Trader’s Narrative

I have a nagging feeling this week will be one to remember. Whether it will be the bulls or the bears that will look on it fondly, only time knows. Here is this week’s unforgettable sentiment recap:

Sentiment Surveys
According to the Investor’s Intelligence survey of newsletter editors, we already had a dearth of bullishness, but now we have historically low numbers: 31.1% to be precise. Since stock newsletter editors are usually an upbeat lot, this is actually the lowest since October 2002 and early 1995.

Not to be outdone, the AAII survey of retail investors is showing that this week, 59% of respondents are bearish. We’ve been here before; at the beginning of the year. Lets see if this time we can light a flame under this rocket.

CBOE Put Call Ratio
Although the VIX rose moderately, thanks to the panic caused by the Bear Stearns (BSC) debacle, the CBOE (equity only) put call ratio zoomed above 1.16 - and I thought last week’s four year high was special!

Hulbert Stock Newsletter Sentiment Index
Mark Hulbert tracks newsletters in general but he also has a sentiment measure based on a sub-set of stock newsletters which time the market. This HSNSI is usually a fantastic contrarian indicator since editors tend to en masse, lose all hope when the market is carving out a bottom. And they tend to be euphoric when the market is about to have the rug pulled from under it.

Although this sentiment measure has been negative for some time, it is now showing real fear. This week it reached -22.5% which means that the average timer is recommending their clients short this market with more than a fifth of their money.

The really bullish significance of this is that in contrast to now, the last time the market was at these levels in mid January, the market timing newsletters were quite nonchalantly looking over the precipice. The fact that they have now soiled their pants (sentiment wise) provides us with a higher probability that the double bottom will hold.

To find a lower sentiment reading from the Hulbert newsletter sentiment index, we’d have to go back all the way to 2005. More specifically, to early May and mid October, 2005 when the market made two important lows:

“Dumb” vs. “Smart” Money
These are two proprietary indicators from Jason Goepfert that amalgamate several sentiment and technical indicators. The “Dumb Money” indicator fell on Friday to 12.5% which means that to find it a friend, we would have to travel all the way back to early 1995 and August 1998. You remember the summer of 1998, right? when we were suffering through the Asian currency and LTCM crisis? …good times, good times.

According to Jason, the gap between the two indicators is also as wide as it has been since 1995 and 1998. Pull up some long term charts and you’ll see the significance of that.

Consumer Sentiment
Although it would usually make big headlines, the results of the Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers got buried amid the panic over Bear Stearns today. Consumer sentiment continued to decline to 70.5 - that’s the lowest reading in 16 years!

Like most sentiment measures, this one should also be taken with a spoonful of contrarianism: up is down, down is up. Which means that when consumers are most pessimistic, we have the best opportunity to go long. And when consumers are on average jumping for joy, we have to batten down the hatches.

News Headlines & Covers
Getting your umbrella out will do you no good. We have a torrential downpour of negative news and depressing headlines. To see what I mean, open any news website or newspaper. It is all doom and gloom. This or that hedge fund going belly-up, Bear Stearns pushing up the daisies, the mortgage market collapsing, the credit market in a spasms, consumer sentiment tunneling into the substrata, etc.

Even after the remarkable 90-90 up day we had on Tuesday, the majority are denying that it could potentially have any real bullish portent - although historical precedent says otherwise.

Here are a few recent covers from Business Week:

The US dollar has fallen to its long term support. And I do mean long term (see chart below).

Since the early 1990’s it has approached this level 5 other times. In all but one case, it has reacted by bouncing off support.

The exception was in 1992 when for a short time the index breached the 80 “line in the sand”. But it then bounced above and went on to rise much higher. A classic bear trap.

Right now we are still above 80. History is our guide but anything can happen in the markets. We could bounce higher, we could go lower or we could just sit here at these levels for a while.

What I’m going to be watching is sentiment. Keep a watchful eye for negative articles or even better headlines and cover stories about the dollar. Or about the debt held by China.

The best contrarian signal the longs could hope for would be a very negative cover story in a general interest magazine like Time or Newsweek. Maybe Business Week will pull through as it has so many times.

Since the dollar and gold are intricately linked, any bounce for the dollar here will be the final nail in the coffin for the gold sector. But then again, that massive consolidation in the Phili Gold index (HUI) could turn out to be a bull flag. I doubt it. But who knows.

Click to Enlarge Graph:

In poker, you have to know and watch for “tells”. These are habitual behaviours or reflexive actions of opponents. By watching for them you can know whether they are bluffing (or not). The same type of “tells” exist in the stock market.

As can be seen in the relative strength chart (see below) Apple (AAPL) has been one of the strongest stocks throughout this bull market. It shrugged off the March 2007 correction and kept on barrelling ahead. For me, AAPL is a “tell” for the current market.

All the smart and “hot” money has been trading it and riding it higher. And you can bet they will run for the exit at the first sign that the party is over. Which is why I watch Apple so closely. I’m seeing a confluence of things which gives me reason to believe that the ride may be over.

For one, the sentiment picture is just too bright. Take a look at this recent Economist magazine cover page. Although I’d prefer to see such a glowing cover story on a more general magazine like, say, Business Week, it still is a cover page. The last time I pointed out an Economist coverpage was the one they did for Goldman Sachs (GS). That one did a fine job of alerting GS longs to take profits and go home.

The other reason is the upcoming launch of the iPhone. As the old adage goes on Wall Street, Buy the rumour, sell the news. The closer we come to the June 29th launch of the much hyped iPhone, the higher the expectations. And the easier to fall short of them.

Also a bunch of technical indicators are signalling caution. For one, look at the lofty heights that Apple is trading relative to its long term (200 day) moving average. The last time it was at this level was in January 2006. And you know what happened then.

As well, if you draw trendlines on its chart, you’ll notice that for its latest upleg it has basically gone parabolic. Such a steep rise is simply not sustainable for more than a few weeks to a few months maximum.

Now, some may be looking at the relative strength and thinking that you should always buy strength. But its not that easy. It never is. The last time it peaked, relative strength also looked good. But that didn’t last. And if you notice, during that upleg it was also going parabolic.

Finally, today’s action seems ominous. It was a a wide range engulfing candlestick which took price down 3.5%. I had been meaning to write this post during the weekend but forgot. But even if you missed today’s move, there’s ample room to tighten stops on Apple.

I don’t think it is an automatic short here since it could very well go into a protracted range and work out its overbought condition. But if you’re long, I’d be very careful here.

Did you know that the magazine cover is a stealth sentiment measure?

It may strike you as a bit strange but it has an uncanny prescience. Well, in the sense that it can foretell the opposite of what is most likely to happen. The most famous one that is usually cited is the Business Week cover which screamed to the world: “Death of Equities” (August 13th 1979).

Probably for this most egregious gaffe, Business Week is singled out for the dubious distinction of having a cover ‘curse’. But other magazines have equal billing. The only condition is that the magazine must have a wide audience (think Time or Newsweek, not the Spokane Structural Engineer’s Quarterly). The reason is quite simple and it goes to the heart of contrarian thinking.

Magazines exist for one purpose. No, its not to inform you and to make you money. It’s to sell as many copies as possible. The editor uses a lot of tricks and ploys to accomplish this. Among the most powerful tool in his or her arsenal is the cover. It is after all the first impression that the product will make.

And you only get one chance to make a first impression. So you better make it good while you can.

So considering all that, imagine you’re the editor: would you go with a cover that is unfamiliar with the wider public? a cover that goes against the grain? one that takes an unpopular stance that goes against public perceptions?

Or would you try to carefully gauge the audience’s mood and pander to them?

That’s why the recent Economist cover (above) should send shivers down the backs of anyone who is long Goldman Sachs, or any of its peers in that sector. The accompanying cover story is a fawning one in which the great Wall Street institution is held up as an object of admiration. The truth is that Goldman Sachs is making more money by taking on more risk. Their nebulous disclosure may be confusing this simple concept to the good folks at the Economist. But you ignore the magazine cover curse at your peril.