obama-Pelosi-Reid? A nightmare for markets. McCain-Pelosi-Reid? OK. McCain and Republican majorities in both House and Senate? Another nightmare.

That at least is the analysis of Eric Singer of Congressional Effect Fund, a new mutual fund. As noted in an earlier column, Singer got into the index business after he found that the Standard & Poor's 500 Index performs two or three times better when Congress is out of session than when at least one of the two chambers is at work.

That difference, Singer discovered, wasn't because of political party -- a laboring Republican Congress was also problematic. The poor performance, rather, reflects market anxiety that the House and Senate generate when they pass a new regulation or revise laws already on the books. Simple congressional workday chatter about possible changes is also negative, according to the Singer data.

``Even talk is not cheap,'' he says.

This past August, with Congress safely on holiday, markets were still weird. That set Singer to wondering anew.

He noted that there were years, such as 1998, in the middle of Congress's Republican reassertion, when markets did great even when lawmakers were at their posts.

Combing his data back to 1965, Singer found a second trend. A split Washington, in which at least one of the two chambers is led by a party other than the president's, points to a better total return for the S&P 500 than a unified Washington in which the presidency, House and Senate are controlled by one party.

Clinton Constrained

Having Democrat Bill Clinton in the White House in 1998 constrained congressional Republicans, or the other way around.

Singer found that the average annual total return for the S&P 500 when Washington is a one-party town is 9.4 percent. The average performance for the index when Washington is split is 10.6 percent.

The distinction becomes clearer when you adjust for inflation. Singer used the annual average of the daily gold price as a deflator rather than a year-over-year number because he wanted to screen for the volatility of commodities. Singer found that in periods of a unified Washington, the S&P 500 averages real losses of 7.8 percent. A split Washington, by contrast, racks up a real gain averaging 8.7 percent. That 16- plus point spread is the quantification of the peril of a powerful Washington.

These numbers also suggest that inflation tends to be worse in unified years. This makes sense -- when Washington is mightier, one fashion in which it uses its power is minting money, consequences be damned. A Federal Reserve chairman who must report to only one party, instead of two, has fewer rounds to make when he seeks support for the Fed's actions.

Drama Days

The Singer method also captures the drama of 1980. Washington was all Democratic, though it was clear even in the spring that Ronald Reagan might win the presidency.

The market reacted by rising in anticipation of a change. The price of gold reacted by falling late in the year. One might argue that this reflected the market's faith that Reagan would spend less than President Jimmy Carter. But the change in gold prices may also have been the result of political division within the Democratic Party.

The new Fed chairman, Paul Volcker -- a Democrat who today is advising Senator Barack Obama in the race for president against John McCain -- started applying the brakes at the Fed. By exercising monetary restraint, a trait identified at the time with the Republican Party, Volcker -- with backing from Carter - - provided a counterweight to free spenders of either party.

Hurting Returns

An all-Republican Washington can hurt real total returns, too. In 2005, the S&P gain of 4.9 percent was more than erased by the 8.5 percent increase in the price of gold. In 2006, gold was up about 36 percent but the S&P climbed only 16 percent, a net 20 percent loss.

The scholars who look at this sort of thing all have slightly different takes on it. Some quibble, for example, with Singer's choice of gold as a measure of inflation. But recent events confirm the validity of the gold meter. The consumer price index shows an increase of only 2.5 percent between December 2005 and December 2006 -- quite a contrast with that 36 percent increase in gold for the year. Today's markets suggest that gold did a better job than the CPI of predicting bubbles.

In Singer's data we see early discounting for this year's stock price collapse.

It's been said of numbers that if you torture them enough they will admit to anything. This year Congress and the White House were held by different parties, and we still managed to have our historic crash.

Getting Ready

Markets, which don't care whose campaign they ruin, may also be bracing for an all-Democratic Washington. Consumers may also be spending less not only because of the market turmoil but also because they believe a government dominated by Democrats may, in the future, allow them to keep less of their earnings.

This would fit in with the late Milton Friedman's permanent-income hypothesis. Singer is now studying market performance when a single party holds not only the White House and Congress, but also a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. With each passing day that, too, looks like a number worth crunching.

(Amity Shlaes, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of ``The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,'' is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=ajqlZ8OwW6rY
 
Recovering from bear markets

Recovering from bear markets
Commentary: Analogies to the Great Depression are needlessly scary
By Mark Hulbert, MarketWatch
Last update: 10:36 p.m. EDT Oct. 28, 2008

ANNANDALE, Va. (MarketWatch) -- The 800-pound gorilla in the room during discussions of the current bear market is the Great Depression.

Even days like Tuesday can't completely scare that gorilla away. The Dow Jones Industrial Average may have been up big, by 889 points in fact, turning in the sixth-biggest daily gain in Dow history. But four of the five days with even bigger percentage gains came between 1929 and 1932.

It's easy to see why investors would want to avoid drawing any lessons from that era: Unlike other bear markets in U.S. history, from which the stock market tended to quickly recover, it apparently took more than two decades for the stock market to recover what it lost between 1929 and 1933.

In fact, it wasn't until Nov. 23, 1954, that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above the level at which it closed on Sept. 3, 1929. That's more than 25 years.

If the recovery from the last year's bear market were to take the same length of time, the Dow wouldn't again close above its all-time high from Oct. 9, 2007, of 14,164.53 until - you'd better sit down - Dec. 28, 2032.

That sure is an 800-pound gorilla.

I nevertheless think investors are needlessly scared. A proper read of history shows that it took the stock market far less time to recover than the Dow data suggest.

In fact, according to a chart published in "Stocks For The Long Run," the classic book by Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel, the inflation-adjusted total return index of the U.S. stock market was higher by 1936 or 1937 than it was at its pre-crash peak in 1929. That was just three or four years after the end of the 1929-1933 bear market, and less than eight years after the market's 1929 pre-crash peak?

Why the big difference?

The first big factor is dividends. The market's dividend yield was substantial during the 1930s. At the depths of the Great Depression, in fact, that yield was in the double digits Ignoring dividends, which is what investors unwittingly do when focusing on price alone, therefore introduces a significant pessimistic bias into any historical analysis.

Another factor is inflation. Or, to be more accurate, deflation. Believe it or not, the Consumer Price Index dropped by 27% between its 1929 peak and its low in 1933. A stock that dropped by less than this amount in nominal terms over this four-year period therefore actually turned a profit in inflation-adjusted terms.

Yet another reason why it took the Dow so long to surmount its 1929 peak: The decision in 1939 to delete International Business Machines from the average. It wasn't added back until years later. According to Norman Fosback, editor of Fosback's Fund Forecaster, the Dow would today be more than twice its quoted level had IBM not been removed from the Average in 1939.

The bottom line? A bear market of the magnitude of 1929-1933 would be undeniably scary. But it wouldn't be the end of the world either.

Maybe it's just an 80-pound gorilla.

Mark Hulbert is the founder of Hulbert Financial Digest in Annandale, Va. He has been tracking the advice of more than 160 financial newsletters since 1980.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...CF-15F1-48D1-9810-AB0FD25B9948}&dist=morenews
 
History shows Democratic sweep better for stocks

History shows Democratic sweep better for stocks
Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:40pm EDT
By Kristina Cooke - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. investors are worried about a combination of a Barack Obama administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress. But history shows that of the two likely election outcomes, that scenario is better for stocks.

Their tax rates may go up after a Democratic sweep, but experience shows their stock portfolios could give them more of a cushion than under the alternative: Republican John McCain in the White House with Democrats running Capitol Hill.

The Democrats look set to maintain control of Congress in the November 4 election and may well expand their grip on the legislative branch. Meanwhile, the latest Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll shows Obama with a 7-point lead over Republican McCain.

"From what I've heard, people on the Street are pretty concerned about an Obama victory because of their own taxes as well as the broader market," said Johnny Madrid, a trader at a major New York firm, who spoke on condition that his company not be named.

In the seven periods when Democrats had complete control of U.S. political power, the S&P 500 rose 14.7 percent on average while in the eight times a Republican was president and Democrats controlled Congress, the benchmark index rose 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by research firm Bespoke Investment Group, in Harrison, N.Y.

That goes against conventional wisdom that so-called "gridlock" is best for markets, a situation in which neither party can make sweeping policy changes that can upset markets.

That said, Bespoke's founders Justin Walters and Paul Hickey added that a Republican Congress and Democratic president -- highly unlikely this year -- would be the best- case scenario for stocks.

MAY THE BEST RECESSION FIGHTER WIN

Of course, history is not always the best guide for future performance, and many financial professionals are skeptical.

"You'd have an uncontested majority. You could see incredible structural changes and free markets do not respond well to that," said Tom Alexander, head of Alexander Trading, in Savannah, Georgia. "And Obama is a much more fiscally liberal individual."

Obama has said he would roll back some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in the longer term.

But managing the faltering U.S. economy will be the most pressing issue for the next president, analysts said, and given the backdrop of a record budget deficit, it is likely both candidates will have to postpone some of their policy proposals.

Kevin Caron, market strategist at Stifel, Nicolaus & Co in Florham Park, New Jersey, noted that both candidates voted in favor of the $700 billion financial sector bailout.

"You did not have one or the other break ranks and decide they wanted to do something radically different. We have already set a path for greater government intervention and it will continue in both Obama and McCain administrations," he said.

And this year, whoever is elected will be confronted with the realities of recession, and will likely be boxed in on taxes and spending, Caron added.

Carl Birkelbach, head of Birkelbach Management in Chicago, said Obama's proposal of a permanent tax cut for most Americans should "help the whole, the water should rise.

"What McCain said that bothered me," Birkelbach added, "was that he said he could put a freeze on spending. We have to spend to dodge the bullet of a depression.

"An Obama win would be better for stock markets. Our international prestige will start to gain again and what that will mean is a higher dollar, and that money will flow into the U.S," Birkelbach said.

Fred Dickson, market strategist at D.A. Davidson & Co in Lake Oswego, Oregon, believes the equity market has already priced in a change in political party leadership at the top and that the worst-case scenario for an already jumpy market could be no decision on election night.

"If it comes down to a few hundred votes, and it's not decided for days, that would really add to market volatility," Dickson said.

(Reporting by Kristina Cooke; Editing by Jan Paschal)

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE49T9HU20081030?sp=true
 
Can the Dow Go Lower? I Hope So

November 20, 2008, 10:55 am
Can the Dow Go Lower? I Hope So
Posted by WSJ Staff

Jason Zweig writes the Intelligent Investor column every Saturday for The Wall Street Journal.

Earlier this week, a friend who works on Wall Street told my wife, “I’m not as optimistic as Jason…but I like his columns.” The next day, as I passed my colleague Evan Newmark in the hallway, he joked, “There goes the last bull on Wall Street.”

Let’s get this straight, folks. I’m not an optimist or a bull, at least not the way most investors usually use those terms. I would not be a bit surprised if the stock market fell another 20% or so from here. But stocks are already on sale – and further markdowns are good news, not bad, for anyone who is not retired or about to be. Since most of us have many years of saving and investing ahead of us, it is in our best interests for the fire sale to last longer and for the discounts to get deeper. As risky assets keep getting cheaper, we get to buy them at prices low enough to take most of the risk out of the equation.

If the history of the financial markets and the psychology of investing have anything to teach us, it is that present emotion and future returns are inversely correlated. Today’s feelings of pain and fear are the building blocks for tomorrow’s wealth. Eras of good feeling are terrible times to buy stocks.

The corollary is that perceived risk and actual risk tend to be polar opposites. When did your house feel like the safest investment? Just as its appraised value hit an all-time high, of course. The Dow felt safe when it was at 14000, and it feels risky as hell now that it is clinging to the edge of 8000 with its fingernails. That’s perceived risk: low when prices go up, and high when prices go down.

You feel it in your guts and your bones. The pain of seeing every dollar you had in stocks get bashed down to 60 cents screams out to you that stocks have never been riskier.

But your perception of risk is a lousy indicator of the actual presence of risk. The Dow was vastly more dangerous at 14000 than it is around 8000. Most of the risk of holding stocks has been wrung out of them by their fall in price. Stocks could certainly go lower from here; more likely, it could take them many years to regain their former highs.
But so far as I’m concerned, those are reasons to be cheerful. I’m not a Pollyanna optimist; I guess I’m the Cassandra kind.

Warren Buffett described this inverted form of optimism in this classic passage in his 1997 report to Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholders:

How We Think About Market Fluctuations

A short quiz: If you plan to eat hamburgers throughout your life and are not a cattle producer, should you wish for higher or lower prices for beef? Likewise, if you are going to buy a car from time to time but are not an auto manufacturer, should you prefer higher or lower car prices? These questions, of course, answer themselves.

But now for the final exam: If you expect to be a net saver during the next five years, should you hope for a higher or lower stock market during that period? Many investors get this one wrong. Even though they are going to be net buyers of stocks for many years to come, they are elated when stock prices rise and depressed when they fall. In effect, they rejoice because prices have risen for the “hamburgers” they will soon be buying. This reaction makes no sense. Only those who will be sellers of equities in the near future should be happy at seeing stocks rise. Prospective purchasers should much prefer sinking prices.


So, if I am an optimist, it’s not because I see stocks rising any time soon. It’s because I have already seen them falling before our very eyes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wallet/2008/11/20/can-the-dow-go-lower-i-hope-so/
 
Its time for the financial industry to go the way of steam locomotives and the buggy whip. It cannot exist in the so called private sector without the aide of government $700 billion plus hand outs and corporate welfare. Every dollar that is so called invested is actual tax payer money. The sit-on-their-ass class that live off of dividends and capital gains with out creating anything tangible that the population at large can benefit from, which Paris Hilton and George W. Bush are proud members, are the biggest government lobbyists for bloated, bad decision making business incompetence every conceived. Wall Street needs to be out sourced to countries that will execute corporate criminals and play lower wages for the same job that over paid, lazy and non innovation is punished. Let economic Darwinism take is course!
 
Last edited:
Its time for the finical industry to go the way of steam locomotives and the buggy whip. It cannot exist in the so called private sector without the aide of government $700 billion plus hand outs and corporate welfare. Every dollar that is so called invested is actual tax payer money. The sit-on-their-ass class that live off of dividends and capital gains with out creating anything tangible that the population at large can benefit from, which Paris Hilton and George W. Bush are proud members, are the biggest government lobbyists for bloated, bad decision making business incompetence every conceived. Wall Street needs to be out sourced to countries that will execute corporate criminals and play lower wages for the same job that over paid, lazy and non innovation is punished. Let economic Darwinism take is course!

no offense but did your little brother write this? WTF :hmm:
 
Back
Top