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! ISSN 1536-4429 Phone: (508) 757-2881
Boy, has it gotten lonely lately. In the 1995-2000 stretch.... when I was unwilling to play the stock-market bubble because (a) I did not think the Fed would permit one to occur, and (b) if it did, I had no prior experience to guide me on when to get out before it popped.... I would regularly hear from people who (claimed they) were making 30% or more per year from stocks, and who ridiculed me for being so gun-shy at 5% in money-market funds. I also got plenty of commentary from bears who agreed with my assessment of the ridiculous historical overvaluation of stocks.
During the latter part of 2000 and early 2001, as my bearish expectations bore fruit, suddenly I was no longer hearing from those 30% bulls. Presumably, they had seen the paper profits in their portfolios shrink by 70% or so, reflecting the slow popping of the NASDAQ indexes. But I continued to hear from the bears, who cheered me on as stocks began to "regress to the mean".
When, part-way into 2001 I wrote that I felt the Fed would succeed in ameliorating the recession and in reflating the bubble to some degree, you would have thought that I, personally, had driven a dagger into the heart of every bear who reads The Contrarian's View. For example:
Subject: Another one bites the dust
"As far as I am concerned, the bear-market bottom was in the week after the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and we are now in a new bull market, though probably not a spectacular one because it has begun with stocks still historically overpriced. When will we see new highs in the Dow? Perhaps as early as the spring of 2002."
This is certainly the kind of stuff that I have come to expect on CNBC. Have you been watching too much CNBC, perhaps? Of course, like the "experts" on CNBC, you do not offer any reasons to back up your statements on your recent "Stock Market Outlook" posting.... Frankly, I see no compelling reasons that could possibly support your claim. Could this possibly be another "bear gone bad" call similar to Rick Ackermans' "Dow 15,000" or Don Hayes' more recent "Dow 12,500"? It would seem to be so.
I guess it is true what they say about bear market rallies. They are designed to fool as many people as possible and convince them that they are now in a bull market. Obviously, the bear market rally has made a bullish believer out of you, too. Oh, well. Another one bites the dust.
Bearishly yours, xxxxxxxx
My reply was:
Every bull market begins as a "bear-market rally". In a year's time, we'll see who was right.... I'm sympathetic to all who hold bearish views. History says we SHOULD be in an extended bear market, and we certainly would be if the Federal Reserve still exercised the discipline of the '50s and '60s, instead of printing money with abandon for every imagined crisis. But I have to go with the situation as it is, not as I'd like it to be.
Bullish indicators: Extreme easing by the Fed; future expectations component of consumer confidence rising; Coppock indicator (maintained by InvesTech) about to turn positive; improving advance/decline lines (as "Timer's Trend" reflects).
That didn't seem to do the trick, as this permabear's response demonstrates:
Let me address each one of your bullish reasons.
#1. Extreme easing by the Fed
While this trick has worked extremely well in the past, it will not work this time. The environment has changed considerably in the past three years. In the Autumn of 1998, the Fed pulled out all the liquidity stops in light of the LTCM fiasco. That sparked a 4,000+ point rally on the Dow which lasted for about fifteen months. Corporate earnings were certainly stronger then, and valuations were much lower. Debt levels were more reasonable. Bankruptcies were running at a much lower rate and layoffs were all but unheard of. Do you really believe that companies are laying off millions of workers with the expectation that they will turn around and rehire them six months from now? Hardly. Worse, the Help Wanted Index is sitting on a thirty-seven year low. Obviously, these laid-off workers are not finding new jobs. This is quite terrible news for a consumer-led economy that is already choked with massive and increasingly unserviceable debt levels.
Any bull market will, of course, be followed by a real recovery in the economy. Don't expect to see either very soon. Your argument is, basically, the old "don't fight the Fed" mantra. Well, if most investors had fought the Fed over the past twelve months they would be well ahead of the game.
#2. Future expectations component of consumer confidence rising.
It is true that consumer confidence has been rising. So has consumer credit. More importantly, personal income is declining in the face of increasing consumer spending. Clearly, the consumer is fast becoming exhausted. I put little faith in consumer confidence numbers because, unless the employment market experiences a rapid and immediate recovery, and incomes rise, the confidence numbers are likely to spin on a dime.
3. Coppock indicator (maintained by InvesTech) about to turn positive; improving advance/decline lines (as "Timer's Trend" reflects).
All well and good, but certainly within the context of a bear market rally. Here's one for you - Bullish consensus near record high levels (around 69%) and bearish consensus falling off a cliff (around 20%). Since when do bull markets begins with near record high levels of bullishness and one of the most extremely overvalued markets in history (with earnings in a near free fall)? Answer: nowhere on the planet in history. Bear markets typically end in the depths of despair, with low valuations and stock prices at a ten to fifteen year prior low. Where was the Dow just ten years ago? At 3,000. Where was Nasdaq ten years ago? At 375. A new bull market? Hardly.
Of course, all of this ignores the risk of more Enron-style derivatives accidents. It is very likely that we will see more. Nor does it take into consideration the vulnerability of the US Dollar. Not too mention that earnings, as bad as they are, are likely to be even worse due to dishonest pro forma accounting. Next year is likely to produce far more ugly truth bubbling up to the surface.
Yes, we will certainly see who is right, won't we?
My reply was:
Life is interesting because nobody can predict the future. We try to guess well.
Though true, this banal statement of mine carries no useful information. It serves only as a conversation-killer.... for it was clear to me that my correspondent had already made up his mind, and I'd just wind up in a shouting match. I have no need to persuade other people to adopt my point of view; it puzzles me why other people are so unhappy when I don't agree with them.
From another correspondent:
After a break of six months or so, I checked in recently on The Contrarian's View.
I'm having a hard time believing this - you're bullish on the US stock market NOW?!
As for me, I've been bearish on American stocks ever since the bubble started in the early '90s. In my opinion, for American stocks, trailing P/E's exceeding 21 and trailing dividend yields below 2.5% are indicative of a bubble. Until now, I've always admired your consistent - some would call stubborn - belief that the safest way to play a bubble is to stay out of it.
Some quotes from your introductory page:
"BUY CHEAP"
"Never overpay for the merchandise"
And now, you're bullish. I'm having trouble understanding your change of heart.
I'm 40, and I have no regrets about having mostly sat out the bull market since 1992 (and the subsequent rout since March 2000). My retirement funds have been mostly in money market funds (when I don't have a choice, as in 401K) and certificates of deposit (for my IRAs). On a pre tax basis, five-year CDs at the local credit unions have comfortably beaten inflation with zero risk over the last ten years. In the last decade, there have been few really compelling stock buys - one that stands out in memory is Philip Morris under 20, with a dividend yield of ~10%. (What was THAT all about? Doubled my money in a year or so!)
I'm convinced that the US Fed will succeed in running the dollar into the ground, in my lifetime. In preparation for this eventuality, I've been holding some bullion and gold stocks since 1990. This hasn't done as well as cash - but hey, this is insurance. I'm hoping I'll NEVER need to cash it in.
I wrote back:
Long-term, I couldn't agree with you more. Someday the whole thing will blow up. Shorter-term, timing DOES have some importance, and I see another round of (playable) bubblemania coming. Go back and carefully reread the back issues... you will find me a short-term bull, long-term bear.
My retirement funds are at risk here, too, so I'm being careful and widely diversified. I wouldn't have a portion of my retirement money in stocks if I didn't feel the next bullish jag can be ridden for awhile with a relative degree of safety. But I have no problem with anybody shunning stocks due to historical overvaluation. Safer may indeed prove to be better, we'll see.
The points of view of these two letter writers clearly illustrate a dictum: Investing is not a religion. Both have adopted historical overvaluation as an overriding consideration in their decision-making; but correspondent #1 is clearly interested in convincing others to adopt his belief that the megabear has truly arrived, while #2 is interested in preserving his capital and earning a reasonable rate of return during turbulent and unorthodox times.
But what really made me lonely was not the barbs from still-bearish people, but being booted off the Fiend SuperBear website, where my commentaries have been posted (usually with quite a delay.... paid subscribers get their issues right away) for some time now. Marc Sexton wrote to me:
It would appear as if our views have greatly diverged. I'm still bearish (permabear if you like although that really isn't the case) and I can't in good faith present your work.... Good luck to you in the future and it was a pleasure posting your work.
I replied:
Call me an "unhappy bull". I'm certainly not one of those Wall Street/TV shills who is perpetually bullish because they're peddling product. But the technical evidence I see forces me to be intermediate-term bullish, even though my heart remains with the bears. As you know, I call them as I see them, regardless of whether others agree with me or not. It's more important to me to have the funds needed for a rapidly-approaching retirement than to have other people see things my way. Someday, this whole Fed-goosing-the-money-supply-to-avert-recession thing will crash and burn; I'll do my best to try to pinpoint when "someday" is about to arrive.
I don't perceive Marc's rejection as a religious decision (unreformable permabear) but as a commercial one.... people connect to his website expecting to see well-constructed reasons to be bearish, and a contrary viewpoint simply won't "sell". I will be curious to see what happens to his site when Marc himself finally turns bullish (Fiend Superbull?). At any rate, I'm sorry that my stock-market opinion of long-term bearish, short- and intermediate-term bullish isn't "bearish" enough to continue to be posted there.
One letter-writer got it exactly right: The trouble with most investment viewpoints - and this is true anywhere in the world: The person offering the opinion frequently has a franchise to protect. You're clearly not in that category, and I appreciate that.
Bingo! The paid subscriber list to this publication is pathetic. I sell no investment products, and collect no fees or commissions. I am just a lonely soul trying to swim my way through the shark-infested investment waters, and because I write about it, you're along for the excursion.
The permabulls long ago gave up on me. Now the bears and permabears
have thrown up their hands in disgust. Maybe, this is the ultimate
contrarian position.... nearly alone, maybe this time my viewpoint will
turn out to be mostly right. I sure hope so.
Betting against the Fed has always been a bad bet. - Edward Kerschner [Nick's comment: Almost always.]
Who knows, maybe we can have a massive bubble economy that does not burst, but merely deflates a little. And maybe indebted consumers and over-leveraged corporations are just the thing to lead an economic revival. And maybe foreigners will keep sending almost half a trillion dollars our way every year to compensate for the fact that we Americans prefer not to save any money. And maybe today's cautious investors will be kicking themselves 10 years from now for not recognizing the golden opportunity afforded them in February of 2002 when stocks could be had for a mere 35 times earnings. Or maybe not. - Eric Fry
Never before have consumers spent with such a vengeance in the depths of recession. In the 28 quarters of the past 6 recessions, real consumption growth averaged a scant 0.5%. In only two of those quarters did consumption growth come in at 3.5% or greater. And those spending bursts borrowed from the immediate future; they were both followed by declines in the subsequent quarter that averaged 1.4%. The lesson is clear: with jobs and income under pressure, paybacks are the norm in the aftermath of mid-recession consumption spurts. - Stephen Roach
What about the so-called "recovery" so many economists are talking about? It's a mirage. A fantasy. - Martin Weiss
For 250 years, beginning in England, the growth of the West's economy has been about 2.8% per year.... To estimate the wealth effects, we look for the doubling date. Using the "law of 72," we divide 2.8 into 72 and get 26. Every 26 years, a base doubles at 2.8% growth per annum. Over the past 250 years, this has resulted in 9.6 doubling periods, or 2 to the 9th exponent, plus 60%.... the figure is $996,044. If you have a financial calculator, you discover this: $1,000 (PV), 2.8% (i), 250 (N) ====> $996,044 (FV). This is why North Americans and Europeans are rich. We are the heirs of compound economic growth. East Asians are rapidly moving into this select circle of wealth. The unprecedented phenomenon of compound growth has changed the world. It is not the amount of growth that matters; it is the duration that matters. - Gary North
Why can't the government just "print money?" Because money is only valuable as long as the myth behind it remains intact. It is only useful as "money" so long as people believe its supply is limited. At the first sign of just "printing" money, interest rates would shoot up, people would dump the currency...and whatever advantage a government hoped to gain by printing money would be overwhelmed by the disadvantage of high interest rates and a "run" on the currency. Central banks can and do destroy their currencies; it's their job. But they have to do so in a measured way...so the illusion of paper money is preserved. - Bill Bonner
Most of the time, paper money deteriorates at an acceptably measured pace. Inflation rates of 3% or 5% cause few mass demonstrations. And most of the time, banks are able to pay off the few depositors who want their money back. But every once in a while, things go wrong. Then, people ask questions: Is the company whose stock I own telling the whole truth? Are the earnings really what they say? What about the liabilities? Will I be able to get my money back when I want it? How much will it be worth then? What if the dollar takes a dive against the euro? What if inflation gets much worse? Of course, it doesn't matter until it matters. And then, it matters a lot. And then, people appreciate assets like gold, a metal which sits at number 79 in the periodic table - and never moves. - Bill Bonner
The government-business alliance subsidizes the arrogance and moral corruption of men like those who ran Enron, who bankrupted the company, lied to the employees, and took millions of dollars before they bailed out. As Ron Paul says, the U.S. government paid taxpayers' money to Enron's high-rolling crap-shooters. This is normal. It has gone on for a generation. It will not change soon. If it did, how could ex-Congressmen become millionaire lobbyists? - Gary North
It is difficult to imagine how the Japanese can ever return to a market adjusted economic order, that is, to one shaped by the people's choices and preferences. With a government debt of more than 135 percent of GDP and still rising and government bonds presently yielding 1.08 percent, the debt consumes some 23 percent of government expenditures. If interest rates were allowed to rise to market rates of 5 to 6 percent, the interest costs would soon exceed total present revenue. Taxes would have to be raised significantly which would prevent any recovery. Or government expenditures other than debt service would have to be slashed drastically, which would cause unforeseeable social and political problems.... As the history of the Great Depression is one long regret of political follies and blunders that aggravated the suffering, so is the story of the Japanese recession during the 1990s to the present. The Japanese government tried to spend its way out of the recession, but instead merely prolonged it and created a mountain of debt. - Hans F. Sennholz
Then.... the grim reality of Social Security.... a couple that earns $20,000 each, age 21 to 65. Neither of them ever gets a raise. The government takes 15%: half from the worker. The other half could go to the worker, but the government takes it instead. What will the couple forfeit, if they can invest the money in a tax-deferred retirement account paying 6%? ....The answer is $1,198,548.19. At 6%, this would generate passive income of $71,912.90 a year, and then they could bequeath the $1.2 million to their children. Social Security, if it survives, will pay them a few thousand a year, and then nothing will go to their children. - Gary North
Deep inside all of us, there is a Ponzi-scheme button waiting for some crook to press. This is the reality that the efficient-market hypothesis never quite gets around to dealing with. - Gary North
It is not hunger that gets a modern man up in the morning.... Nor is it the
need to put a roof over his head that keeps him up late at night. Instead,
most of human striving and pining has no more purpose than to help
him feel superior to other men - to look better, to play better, to have
more money or a better life. Nothing is so trivial or preposterous that it
cannot give a man an edge. One is proud of his new automobile, another
of his roses...one believes his steadfast labor raises him above other men
of his rank...another thinks his stock market returns give him a mark of
distinction. Thus, in pursuit of such an advantage, a man puts calluses
on his hands with hard labor or dulls his dendrites with P/E ratios and
World Economic Forum meetings. Straining, sweating, climbing...whether he is working on his golf swing or his stockholdings...modern man struggles to the top of the hill. There, surveying the world at his
feet, he puffs out his chest, puts his hands on his hips...and discovers that
he has forgotten to put on his pants. - Bill Bonner
However, I don't expect stocks to continue this dismal performance for the rest of the year. We just happened to get the first sizable correction in the new bull market during the year's first two months. What I expect is choppy upward progress for the rest of the year.... most likely as a bullish jag this spring, followed by a selloff sometime during the summer or early fall, then a strong finish to the end of the year.
Several puzzled readers have asked me why I am so willing to play the next round of bubblemania when I was so unwilling to participate in the first bubble, 1995-1999/2000. The reason is simple: Experience.
In 1995, I had absolutely no experience for determining when to get out of a bubble before it collapsed.... assuming the Federal Reserve would even allow the bubble to occur, which I thought they would be idiots to do. (So, OK, they're idiots.) It seemed to me for several years running that a crash was a virtually guaranteed outcome of a popped bubble, and "Timer's Trend" had just barely given warning before the 1987 Crash. The Russian bond default/Asian Tiger collapse, and the LTCM debacle, only amplified my fears of a sudden systemic collapse.
But now we've been through the complete up-cycle and part-way the down cycle, and guess what? "Timer's Trend" works. In fact, there was ample opportunity to bail out near the top, or at the very least, cash in one's original investment plus a reasonable profit, and let the rest ride. As for the crash, we had a Japanese-style one (stretched over a year and a half) just in the NASDAQ, rather than a 1987-style systemic failure. And the Fed's amelioration of the 2001 recession, and the market's snapback after the terrorist attack, illustrate stocks' tendency toward buoyancy when the Fed still has a high degree of control.
So here I am, along for the ride with part of my retirement funds. Clearly the Greenspan Federal Reserve has committed itself to keeping the party going indefinitely, regardless of the long-term consequences. If you think the eventual outcome of all of this Fed foolishness will be a sudden, surprise systemic failure that will simply be too big for the Fed to bail out, then none of your money belongs in stocks at any time. But if you think, as I do, that these "bubble-ettes" can be played, and there will be adequate warning for one to escape them, then I certainly have no problem if you try. Just don't get sucked up into perma-bullishness.
Remember, my former Rule #1 (don't overpay for the merchandise) has
been replaced by a new Rule #1 (dance with the Fed). Yes, stock valuations are still hideous at these levels..... but it's a momentum game (also
known as the Greater Fool theory, except I don't plan to be the final fool)
we're playing here, as stocks rise to yet again become even more hideously overvalued.
Original cost (adjusted): $ 4,998.21
Present value: $ 3,994.28
Increase: $-1,003.93 [-20.09%]
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 -9.38%, for a compound annual rate of return of -0.63%. COMMENT on "Phoenix": There is no change from the last issue (cash balance is not up to date).
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG":
Original cost: $ 9,899.00
Present value: $15,302.62
Increase: $ 5,403.62 [+54.59%]
COMMENT on "PIG": There is no change from the last issue.
C. Roth rollover IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $10,153.84
Increase: $ 1,827.65 [+21.95%]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors) from January 1, 1987 to the present is -7.42%, for a compound annual rate of return of
-0.50%.
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%)
17-18May2000 rate adjustment to 7.25% in SRA
12-13Jul2000 rate adjustment to 7.5% in SRA
8Jan2001 TIAA Traditional bond@58.62 [22.77%]
8Jan2001 TIAA Traditional eq-idx@75.79 [4.56%]
1Feb2001 i-i bond@31.78 eq-idx@80.84 [26.76%]
20Sep2001 bond@61.99 eq-idx@58.42 [2.44%]
21Nov2001 i-i bond@33.80 eq-idx@67.52 [4.35%]
11Dec2001 i-ibond@33.28 eq-idx@67.95 [6.19%]
17Dec2001 i-i bond@33.13 RlEst@168.75 [9.94%]
17Dec2001 bond@61,54 RlEst@168.75 [9.26%]
31Dec2001 i-i bond@33.50 eq-idx@68.74 [8.21%]
Values, 28Feb2002: stock, 156.39; equity-index, 66.45; MM, 21.37; bond,
63.57; inflation-indexed bond, 34.18; real estate, 168.93; TIAA current yield
in SRA, 7.5% (new money at 6.00% through February 28, 2003)
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%; 1999: 5.12%; 2000: 9.99%
Gain, January 1 through December 31, 2001: 1.11%
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (14 years): 220.33%
Compound annual rate of return: 8.67% (My long-term target: in excess of 10%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained 419.53%, for a compound annual rate of
return of 12.50%.
COMMENT on NYSE "Timer's Trend":
The BUY on November 1 remains in effect. Note that "Timer's Trend" remained bullish through the
correction of late January and February, indicating that we're still in a bull
maket for those stocks most directly influenced by Fed actions.
____________________________ NYSE TIMER'S TREND _______________________________ Thu 1 Nov 01 . | #. }| 9263.90 | - * Fri 2 Nov 01 . | #. | 9323.54 | - * Mon 5 Nov 01 . | .# | 9441.03 + . * Tue 6 Nov 01 . | .# | 9591.12 | + * Wed 7 Nov 01 . | #. | 9554.37 | + * Thu 8 Nov 01 . | # | 9587.52 | .+ * Fri 9 Nov 01 . | #. | 9608.00 | .+ * Mon 12 Nov 01 . | #. | 9554.37 | + * Tue 13 Nov 01 . | . # | 9750.95 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Wed 14 Nov 01 . | . # | 9823.61 | .+ * Thu 15 Nov 01 . | #. | 9872.39 | .+ * Fri 16 Nov 01 . | # | 9866.99 | .+ * Mon 19 Nov 01 . | . # | 9976.46 | . + * Tue 20 Nov 01 . |# . | 9901.38 | .+ * Wed 21 Nov 01 . # . | 9834.68 | + * Fri 23 Nov 01 . | . # | 9959.71 | .+ * Mon 26 Nov 01 . | .# | 9982.75 | .+ * Tue 27 Nov 01 . | #. | 9872.60 | + * Wed 28 Nov 01 # | . | 9711.86 | + * Thu 29 Nov 01 . |# . | 9829.42 | + * Fri 30 Nov 01 . | #. | 9851.56 |+. * Mon 3 Dec 01 . |# . | 9763.96 + . * Tue 4 Dec 01 . | . # | 9893.84 |+. * Wed 5 Dec 01 . | . # |10114.29 | .+ * Thu 6 Dec 01 . | # |10099.14 | .+ * Fri 7 Dec 01 . | #. |10049.46 | .+ * Mon 10 Dec 01 .# | . | 9921.45 | .+ * Tue 11 Dec 01 . #| . | 9888.37 |+. * Wed 12 Dec 01 . #| . | 9894.81 + . * Thu 13 Dec 01 . #I . | 9766.45 |-. * Fri 14 Dec 01 . & . | 9811.15 |-. * Mon 17 Dec 01 . | #. | 9891.87 |-. * Tue 18 Dec 01 . | # | 9998.39 + . * Wed 19 Dec 01 . | #. |10070.49 |+. * Thu 20 Dec 01 . |# . | 9985.19 |+. * Fri 21 Dec 01 . | # |10035.34 | + * Mon 24 Dec 01 . | # |10035.34 | + * Wed 26 Dec 01 . | . # |10088.14 | + * Thu 27 Dec 01 . | . # |10131.31 | .+ * Fri 28 Dec 01 . | . # |10136.99 | . + * Mon 31 Dec 01 . | # |10021.50 | . + * Wed 2 Jan 02 . | .# |10073.40 | . + * Thu 3 Jan 02 . | . # |10172.14 | . + * Fri 4 Jan 02 . | . # |10259.74 | . + * Mon 7 Jan 02 . | # |10197.05 | . + * Tue 8 Jan 02 . | #. |10150.55 | . + * Wed 9 Jan 02 . | # |10094.09 | .+ * Thu 10 Jan 02 . | # |10067.86 | .+ * Fri 11 Jan 02 . |# . | 9987.53 | + * Mon 14 Jan 02 . # . | 9891.42 |+. * Tue 15 Jan 02 . | #. | 9924.15 |+. * Wed 16 Jan 02 . #| . | 9712.27 |+. * Thu 17 Jan 02 . | # | 9850.04 |+. * Fri 18 Jan 02 . |# . | 9771.85 |+. * Tue 22 Jan 02 . # . | 9713.80 |+. * Wed 23 Jan 02 . | .# | 9730.96 |+. * Thu 24 Jan 02 . | . # | 9796.07 | + * Fri 25 Jan 02 . | .# | 9840.08 | + * Mon 28 Jan 02 . | # | 9865.75 | .+ * Tue 29 Jan 02 .# I . | 9618.24 | + * Wed 30 Jan 02 . | #. | 9762.86 | + * Thu 31 Jan 02 . | . # | 9920.00 | + * Fri 1 Feb 02 . | #. | 9907.26 | + * Mon 4 Feb 02 .# I . | 9684.09 |+. * Tue 5 Feb 02 .# I . | 9685.43 |+. * Wed 6 Feb 02 .# I . | 9653.39 + . * Thu 7 Feb 02 . & . | 9625.44 |-. * Fri 8 Feb 02 . I .# | 9744.24 |-. * Mon 11 Feb 02 . | . # | 9884.78 |+. * Tue 12 Feb 02 . |# . | 9863.74 |+. * Wed 13 Feb 02 . | .# | 9989.67 | .+ * Thu 14 Feb 02 . | #. |10001.99 | .+ * Fri 15 Feb 02 . |# . | 9903.04 | + * Tue 19 Feb 02 # I . | 9745.14 |+. * Wed 20 Feb 02 . | #. | 9941.17 |+. * Thu 21 Feb 02 . & . | 9834.68 + . * Fri 22 Feb 02 . | #. | 9968.15 + . * Mon 25 Feb 02 . | . # |10145.71 |+. * Tue 26 Feb 02 . | .# |10115.26 | + * Wed 27 Feb 02 . | . # |10127.58 | .+ * Thu 28 Feb 02 . | # |10106.13 | . + * ========================================================================
COMMENT on NASDAQ "Timer's Trend": No longer whipsawing, we're still on the weak SELL of January
29. The trend indicators for both markets will most likely both have to be bullish before we see the "buying
panic" I'm expecting.
____________________________ NASDAQ TIMER'S TREND ____________________________
Thu 1 Nov 01 . | # | 1746.30 + . *
Fri 2 Nov 01 . #| . | 1745.73 |-. *
Mon 5 Nov 01 . | .# | 1793.65 + . *
Tue 6 Nov 01 . | .# }| 1835.08 | + *
Wed 7 Nov 01 . | # [| 1837.53 | + *
Thu 8 Nov 01 . |# . | 1827.77 | + *
Fri 9 Nov 01 . |# . | 1828.48 | + *
Mon 12 Nov 01 . |# . | 1840.13 | + *
Tue 13 Nov 01 . | . # ]| 1892.11 | + *
Wed 14 Nov 01 . | # | 1903.19 | + *
Thu 15 Nov 01 . | #. | 1900.57 | + *
Fri 16 Nov 01 . | #. | 1898.58 | + *
Mon 19 Nov 01 . | . # | 1934.42 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 20 Nov 01 . #| . | 1880.51 | + *
Wed 21 Nov 01 . | #. | 1875.05 | + *
Fri 23 Nov 01 . | . # | 1903.20 | .+ *
Mon 26 Nov 01 . | . # | 1941.23 | . + *
Tue 27 Nov 01 . | # | 1935.97 | .+ *
Wed 28 Nov 01 . #| . | 1887.97 | .+ *
Thu 29 Nov 01 . | .# | 1933.26 | . + *
Fri 30 Nov 01 . |# . | 1930.58 | + *
Mon 3 Dec 01 . #| . | 1904.90 |+. *
Tue 4 Dec 01 . | . # | 1963.10 |+. *
Wed 5 Dec 01 . | . # | 2046.84 | .+ *
Thu 6 Dec 01 . | .# | 2054.27 | .+ *
Fri 7 Dec 01 . |# . | 2021.26 | .+ *
Mon 10 Dec 01 . |# . | 1992.12 | .+ *
Tue 11 Dec 01 . | .# | 2001.93 | .+ *
Wed 12 Dec 01 . | #. | 2011.38 | + *
Thu 13 Dec 01 . # . | 1946.51 |+. *
Fri 14 Dec 01 . | #. | 1953.17 |+. *
Mon 17 Dec 01 . | .# | 1987.45 | + *
Tue 18 Dec 01 . | .# | 2004.76 | + *
Wed 19 Dec 01 . |# . | 1982.89 | + *
Thu 20 Dec 01 .# I . | 1918.54 |+. *
Fri 21 Dec 01 . | . # | 1945.83 | + *
Mon 24 Dec 01 . | # | 1944.48 | + *
Wed 26 Dec 01 . | . # | 1960.70 | + *
Thu 27 Dec 01 . | . # | 1976.42 | .+ *
Fri 28 Dec 01 . | . # | 1987.26 | . + *
Mon 31 Dec 01 . | # | 1950.40 | . + *
Wed 2 Jan 02 . | . # | 1979.25 | . + *
Thu 3 Jan 02 . | . # | 2044.27 | . + *
Fri 4 Jan 02 . | . # | 2059.38 | . + *
Mon 7 Jan 02 . | # | 2037.10 | . + *
Tue 8 Jan 02 . | . # | 2055.74 | . + *
Wed 9 Jan 02 . | .# | 2044.89 | . + *
Thu 10 Jan 02 . | .# | 2047.24 | . + *
Fri 11 Jan 02 . |# . | 2022.46 | .+ *
Mon 14 Jan 02 . & . | 1990.74 | + *
Tue 15 Jan 02 . I # | 2000.91 | + *
Wed 16 Jan 02 .# I . | 1944.44 |+. *
Thu 17 Jan 02 . I . # | 1985.82 |+. *
Fri 18 Jan 02 . #I . {| 1930.34 |+. *
Tue 22 Jan 02 .# I . | 1882.53 + . *
Wed 23 Jan 02 . I .# | 1922.38 + . *
Thu 24 Jan 02 . I . # ]| 1942.58 | + *
Fri 25 Jan 02 . I #. [| 1937.70 |+. *
Mon 28 Jan 02 . I # ]| 1943.91 | + *
Tue 29 Jan 02 .# I . [| 1892.99 | + *
Wed 30 Jan 02 . I# . | 1913.44 |+. *
Thu 31 Jan 02 . I . # | 1934.03 | + *
Fri 1 Feb 02 . I# . | 1911.24 |+. *
Mon 4 Feb 02 # I . | 1855.53 + . *
Tue 5 Feb 02 #. I . | 1838.52 |-. *
Wed 6 Feb 02 # I . | 1812.71 |-. *
Thu 7 Feb 02 #. I . | 1782.11 | .- *
Fri 8 Feb 02 . I # | 1818.88 | .- *
Mon 11 Feb 02 . I # | 1846.66 |-. *
Tue 12 Feb 02 . I# . | 1834.21 + . *
Wed 13 Feb 02 . I .# | 1859.16 |+. *
Thu 14 Feb 02 . & . | 1843.37 | + *
Fri 15 Feb 02 # I . | 1805.20 |+. *
Tue 19 Feb 02 # . I . | 1750.61 |-. *
Wed 20 Feb 02 . I# . | 1775.57 |-. *
Thu 21 Feb 02 # I . | 1716.24 | .- *
Fri 22 Feb 02 . I .# | 1724.54 | - *
Mon 25 Feb 02 . I # | 1769.88 |-. *
Tue 26 Feb 02 . I #. | 1766.86 |+. *
Wed 27 Feb 02 . I# . | 1751.88 |+. *
Thu 28 Feb 02 . #I . | 1731.49 |+. *
========================================================================
"Timer's Trend" is based on 4% and 10% exponential moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ advance/decline lines (that is, the ratio of advancing to declining stocks). There are many symbols shown above, but the ones that count are the braces: NEXT ISSUE - will appear in late March. /Nick Chase