SUMMARY - "PIG":
The Contrarian's View is published 11 times per year on a mostly-irregular schedule, and the views expressed are those of the author and editor, Nick Chase. Because nobody can predict the future, results of past suggestions or recommendations are no guarantee of future results. Material in this publication may be freely quoted provided proper attribution is given to its source. Subscription rate: Free on the Internet through the World-Wide Web service at Assumption College. Using your favorite Web-browsing program, Open URL http://nick.assumption.edu. Mailed paper subscriptions, one year for $39 to The Contrarian's View, 132 Moreland Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. There is a limit of 50 paid subscribers at one time; please check for availability before sending any money. Sorry, Visa and Mastercard are not available. Overseas subscription rate, U.S. $54. Unsolicited material sent to us by UPS or by courier other than the postal service is refused and returned to sender! Phone: (508) 757-2881
In other words, in virtually all areas (except visible stock-margin debt) the current bubble is twice or more the size of the 1928-29 bubble that preceded the Great Crash and Depression, and half again larger than the Japanese real-estate, stock market and cross-holdings bubble of the late 1980s.
Why did the Federal Reserve allow such a situation to occur when it can only end very badly? After all, we supposedly hire them to be public servants.... to manage the nation's money supply and the banking system for long-term stability and economic growth. Why do we now have to endure an incipient crash with the very real possibility it will be followed by a major depression?
There are two possible answers, I think: (1) Alan Greenspan is a jerk, because it happened during his watch, and he knows better; (2) the Federal Reserve has lost control of monetary growth.
In support of argument #1: Why didn't the man quit while he was ahead? He could have retired this summer (with luck, before the crash) and been revered as one of the great Fed chairmen of all time (because there are only a few of us who know better), along with William McChesney Martin and Paul Volcker. At the rate we're going, he'll be buried by the crash (poetic justice!) and wind up being one of the most vilified Fed chairmen. The only good reason he might have for not quitting at the peak of the bubble is that he thinks he can prevent the subsequent panic. (As I said, a jerk.)
In support of argument #2: The only significant increases in the monetary base.... the fuel for all of the broader measures of the money supply.... for the past year came in October and November of 1999, while the Fed was nervous about the outcome of Y2K, and during the past six weeks. I can understand the nervousness late last year, but why is there a goosing of the monetary base now, when the economy is white-hot and $30 billion per month of novice money is pouring into the stock market?
There are two possible answers, I think (didn't I just say that?), not mutually exclusive: (1) The divergence in credit spreads caused by a "flight to safety" by the pros has increased to the point where it is placing strains on the banking system, and the Fed is offering up liquidity to ease those strains.... in other words, the Fed is engaging in crash preparation; (2) Wall Street is manufacturing its own money.
David Tice (of the Prudent Bear Fund) and his associates have written extensively about the second possibility, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Within the banking system, the amount of money created is limited by bank reserve requirements and the discount rate, which the Fed has been inching up in quarter-point increments. But when the money reaches Wall Street, it can be multiplied through the use of derivatives with no reserve requirements, because Wall Street money outfits are not (necessarily) banks subject to reserve requirements. The amount of money "created" (actually, recirculated, its velocity is the key here) is limited only by the efficiency and cost of the derivatives. As the derivatives market broadens and new types of derivatives are created, and the cost of derivatives contracts declines through increased competition, Wall Street's "money supply" mushrooms..... it is "demand"-driven, "supply" is not a problem. In essence, Wall Street's "money multiplier" is near infinite.
Thus, thanks to the Wall Street institutions monetary growth is out of control, having escaped the clutches of the Fed. This means that the only hope Alan Greenspan has for bringing things under control is through the "back door", by increasing short-term rates to the point where consumers feel the pinch and will begin to cut back on their spending. Eventually Wall Street will notice and its money-creation will slow from lack of demand..... a hoped-for "soft landing".
Good luck, Alan. History is against you. Like tulips, assignats, and keiretsu holdings, the leverage offered by derivatives is a wondrous thing to behold on the upside, and pretty ugly on the downside when the bubble pops and the gears shift into reverse. Although individual bargains are now beginning to pop up, the prices of the stocks driving the averages tore loose from all moorings of value years ago. It is only bubble psychology that keeps these stock afloat. There is no previous instance in history where prices declined in an orderly way after bubbles of similar magnitude burst.
Wish I could tell you when.... by rights, this sucker should have popped three years ago. If you detect a bit of peevishness and impatience on my part, you're right. The Federal Reserve (and Federal government, generally) has kept this bubble inflated for far longer than what I would consider to be a "normal" lifespan of a bubble..... two or three years, four years max.... and it is affecting me personally.
As you know, my rule #1 for investing in stocks is: Don't overpay for the merchandise. When stocks are undervalued or fairly valued, they make a good long term investment. When they are overpriced, for the long term it pays to be in something else.... generally bonds or cash.... because, historically, the long-term rate of return on stocks is poor when they are bought at too-high prices. But this bubble has broken all the rules. Stocks reached 1929 levels of overvalue (80% of GDP) in 1993, at which point I elected the safety of cash in my (TIAA/CREF) retirement funds. Now the annual return on "cash" has been respectable for the past seven years.... generally, in excess of 5-1/2%, currently 7-3/4% in the TIAA regular retirement annuity.... and this compares favorably with the long-term rate of return of 9% to 11% for stocks, particularly when adjusting for risk. But the return pales in comparison to the 15%-plus returned by many large equity funds for the same period, as the money managers chased each others' momentum.
So, in 1993 I expected I would be in "cash" for a year or two, until we had a bear-market washout, then I could safely re-enter stocks (mutual funds) for a superior long-term return. This was the right thing to do through 1994, but in 1995, instead of the correction/bear progressing to a full-fledged bear market, we got the beginnings of the bubble.
So there I have been, in cash, waiting for the bubble to pop. We should have taken our lumps in 1997, with the Asian currency crisis.... but no, the Fed bailed out the system. In the fall of 1998, with the Russian bond default and near-failure of Long Term Capital Management, we should certainly have had a bear market.... but no, another bailout from the Feds. Each of these bailouts has delayed the correction and adjustment that "should" have taken place and has increased "moral hazard" to totally unacceptable levels, as investors have become convinced that the Federal Reserve has the will (and the clout) to bail us out of any financially-ugly situation.
Seven long years, I've been waiting. And I am sure that the Fed will fight any incipient future crash to the death, which is why I expect violent swings of thousands of points until the bubble psychology finally breaks for good, the Federal Reserve fails in its efforts, and we get a vicious bear market.
The bummer is: We've had such an outrageous credit bubble, I find it hard to believe that when it finally pops we won't see serious and prolonged damage to the economy. That means, at best, a situation similar to Japan in the 1990s.... a decade-long bear market, with perhaps a 20-year wait before stocks exceed their bubble highs. And it could be worse.... like the 1930s.
So, after missing out on five years of above-average (bubble) returns, I may be stuck with another decade of investment returns below the long-term historical average, just because our government "of the people" has unnaturally prolonged the credit expansion.
In 1993, my retirement was a "distant object", a time so far in the future that there certainly would be at least one more opportunity to safely buy into stock mutual funds before I retired. Today, my retirement is close enough to actually think about it once in awhile and to do a little advance planning. And all this time, stocks have ranged from overvalued to ridiculously overvalued to obscenely overvalued, with no safe entry point. And the future promises even more time away from stocks as we wind through a multiyear bear. (When the hidebound TIAA/CREF organization offers a bear fund, or maybe a precious-metals fund, you will know it's time to get back into stocks.)
It's as if the government forces everybody to play the bubble, attempting to bail out near the top to avoid the deluge that will follow, in order to have an adequate long-term rate of return. I've always felt it's better to sit out bubbles and be in stocks only when it's "safe", as defined by historical parameters. But the government may have screwed things up so badly that this "rule" may no longer work. They shaft those of us who try to play it safe, by keeping us in cash for far too long as they force-feed the bubble to gargantuan proportions, then by keeping us in cash even longer during the painful adjustment. And they screw those people who "stay in stocks for the long term" by encouraging them to buy stocks when they're so overpriced that they will decline to half or less of their cost during the next decade. It may take a 20-year window to demonstrate who will come out ahead, me or the "buy-at-any-price-and hold-forever" gurus. I hope I live that long.
The government-supported bubble has grown to such a ridiculous size that I am concerned, when the derivatives leverage goes into reverse, the collapse may come with such rapidity that it will damage what in normal times would be considered perfectly safe investments, such as money-market funds. If you think there will be yelling and screaming when the NASDAQ average collapses, or when the Dow takes a big hit, that's nothing compared to the gnashing of teeth that would occur if a significant number of supposedly-safe money-market funds "break the buck".
At one time, money-markets bought mostly short term corporate paper from manufacturing and service firms. It would take quite a blow to the economy for such companies to run into financial difficulty and be unable to redeem their very-short-term paper. Today, many money-market funds are loaded up with paper whose origin is Wall Street itself. If your money market fund has a large percentage of short-term paper based on "receivables" (that is, other debt) or on "repurchase agreements" from Wall Street firms or others whose financial health is tied directly to stock-market performance, you might want to consider seeking out something safer.
My own choice would be a U.S. Treasury-only money-market fund. When derivatives pose a risk to the health of your money, 'tis best to "invest" in the people who own the printing press. This is not a choice available to me in my TIAA/CREF retirement funds, so I have done the best with what they offer. In my supplemental plan, I can switch into and out of the TIAA annuity as if it were a money-market fund. It currently yields 7.25% in the SRA and is backed by the insurance company, so this is a safe, high yielding alternative.
In the regular retirement account, once you switch into the TIAA annuity (which currently yields 7.75% in the RA), you're stuck there; you can subsequently transfer your funds elsewhere only in staged withdrawals over a 10-year period. Stupid rule, don't ask me why they still have it, ask them. So the safest alternative is the inflation-indexed bond fund, which is over 90% invested in U.S. Treasuries. This is a terrible investment, because the Feds cook the inflation numbers to their advantage, so the return is only 3% per year. I might as well be sitting on piles of dollar bills.... but there I will stay until the risk of money-market-fund loss due to a derivatives collapse diminishes.
A derivatives collapse might also damage mutual
funds whose investment strategies rely heavily on
derivatives, such as Rydex Ursa. (A derivative is
worthless if you can't collect at settlement time,
which could happen in a systemic failure.) If you're
planning to short the market through funds, a better
alternative might be Prudent Bear, which sells short
the stocks of individual companies.
There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. - John Maynard Keynes
Irredeemable paper money has almost invariably proved a curse to the country employing it. - Irving Fisher
[O]ur financial system has been transformed from a capital-raising mechanism into a kind of chain letter and wealth transfer mechanism. Options-exercising executives, venture capitalists, underwriters, brokers, favored customers, and deal-makers are extracting enormous sums of real wealth and value from naive investors who are accepting corporate financial reports and Wall Street hype at face value. I don't know when it will all end, but I think it's both dangerous and disgraceful. There comes a time when sustaining the bubble should be a secondary goal of the Federal Reserve and others. Preventing public pillage should be the primary concern. We are long past that point! - Wayne Crimi
Most fund managers are well aware that the market has gone bananas. What they do not and cannot know is when the madness will end. If they are going to stand out for sanity they must have stalwart clients who will back their judgment even if the result is poor performance over a number of years. Unfortunately, such clients are rare. - Andrew Smithers
[K]keep your eye on the dollar. When its long bull cycle ends, so will the confidence that has enabled the creation of tens of trillions of dollars worth of leveraged financial assets around the world. When those gaseous, mostly undercollateralized assets begin to implode because of some disturbing event that no one can predict, the deleveraging process will overwhelm the Federal Reserve. The problem will be two zeros bigger than anything the world's central banks have ever attempted to inflate their way out of. - Rick Ackerman
It's no longer a question of the shoeshine boy having a hot stock tip. These days, the shoeshine boy has a Web site of his own - spit-and-polish.com - and a seven-figure venture deal with Kleiner Perkins. - Rick Ackerman
In our topsy-turvy world, those who are working are starving, and those whose work is creating an imaginary money with no effort or risk are growing fat and powerful. - Paul Hein
Americans must put a stop to this gun-control frenzy, once and for all. It's not about gun control at all. It's about people control. Once you have laid down your arms, you have laid down your freedom. It's that simple. - Joseph Farah
Even while he worked at the New Yorker, Sidney [Blumenthal] was Hillary's boy. It was she who pestered me to involve Sidney in the campaign and she who constantly mouthed what I knew Sidney had said to her the day before. The negative food chain ran from Hillary to Sidney to Blumenthal's journalistic friends and former colleagues. - Dick Morris
The White House response throughout the e-mail scandal has been to claim incompetence. Incompetence is clearly the only innocent reason for the claim that it will take at least six months (or until after the November election) to search the email from backup tapes. Every computer-literate person who handles backups and searching knows that it is a matter of days, not months, to restore files from a backup tape and then search them for key words, regardless of format or size. Congress has received calls from numerous computer technicians offering to do the job for free in a matter of days. The White House has found a contractor who is willing to spend at least six months doing the job. - Marvin Lee
We're not sure how many times it takes before you officially become a crook, but we're sure Bill Clinton is
there. On Wednesday [March 29], federal judge Royce Lamberth said the President of the United States is a
man who breaks the law. After former White House volunteer Kathleen Willey went public in 1998 about
Clinton's manhandling of her breasts and forcing her hand on his genitals, Clinton tried to discredit her by
releasing letters from her that he claimed proved it didn't happen. Before releasing the letters, Clinton and his
White House cronies were "aware that they were subject to the Privacy Act, and yet they chose to violate its
provisions," Lamberth said in his ruling. Which means the Prez is a crook.... Even worse, this is the second
time he's been called a crook by a federal judge.Last year, another judge cited Clinton for contempt for lying
in a court deposition. For normal people, that's called perjury. - Doug Thompson
Anyway, looks like the pollies were right. None of these problems happened. Rail is running perfectly. No
problems with trains, no derailments, collisions, or missing freight. Planes aren't snarled, grounded in
Australia, crashing other places. - Cory Hamasaki
Alan Greenspan certainly seems reluctant to provide the bubble-popping pin. These niggardly (no, that is not a racial epithet) quarter-point interest-rate increases are not yet sufficient to kill off the bubblehead mentality that's infected Wall Street. And Greenspan has, so far, declined to do anything meaningful that might "send a message" to the Street, like raising margin requirements for stock purchases. (I can remember, circa 1972, the Fed of the time raising the margin requirement to 100%.... that is, no further use of margin allowed at all.... to dampen rampant speculation.)
On the other hand, the rising pressure on short-term rates is, at tortoise speed, turning the monetary environment increasingly negative. This shows itself as an increasing spread between "safe" government securities and riskier corporate and Street paper. It also makes short-term near-cash investments look quite attractive in comparison to a greatly-overinflated price level and minuscule dividend return for stocks.
Eventually, from an as-yet-unknown trigger, something will snap. As volatility (wide swings, with "hot money" sloshing from one stock fad to the next) increases, and stocks swing hundreds of points per day for both the DJIA and NASDAQ averages, we may see an occasional whiff of panic. Then the panic will be more than just a whiff, as thousand-point declines descend on us.
Then we'll see how much clout the Federal Reserve has to reflate a stock market that has crashed in an old-fashioned panic. I expect them to be successful at least one or two times, but I offer no guarantees.
When, oh when?, you cry out. Darned if I know.... things are currently so strung out, it should have happened by now. Could come anytime. My "gut feel" says it's likely to happen before summer.
In the meantime, until the dust settles, I recommend
maximum safety for your wealth.
Original cost (adjusted): $ 4,998.21
Present value: $ 3,799.92
Increase: $-1,198.29 [-23.97%]
The performance of this portfolio and its predecessors ("Hedger's Delight", "Present and Future Income", "Crapshooter's Folly") from January 1987 to the present is -13.79%, for a compound annual rate of return of -1.11%. COMMENT on "Phoenix": There is no change from the February issue.
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG":
Original cost: $ 9,024.00
Present value: $15,246.94
Increase: $ 6,222.94 [+68.96%]
COMMENT on "PIG": There is no change from the last issue.
The PIGs' Web page is at http://www.assumption.edu/HTML/Faculty/Kantar/WPigs.html
C. Roth rollover IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $ 9,970.47
Increase: $ 1,644.28 [+19.75]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors)
from January 1, 1987 to the present is -9.09%, for a compound
annual rate of return of -0.71%.
D. CREF Pension plan; I switch between indexed stock/bond/money funds:
Date Sold Bought
13Mar1992 stock @ 56.65 MM @ 13.41
29Apr1992 MM @ 13.48 bond @ 31.19
19Jun1992 bond @ 32.14 MM @ 13.55
29Jun1992 MM @ 13.57 stock @ 56.74
24Jul1992 stock @ 56.76 MM @ 13.61
29Oct1992 MM @ 13.72 stock @ 58.61
23Dec1992 stock @ 61.48 MM @ 13.78
16Jan1995 MM @ 14.83 equity-index @ 26.44
20Jan1995 eq-index @ 26.19 MM @ 14.84
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 bond@47.56 (27.17%)
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 i-i bond@26.12 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 bond@ 48.84 MM@17.52 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 I-I bond@ 26.23 MM@17.52(27.17%)
16Jun1998 MM@ 17.84 TIAA Traditional (45.87%)
23Sep1999 MM@18.99 I-I bond@27.56 (53.32%)
Values, 31Mar2000: stock, 213.37; MM, 19.54; bond, 52.86; inflation-indexed bond, 28.82;
TIAA current yield in SRA, 7.25%
Gain, 1988: 18.91%; 1989: 14.48%; 1990: 8.28%; 1991: 27.93%; 1992: 10.20%; 1993: 3.08%; 1994: 4.07%; 1995: 4.80%; 1996: 5.28%; 1997: 5.38%; 1998: 5.72%
Gain, January 1 through September 30, 1999: 4.129% (5.52%
annual rate of return)
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (11.75 years): 185.35%
Compound annual rate of return: 9.33% (My long-term target: in excess of 15%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained
472.60%, for a compound annual rate of return of 16.02%.
COMMENT on "Timer's Trend":
Yes, we're still on the July 20 (1999) SELL signal.
______________________________ TIMER'S TREND _________________________________ Mon 22 Nov 99 #. I . |11089.52 | - * Tue 23 Nov 99 # . I . |10995.63 | .- * Wed 24 Nov 99 # I . |11008.17 | . - * Fri 26 Nov 99 .# I . |10998.91 | . - * Mon 29 Nov 99 # . I . |10947.92 | . - * Tue 30 Nov 99 #. I . |10877.81 | . - * Wed 1 Dec 99 # I . |10998.39 | . - * Thu 2 Dec 99 # I . |11039.06 | . - * Fri 3 Dec 99 . & . |11286.18 | .- * Mon 6 Dec 99 # I . |11225.01 | .- * Tue 7 Dec 99 # . I . |11106.65 | .- * Wed 8 Dec 99 #. I . |11068.12 | .- * Thu 9 Dec 99 #. I . |11134.79 | . - * Fri 10 Dec 99 .# I . |11224.70 | . - * Mon 13 Dec 99 #. I . |11192.59 | . - * Tue 14 Dec 99 # . I . |11160.17 | . - * Wed 15 Dec 99 #. I . |11225.32 | . - * Thu 16 Dec 99 #. I . |11244.89 | . - * Fri 17 Dec 99 # I . |11257.43 | . - * Mon 20 Dec 99 #. I . |11144.27 | . - * Tue 21 Dec 99 .# I . |11200.54 | . - * Wed 22 Dec 99 # I . |11203.60 | . - * Thu 23 Dec 99 . I# . |11405.76 | .- * Mon 27 Dec 99 # I . |11391.08 | .- * Tue 28 Dec 99 # I . |11476.71 |~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Wed 29 Dec 99 . & . |11484.66 | - * Thu 30 Dec 99 . & . |11452.86 |-. * Fri 31 Dec 99 . | #. |11497.12 |-. * Mon 3 Jan 00 .# I . |11357.51 |-. * Tue 4 Jan 00 # . I . |10997.93 |~-*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wed 5 Jan 00 # I . |11122.65 | - * Thu 6 Jan 00 . & . |11253.26 | - * Fri 7 Jan 00 . | # |11522.56 | - * Mon 10 Jan 00 . | #. |11572.20 |-. * Tue 11 Jan 00 .# | . |11511.08 + . * Wed 12 Jan 00 .# I . |11551.10 + . * Thu 13 Jan 00 . | # |11582.43 +~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Fri 14 Jan 00 . | # |11722.98 + . * Tue 18 Jan 00 . # . |11560.72 + . * Wed 19 Jan 00 . & . |11489.36 + . * Thu 20 Jan 00 .# I . |11351.30 + . * Fri 21 Jan 00 . #I . |11251.71 + . * Mon 24 Jan 00 # I . |11008.17 |*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tue 25 Jan 00 #. I . |11029.89 | - * Wed 26 Jan 00 .# I . |11032.99 | .- * Thu 27 Jan 00 .# I . |11028.02 | .- * Fri 28 Jan 00 # . I . |10738.87 | . - * Mon 31 Jan 00 # I . |10940.53 | . - * Tue 1 Feb 00 .# I . |11041.05 | . - * Wed 2 Feb 00 .# I . |11003.20 | . - * Thu 3 Feb 00 . & . |11013.44 | .- * Fri 4 Feb 00 . #I . |10963.80 | - * Mon 7 Feb 00 .# I . |10905.79 | - * Tue 8 Feb 00 . I# . |10957.60 |-. * Wed 9 Feb 00 #. I . |10699.16 | - * Thu 10 Feb 00 # I . |10643.63 |~-~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fri 11 Feb 00 # . I . |10425.21 | .- * Mon 14 Feb 00 #. I . |10519.84 | .- * Tue 15 Feb 00 . #I . |10718.09 | . - * Wed 16 Feb 00 # I . |10561.41 | . - * Thu 17 Feb 00 .# I . |10514.57 | .- * Fri 18 Feb 00 # . I . |10219.52 |~.*-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tue 22 Feb 00 # I . |10304.84 | . - * Wed 23 Feb 00 #. I . |10225.73 | . - * Thu 24 Feb 00 # . I . |10092.63 | . - * Fri 25 Feb 00 # . I . | 9862.12 |~.~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mon 28 Feb 00 .# I . |10038.65 | . - * Tue 29 Feb 00 . & . |10128.31 | . - Wed 1 Mar 00 . I# . |10137.93 | .- * Thu 2 Mar 00 . #I . |10164.92 | - * Fri 3 Mar 00 . I# . |10367.20 |-. * Mon 6 Mar 00 .# I . |10170.50 |-. * Tue 7 Mar 00 # . I . | 9796.03 | - * Wed 8 Mar 00 # I . | 9856.53 | - * Thu 9 Mar 00 . & . |10010.73 | - * Fri 10 Mar 00 .# I . | 9928.82 | .- * Mon 13 Mar 00 #. I . | 9947.13 | .- * Tue 14 Mar 00 #. I . | 9811.24 | .- * Wed 15 Mar 00 . #I . |10131.41 | .- * Thu 16 Mar 00 . I .# |10630.60 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Fri 17 Mar 00 . & . |10595.23 |-. * Mon 20 Mar 00 . & . |10680.24 |-. * Tue 21 Mar 00 . I #. |10907.34 |+. * Wed 22 Mar 00 . | #. |10866.70 |+. * Thu 23 Mar 00 . | .# |11119.86 |+. * Fri 24 Mar 00 . | #. |11112.72 | + * Mon 27 Mar 00 . |# . |11025.85 | + * Tue 28 Mar 00 . #I . |10936.11 |+. * Wed 29 Mar 00 . # . |11018.72 |+. * Thu 30 Mar 00 . |# . |10980.25 + . * Fri 31 Mar 00 . | #. |10921.92 + . * ========================================================================"Timer's Trend" is based on 4% and 10% exponential moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange advance/decline line (that is, the ratio of advancing to declining stocks). There are many symbols shown above, but the ones that count are the braces: {, } = "Timer's Trend" (4% exponential confirmed by 10% exponential) SELL ({) or BUY(}) signal.
NEXT ISSUE - will appear about April 30. /Nick Chase