Trader’s Narrative

Here are some thoughts with my own conclusions at the end:

Ned Davis Research
A very respected institutional research house, Ned Davis’ company relies on 12 indicators covering sentiment, volume, volatility, and breadth. Right now ten are flashing a cyclical buy signal. But a unanimous result isn’t needed for it to be valid. For example, in the bear market bottom of 2002, only nine of Ned Davis Research’s indicators was indicating a buy. But they are not recommending to their institutional clients to start buying. They want to be patient and wait for a retest of the lows. If market internals are healthy on such a retest, then they would suggest going long.

Stock Market Cycle
There are patterns in the market’s history. But so far this year, the market has forged its own path. An election year should be a positive for market returns, especially in the later months of the year. But not this year.

The four year stock market cycle means that 2010 is the year to watch. But according to the decennial cycle, the 8th year in a decade has been good historically. Unless we have a miracle, this year will also be an exception. Here is the master of market cycles, Peter Eliades offering his views:

Credit Squeeze Relaxing
Both the TED spread and the LIBOR rate have receded. As well the price of “insurance” on default for banks has also dropped. There are mounting signs that we are seeing a thaw in the credit freeze that paralyzed the market. My only quibble is the short term rate (90 T-Bill rate) which continues to be pushed down. The bond market is telling the Fed to lower rates. Hopefully they will listen (unlike all the previous times) and get ahead of the situation rather than playing catch up.

Volatilitius Maximus
Volatility has been absolutely insane. There is no gentler way to put it. We’re seeing double digit (or close) moves in the market daily. It is both unnerving and exciting. And here I’m not just referring to the sky high VIX index but also to the breadth numbers which show extremes. The good news may be that such volatility has been historically associated with market bottoms. As I wrote two years ago, extremes in market breadth with the advance decline numbers swinging from one extreme to the other to gather “fuel” for a sustainable trend to be established:

Smart Money vs. Dumb Money
At every inflection point in the market, we witness the smart money and the dumb money do different things. This is how wealth is transferred from one group to the other after all. So far we’ve seen Warren Buffett extract very favorable terms with General Electric (GE) and Goldman Sachs (GS). Terms that the US government hasn’t gotten. That’s another issue though. Although you or I may not be able to negotiate the same terms, it is still valuable to watch what the smart money is doing.

Which reminds me of Tony Oz’s video where he called a bottom. Faced with a melt-up, he did what any smart trader would do, sell into the wave of buying.

Corporate insiders are also considered “smart money” and they have accelerated the rate of their purchases, pushing the buy-sell ratio to 2:1. This is very unusual because usually it is the other way around as insiders sell shares which are given to them as part of their compensation package. But caution is warranted because insiders are notorious for being early to the party - as much as one whole year.

The other end of this see saw is to watch the “dumb money”. I’ve gone into detail over the past sentiment overview regarding the public’s and retail investor’s pessimism during this crisis so I won’t rehash it here. Now that we are getting the first glimpses of the bulls returning, the most important aspect of contrarian sentiment comes into play; watching how the “dumb money” reacts to a recovery in the markets. If they continue to be fearful and pessimistic, even when the market recovers, then the chance that it is a real floor is much higher. But if they quickly switch sides, then we will see more downside.

Conclusion
My own hunch based on all of the above and more, is that this is a cyclical bottom. It is tradeable, and the volatility provides amazing short term opportunities for trigger happy traders but we are far from a secular bottom. You’ll know we’ve hit that when stocks and the whole equity culture of the US and the world changes. When people start outright hating stocks or even the thought of investing.

When everyone laughs at you or feels sorry for you for even hinting that it may be time get back in the stock market. When the valuation pendulum swings way to the other side and measures, whether based on price earnings or price dividend are so outlandishly extreme that you do a double take. That’s when you’ll know we’ve hit a secular bottom. One for generations.

Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, we had a successful IPO: Visa (V) went public yesterday and made history.

Not only was it a resounding success for the investment bankers in a very difficult time, it was also the biggest IPO ever at $18 billion. And it managed to jump +30% from its $44 per share pricing.

But perhaps it was because of the financial and credit market turmoil that Visa did so well. Unlike many financial companies it carries no consumer debt but instead relies on small commissions on transactions.

Leadership
Each bull market has its leaders. A few years ago, Google (GOOG) and Baidu (BIDU) debuted on the stock exchange and quickly became the darling of momentum investors. Now they both lie broken, not only below their long term moving averages but also with the sword of Democles” (overhead resistance) hanging persistently above price.

So, if we are in the painful process of putting in another bottom here, as I’ve endlessly argued for the past little while, it is wise to look for the next leadership that will breath new life into the “new” bull market.

If Visa does as well as its competitor, MasterCard (MA), I’ll be a happy camper.

IPO Market? What IPO Market?
So far this year, we’ve had only 22 IPOS. Last year, by this time, we had 47. That is a greater than 50% drop off in activity.

If you’ll recall, the IPO market has predictive abilities.

The other way that the IPO market can help us time the market, or at least understand where we are in terms of market cycles, is by being a contrarian indicator of sorts. A bountiful harvest of IPOs has almost always preceded dramatic and sustained market downturns while a barren IPO market has historically meant the opposite.

You wake up, you sleep. The sun rises, it sets. The seasons change. Cycles are part of life.

Since the stock market is just another human activity, it too has patterns and cycles. There are many different ones spanning the short term (daily ebb and flow of intra-day trading) to the very very long term (kondratiev or sometimes: Kondratieff waves). Previously I mentioned the four year cycle and showed a long term graph of its uncanny timing ability.

Since we are starting a new year, I wanted to take a look at the 10 year cycle. The graph below shows the relative performance of the stock market in the different years of the decade.

Years ending with 1 and 2 have the lowest returns; years ending with and 8 or a 9, the highest. I get the feeling we are divining the entrails of the market (with about as much scientific rigor) but from this historical view, 2008 has the wind to its back.

Here’s to another great profitable year!

Is it possible to time the market using a system that is so simple, it only requires you to be able to count up to four? Can we invest for the long term using a system that only requires a few minutes of our attention every four years?

Not only is it possible, such a system has beaten the pants off the pros in the long term. Being so amazingly successful, it has garnered a name: the four year stock market cycle.

Many theories have been put forth to try and explain it. Some say it is due to the presidential cycle, some that it is due to the business cycle, some to astrology or other esoteric phenomena. While the reasons are up for grabs the results are quite clear. And they are the sort that makes EMH proponents pull their hair out in frustration. How can something so simple, so replicable, and so consistent exist decade after decade?

While academics debate it, you can use it to boost your long-term investment account. All you need to do is to watch for a low every four years. The start year is important, so I’ll give it to you: 2006. From that year, you can go back and forward in four year increments. Those years will be (in the future) or were (in the past) great times to invest in the stock market. Or to add to an existing investment portfolio.

Take the previous cycle: 2006. That was the last intermediate low. Before that, in 2002 we had the trough of the multi-year bear that resulted from the popping of the internet mania. The one before that? 1998 which was the trough from the Asian currency contagion that shook financial markets. Keep going and you’ll see that the four year cycle marks great buying opportunities in an uncanny way.

Of course, it doesn’t have a perfect track record. But it is a damn good one. Out of the last 27 four year cycles, only 5 of them have not been great buying opportunities. They were 1946 (flat), 1930 (ouch!), 1910, 1906 and 1902. You can keep going back in time but my chart (below) stops there:

Click to enlarge graph

For extra mojo, we can combine the 4 year cycle with the annual cycle. That is, we can take the best month within the year (historically October) that coincides with the four year cycle. But remember, the four year cycle is only a guide. No individual occurence has to follow the script to the letter. All we are interested in is putting the odds in our favour as we have detected them from historical observation.

The following graph shows the decennial performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Think of it as putting the annual performance of every decade into a blender and mashing them together. We get a graph that shows the average performance of each year within a decade:

As you can see, year 4 has an unusual lift that the other years don’t. If you’re sharp, you’ll notice that years 7 and 8 also have some pretty good kick as well. This data is not showing the same thing as the four year cycle but it does present us with further proof that returns from the stock market are not random. If they were, then each year would show fairly similar performance.