Either Bernanke has his head in the sand or I have my head up my a**
Steve Cook on Disciplined Investing


Have You Seen This?


  • Make money by accessing all our Portfolios, the supporting research and Price Disciplines using our paid subscription blog, Strategic Stock Invetments. Our work is focused on making money for our Portfolios not as some academic exercise in Internet investing. Check our performance (audited)--our Dividend Growth Portfolio has beaten the S&P by 500 basis points per year for the last seven years but with a beta of only .62. (Mandatory Disclaimer: past performance is not a guarantee of future results.) We give you everything you need to duplicate our results, in particular, a strict price discipline for both Buying and Selling.

Have You Seen This?

The Market

    The indices (DJIA 12062, S&P 1307) had another good day, staying well within both their intermediate term up trend (11238-14768, 1180-1615) and their short term up trend (11686-12606, 1275-1382).  While the S&P is nearing its 1311 resistance level, it has yet to attempt a breach.  On the other hand, the Dow blasted through its comparable resistance at 11811.  If the S&P can penetrate and hold above 1311 that would be yet another measure of the current underlying strength in the Market.  However, if the DJIA were to fall back below 11811, it could be an early signal of a correction.

    Volume was unimpressive; breadth failed to improve though the flow of funds did.  The VIX declined.  It is important to note that it remains above the lower boundary of its recent trading range, meaning it shows no signs of returning to the levels of 2006/2007.

    Gold (GLD) spiked on news of Newmont Mining buying Fronteer Gold and Bernanke’s ostrich imitation on inflation.  In doing so, it broke through a very short term down trend off the last month’s high and closed right on the lower boundary of the former intermediate up trend.  A firm move above the aforementioned boundary would tempt me to begin re-building our GLD position.

    Bottom line: I have beaten ‘the Market is strong and I am wrong’ theme to death; and I am about to be more wrong because several more stocks are fractions away from hitting their Sell Half Prices. 

(1)    this week continues to dish up great economic numbers: weekly jobless claims fell more than anticipated, fourth quarter productivity, December factory orders and the January ISM nonmanufacturing index all came in above expectations.  We should all be delighted by this data.  But it is merely an offset to the lousy stats recorded in January and not a reason to get jiggy about rip, roaring economic growth in 2011,

(2)    Cairo is still burning [protests in Egypt were joined by those in Yemen yesterday, Jordan gets its turn today and Syria tomorrow--nothing could go wrong here, right?], the Bern-anke is still fiddling [in a speech followed by a Q&A session, Bernanke said that inflation is not a problem and QE2,3,4 could go on forever--OK, he didn’t say that, he just implied it], Jean Claude Trichet hinted that maybe EU fiscal/monetary policies wouldn’t be quite as hawkish on inflation as he suggested less than a month [the euro nosedived] and the Market couldn’t care less. 

Here is Bernanke’s speech (medium);

    Bottom line: the economic data this week adds to my confidence that the risk of a ‘double dip’ is diminishing; however, it in no way suggests that the US economy is heading back to its historical rate of secular growth.  Still  a lower probability of another recession is a positive.

 On the other hand, I can’t get my head around:

(1)    how investors can ignore the risks associated with the political change sweeping in the Middle East?  It is not that there can’t be positive outcomes; it is just the history suggests there is a reasonable likelihood of some negative consequences.  And when you are talking about a part of the world that sits on one quarter of the planet’s energy reserves, is home to a radical, violent theology and has access to nuclear weapons, how can you justify chasing stock prices higher after they have already appreciated 90%+ in the last 20 months?

The latest from STRATFOR on Egypt (medium and today’s must read):

(2)    how Bernanke and the Market can dismiss the signs of inflationary pressures that now dominate the headlines globally is a mystery to me.  My thesis has been that the Fed would err as it always has on staying too loose too long.  The headlines are shouting that has already happened; and what is worse, given Bernanke’s statements yesterday, the deluge of money pouring into the financial system isn’t going to stop anytime soon which suggests that the next round of asset bubbles will be even worse than what we just live through.

I am becoming a less happy and less optimistic dude.  I am holding out hope that the newly elected house will do something (‘do’ being the operative word) that will at least lead to an improvement in domestic fiscal policies.  But something needs to change and soon or my already below average economic forecast will become even more so.

    The latest from David Rosenberg (medium):

     Thoughts on Investing--from the Pragmatic Capitalist

As markets  have evolved over time and financial theories have progressed humans have become increasingly confident in the systems we create and the world we live in.  Entire generations of investors have become convinced that markets are stable and efficient.  We have come to believe that computer models can accurately predict markets.  On the contrary I believe most of the systems we create are highly complex, inefficient and chaotic.  The markets are one of the last refuges of natural selection (see here):

“The investment world is the civilized version of natural selection.  It cuts to the core of every emotion imaginable.  When Joe Schmo goes to work for 25 years straight in an attempt to create a better life for his family and suddenly sees his life’s savings going down the tube because Lehman Bros went bankrupt you can’t possibly expect him to react rationally in such an environment.  This is no different than the man whose family is attacked in the middle of the night.  Do you expect that man to react rationally when everything he lives for is suddenly in harms way?  Do human beings make rational and efficient decisions in chaotic scenarios?  Even more important, will 1 million humans working in tandem make efficient decisions all within the same system?  No, the majority of them will make highly inefficient decisions.  “Mistakes” as we like to call them.   We all make them.

If we have learned anything over the course of the greatest mean reversion in stock market history over the last 24 months it is that markets are HIGHLY inefficient.  Why?  Because the humans that write the algorithms are using flawed theories and the emotions upon which these trades are placed are not psychologically efficient.”

Despite our evolutionary leaps and bounds I believe we are not so far removed from our animal brethren when it comes to survival instincts. When confronted with complex decisions we make mistakes, we panic, we turn to our animal instincts which scream: SURVIVE AT ANY COST.  And nowhere is this more apparent than it is in the most complex facets of our lives.  Markets are highly complex systems and have become directly tied to important facets of our lives.  In many regards it is the last place most human beings should be residing.  We are simply not built to deal with such a complex system.  Despite our evolutionary progression our survival instincts remain quite primitive.

In an excellent TED video Laurie Santos, a Professor of Psychology at Yale, studies the actions of a simple economy using monkeys and discovers that we are far less sophisticated than we think.  This is fascinating on so many different levels.  Santos begins by teaching the monkeys how to use a currency to trade for food.  She goes on to create a monkey marketplace where the monkeys can exchange coins for food.  Her findings are intriguing.  She finds that the monkeys don’t like to save.  They often steal from one another and from the market salesman.  They display greedy tendencies.  Sound familiar?

She continues by performing a simple experiment to prove just how irrational humans can be and how our natural instincts can drive us to make irrational decisions when confronted with a complex situation that impacts survival.  Pretend you have $1,000.  You have two options.  In option 1 you can you flip a coin: heads you win $1,000 more, tails you win $0. In option 2 you are given a risk free $500 – a 50% risk free return.  According to Santos most people will choose option 2.
In the second experiment she gives you $2,000 and offers you two ways to lose that money .  In option 1 you again flip a coin.  Heads you risk losing $1,000.  Tails you lose $0.  In option 2 you can play it safe and lose $500 with certainty.  Interestingly, most people choose to flip the coin taking more risk.
In game 1 you max out your gains at $2,000 if you flip the coin, but risk gaining nothing.  The risk free decision leaves you with $1,500.  In the second game you max out your gains at $2,000 if you flip the coin, but take the risk of losing 50% of your capital.  If you choose the risk free path in game 2 you again max out your gains at $1,500 just as you did in game 1.  So, the risk free result is the same no matter what, however, when it comes to the option of potentially losing money most people decide to take excessive risk by flipping the coin in game 2.  Santos found that the monkeys do the exact same thing!  Their survival instinct is to avoid losing something they already have, but in doing so they’re irrationally willing to take excessive risk.

So what’s going on here?  Why are we making a poor risk management decision here?  Santos says this is due to two biases.  The first is our instinct to think in relative terms.  We have a difficult time thinking in absolute terms.  The second bias is loss aversion.  Humans hate losing anything of value they have obtained.  So in a misguided attempt to save money we actually take MORE risk at times.  Sound familiar?  Ever held onto a stock just hoping to break even?   Still hanging onto that house you bought in 2006 because you’ve convinced yourself that the market is coming back (it’s not, by the way) and you’ll break even on it?  Yes, same exact thing.

Santos concludes that many of our biases that result in poor decisions are no different than the irrational survival related instincts that drive other animals’ decision making processes.  Therefore, many of these biases are inherent and very difficult to overcome.  But the most important takeaway here is her conclusion.  Santos concludes that the best way to overcome our limitations is the simple act of recognizing them.  Accept that you know less than you think you do.  Accept that you can and will be wrong.  Accept that you will make mistakes, learn from them and only then can you actually overcome them.  Humans are irrational, therefore markets are irrational, however, that doesn’t mean you have to be the one making irrational decisions.


   This Week’s Data

    December factory orders rose 0.2% versus expectations of a decline of 0.3%.

    The January Institute for Supply Management’s nonmanufacturing index came in at 59.4 versus estimates of 56.0 and December’s reading of 57.1.

    The International Council of Shopping Centers reported January sales of major retailers advanced 4.8%

    January nonfarm payrolls rose by 36,000 versus forecasts of a 140,000 increase; however, the unemployment rate fell to 9.0% versus expectations of 9.5%.  The poor payroll number is likely linked to weather, while the surprising unemployment rate is a function in the decline in the labor force.

    On the other hand, it appears that economists always overestimate January nonfarm payrolls:

    A different look at inflation (short):



The importance of politics in the current economic difficulties (medium):

  International War Against Radical Islam

    The latest from Victor Hanson (long):

Posted 02-04-2011 8:14 AM by Steve Cook