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
We have heard other people tell us what a momentous life change this is, but it isn't until the moment arrives that the enormity of the change hits. I keep reminding her, the "paycheck" will come whether or not she does anything for it. But, knowing her, she will end up doing something for pay. She's not the type to lie around feeling worthless, then disintegrate and die early, as is the case with many retirees who cannot adjust to the sudden loss of employment. She has a job waiting.... as a substitute.... and how often she subs will likely be determined by how often she needs a "kid fix" balanced with her intense distaste for arising at 6:15AM on schooldays, because she definitely is not a morning person. I predict the "kid fix" need will win out, mostly.
Anyway, the nonfinancial aspects of her retirement probably are not of particular interest to Contrarian's View subscribers.... this is supposed to be an investment letter, after all. What you may find interesting, though, is the nature of her pension.
Massachusetts' teachers' pensions (and those of the other public-payroll employees in the state) are truly relics of the past. The state birthed them back in the days when defined-benefit plans were the only retirement plans that had been invented (except for TIAA-CREF, a glaring exception to the rule in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s).
Since 1968, she has paid 5% of her salary (11% in 2001-2002) into the teachers' retirement system, where the money was supposedly invested at state-set interest rates. "State-set" means, of course, less than the going market rate, and certainly less than would have been earned over time in the stock market. As a result her pension, which is "superannuated" at 80% of the average of her top three consecutive years' salaries, is only about one-fourth covered by her retirement accumulation; for the rest, the taxpayers simply foot the bill.
That 5% was the going rate for mandated pension deductions back in the 1960s, about the same as Social Security deductions for corporate workers. Today's teachers pay 11% of their paychecks into the system, compared to Social Security's 15.3%. But the benefit.... 80% of the average of your top three consecutive years' salaries.... has not changed. Less for more, maybe?
Just before you retire, the state offers you three retirement options: A, B and C. Under Option A, you get your full 80%, but when you die, the money stops. Nothing for your spouse or family.
Under Option B, you get 76% to 78% of your top 3, and if you die before your spouse, he/she gets the remainder in the "annuity account" which is, as I previously mentioned, only about one-fourth of what the value of the pension would be if it were fully funded by contributions and investment earnings. The "annuity account" is linearly depleted over the life expectancy of the pensioner.
Under Option C, you get 66% of your top 3, and if you die first your spouse gets 44%. If your spouse dies first, you get knocked back up to 80%.
The bureaucrats in the retirement board note that 72% of teachers elect Option A, and it's not difficult to understand why. I "priced out" Option B, which for us would have been about the same as a term-life policy on my wife (if she could pass the medical exam). But the payment for the state's "term life" policy is the same year after year, while the "benefit" declines each year and is effectively gone after 14 years. And the pensioner continues to pay.... and pay.... year, after year, even after 14 years, for.... nothing. I actually met a retiree the other day who had taken Option B, and I still can't figure out why. And he couldn't really explain why to my satisfaction.
Option C is most useful to teachers who have a spouse (usually the wife) who has never worked outside the home and has no Social Security or other retirement plan of her own. But if both husband and wife are covered by pension plans, it usually makes sense to take the money and run via Option A.
This is what we elected to do. My wife selected Option A, and when I retire we simply will not draw on my TIAA-CREF supplemental retirement plan fully, allowing it to build up as insurance against her premature death. (Besides, as I kiddingly tell her, she spends 2/3rds of the money anyway.)
On the day of retirement, the Massachusetts teachers' retirement plan is actually a petty good deal. Eighty percent of your salary, never had to pay into Social Security, pension exempt from state income tax.
As time wears on, it becomes less attractive. Social Security payments are sort-of indexed to inflation, and most private pension plans have an inflation-adjustment option for payouts. But not the state plan. The first $15,000 per year of the pension is adjusted for inflation in years the Legislature is in a good mood. And that isn't very often, because Massachusetts is a one-party state and, as a result, is very badly run. (This year, our solons are busy negating ballot initiatives the voters passed last November, and they're in a really sour mood. For that matter, so are the voters, who don't like politicos second-guessing their choices.)
Older teachers also are not eligible for Medicare when they turn 65, because they never got sucked up into the Social Security system. Not a problem for us, because we've been married long enough for my wife to eventually be eligible under me; but medical coverage is a real headache for retiring single teachers. (Beginning teachers today pay Medicare premiums, and will be covered when they retire, if the system survives that long.)
My trusty calculator tells me that if my wife had been able to contribute her premiums to something like TIAA-CREF over her working life, her benefit (if she chose to annuitize) would be almost as great as what the state will provide, but with a much better "Option C" (survivor) benefit. In other words, she would be better off if the system had been privatized. Today's teachers.... paying in 11%.... would almost certainly be better off if they were able to retire under a privatized system.
But once the politicians have control over something, they have to be
bludgeoned nearly to death before they relinquish it. Exhibit A: Social
Security.
In America, traditional economic thinking has it that the most important element of the economy's demand is consumer spending. There is an underlying view that as long as there is sufficient consumer demand, everything else, like profit and investment spending, will take care of itself. Taken literally, this perception of the overriding role of consumption in the economic growth process implies reasonable disregard of anything else. In fact, disregard of profits and capital investment is the essence of American economics. Profits and the prospect for profits are almost solely of interest with respect to the stock market. - Kurt Richebacher
In fact, we've got a proposal of our own...take Kozlowski, Lay, Komansky, Blodget, Stewart and all the rest to the corner of Broad and Wall and shoot them in prime time. Better yet, make it a new TV spectacle - Wall Street Survivor, in which viewers get to vote for which one gets spared.... Then, the stock market can put all this behind it and get on with its important business - taking money from the patsies and giving it to the insiders. - Bill Bonner
The Russians tried it and it failed. The Cubans tried it and it failed. The Mexicans tried it and it failed. The Chinese tried it and it failed. South America, Africa, and most of the rest of the world is still trying it and is failing. All the way back to the Romans, everybody who has tried it has failed. Every fiat currency has failed, or is failing now. In fact, one of the few truisms of economics seems to be that anything other than a free market economy and sound money will fail. And ipso facto, the economic system of the USA will fail, also, because it is not a free market economy anymore and it has bad money. It is just another loathsome Big Government Economy. - Richard Daughty
Soaring theories of "entitlement," longer lifespans and fewer workers supporting beneficiaries mean social security systems in most OECD countries are headed for a train wreck. In Japan and Western Europe, social security systems will probably go bankrupt by 2025, if current trends continue. In the United States, bankruptcy is projected in 2038. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that averting bankruptcy would require nearly tripling the combined Social Security Medicare tax to 40 percent in the next few decades, up from 15.3 percent today. Taxes in Japan and Western Europe will have to be raised even higher. To avoid tax increases of this magnitude, it's likely that the age at which recipients can receive benefits will continue to increase and that benefits will be increasingly means-tested: if you don't "need" the benefits (according to eligibility formulas worked out by unelected bureaucrats), you won't receive them. - Mark Nestmann
Politicians always lie. Their job is to lie. We pay them to lie. We re-elect
them for lying well. The question for each voting bloc is this one: "Which
political party's lies seem to favor us?" Politics is about wealth-redistribution by force, and the greatest tool of political wealth-redistribution is
the lie. "Everyone will retire in comfort." "We will not break our promise
to our senior citizens." "The Social Security trust fund is secure, and the
fact that it is filled with IOU's has nothing to do with anything." "Taxes
will not go up." "We will not go to war." And so on. All lies. We know
they are lies, and we select which lies we will vote for, believe in, and
invest in terms of. - Gary North
But since then, the persistent selling in the formerly-popular big-cap high-flyers seems to be telling another story. (Jim Stack of InvesTech calls these "gorilla" [maybe that should be "guerilla"] stocks; Fiend Superbear calls them "Prime-25". But the idea is, these are the stocks, like the "Nifty Fifty" of 1972 and 1973, whose prices were bid up all out of proportion to their earnings prospects simply because their capitalization was big enough for the large funds to own them.)
OK, then, what is the story these collapsing stocks are telling? You idiot, Nick, you say, they're telling us that we're in a bear market. They're telling us that the deflationary collapse has arrived. They're telling us a crash is imminent. Bail out while you can, you fool!
Well, I might agree with you except..... the evidence simply is not present that we are about to experience a double-dip recession. In fact, consumers' future expectations about the economy continue to rise, as do the leading indicators of economic activity. If this is to be a resumption of the bear market, then it will be the strangest bear market I've ever seen. A bear market while the economy recovers.... a bear market while consumer confidence (future expectations) improves.... a bear market in which the advance/decline line (on which "Timer's Trend" is based) does not lead stocks downward.... a bear market while the Fed's monetary policy remains aggressively accommodative. Keeping in mind the old saw that "the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions", I do not think that, this time around, the market's message is that we're immediately heading into a recession or depression.
The story that the market is telling us is, I think, that the carnage from the tech-heavy NASDAQ market has finally spread to the NYSE favorites, not just because their performance is disappointing economically, but because their managements have broken faith with investors through aggressive (and sometimes suspect) accounting, and because the Wall Street shills who pushed and peddled this stuff during the bubble have turned out to be at least as fallible as the rest of us, and possibly more criminal. Because the big-cap stocks heavily weight the popular averages, when they sell off the averages sell off.
But, if I were you I wouldn't forget that the Fed can directly target the averages if it wishes, and certainly would do so if, as in 1987, panic should suddenly strike. So a sudden crash from these levels is highly unlikely..... unless the Fed loses control.
The market is also telling us that, for the short term, it is extremely oversold. Even if the bear is returning, it will pay to wait to see the nature of the soon-to-arrive monster rally. If "Timer's Trend" fails to lead stocks upward.... if new highs dwindle.... if volume is thinner on rising days than on declining.... then there will be good reason to suspect that new lows will be seen later this year, not in three to five years as I expect. But certainly, it won't pay to panic while the crowd is near-panicked. Wait for the rally.
I don't expect much upward movement in stocks for the rest of June (maybe even more decline), because the mutual funds need to get the bodies out of their portfolios before the end-of-quarter reporting period. It's possible to more closely pinpoint the timing of the arrival of the monster rally based on history (usual disclaimer: Nothing is guaranteed, history hasn't been a great guide lately). The likely window for the onset of the monster rally is between mid-July and mid-August. When it comes, the herd will realize that the spring selling was, maybe, a bit overdone and will rush to pile into the formerly-shunned items out of fear of being left behind.
OK, Nick, you ask, will you please tell us why you aren't freaked out when stocks threaten to take out their September lows (and have on the NASDAQ)? Well, periodically I check the status of my (well-diversified) TIAA-CREF retirement funds and I find that (with my monthly contributions included) I have about as much money as I did at the end of 2001. In other words, no growth so far this year, but certainly not the disaster that somebody chasing tech stocks on the NYSE or NASDAQ has experienced. Stocks fluctuate, after all. If there's good reason to believe the economy is recovering, and if the Fed is accommodative, then stocks will eventually follow.... even though they have recently followed the unheard-of pattern of declining for five months after the end of the recession (assuming the recession ended in January or February). The markets are currently demonstrating "bubble-popping noise", in my opinion, not expressing an opinion on the long-term health of the economy.
Because stocks are so extremely oversold short-term, there is actually a
buying opportunity for those of you who held cash instead of riding the
collapse in the NASDAQ downward from the 5000s. Two years ago I
felt the first reasonable buying in the opportunity for the NASDAQ
would be in the area of the 1500s. If you missed it last September,
here's your chance again.... because of survivor bias, this may be even
better than last September. All of those hot telecom, internet and tech
stocks that crashed and burned in the popping of the bubble are priced so
low (before they disappear altogether) that they carry no weight in the
index. What's left are the survivors which will carry the NASDAQ
higher in the monster rally (without the stuff that blew up the index in
1995-2000). So if you buy index-related growth funds or individual
NASDAQ-listed stocks that you feel have excellent survival prospects,
you should do well.
Original cost (adjusted): $ 4,998.21
Present value: $ 3,953.58
Increase: $-1,044.63 [-20.90%]
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 -10.31%, for a compound annual rate of return of -0.70%. 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: $15,102.44
Increase: $ 5,203.44 [+52.57%]
COMMENT on "PIG": One trade the PIGs decided to do last fall (on
my recommendation) was to purchase about $1000 worth of Palm,
which I represented as being around $1.50 per share. Well, Palm didn't
stay depressed for very long; by the time I got back to my computer to
make the trade, merger speculation had driven the shares to about $2.80
(on their way to $5). A lost opportunity, I thought. But recently, with
stocks extremely oversold for the short term, I checked in again, and
found Palm was again under $1.50. So I bought 800 shares for the PIGs
at $1.34. Not the bottom, of course; but one doesn't often get a chance to
buy a tech stock with reasonable growth prospects near book value, which
for Palm is $1.22.
C. Roth rollover IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $10,196.27
Increase: $ 1,870.08 [+22.46%]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors) from January
1, 1987 to the present is -7.03%, for a compound annual rate of return of
-0.46%.
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%]
25Mar2002 bond@62.43 TIAA Traditional [9.13%]
26Mar2002 bond@62.63 eq-idx@68.76 [3.39%]
Values, 14Jun2002: stock, 145.85 equity-index, 61.27; MM, 21.46; bond,
64.82; inflation-indexed bond, 35.77; real estate, 170.66; TIAA current yield
in SRA, about 7% (new money at 6.5% 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%; 2001: 1.11%
Gain, January 1 throughMarch 31, 2002: 0.97% (3.86% annual rate of return)
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (14.25 years): 223.43%
Compound annual rate of return: 8.59% (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 422.38%, for a compound annual rate of
return of 11.46%.
COMMENT on NYSE "Timer's Trend": The first trading day of June saw "Timer's Trend" finally give a SELL signal under the collapsing weight of the big-cap stocks. An accurate precursor for what has transpired for the rest of the month so far, I would say. At the moment, I am bucking the "Timer's Trend" signal in my retirement portfolios, since the market is so short-term oversold; but if the coming rally does not return a rosy glow to "Timer's Trend", I will shift them to hold a much higher percentage of funds elsewhere than in stocks. Note: The printed issue for this month says the November 1 BUY signal is still in effect, which is definitely not the case. My mistake; I forgot to update.
____________________________ NYSE TIMER'S TREND _______________________________
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 | . + *
Fri 1 Mar 02 . | . # |10368.86 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 4 Mar 02 . | . # |10586.82 | . + *
Tue 5 Mar 02 . | .# |10433.41 | . + *
Wed 6 Mar 02 . | . # |10574.29 @| . + *
Thu 7 Mar 02 . | .# |10525.37 @| . + *
Fri 8 Mar 02 . | . # |10572.49 @| . + *
Mon 11 Mar 02 . | . # |10611.24 | . + *
Tue 12 Mar 02 . | . # |10632.35 @| . + *
Wed 13 Mar 02 . | #. |10501.85 | . + *
Thu 14 Mar 02 . | # |10517.14 | . + *
Fri 15 Mar 02 . | . # |10607.23 | . + *
Mon 18 Mar 02 . | .# |10577.75 | . + *
Tue 19 Mar 02 . | . # |10635.25 | . + *
Wed 20 Mar 02 . # . |10501.57 | .+ *
Thu 21 Mar 02 . | #. |10479.84 | .+ *
Fri 22 Mar 02 . | #. |10427.67 | + *
Mon 25 Mar 02 .# I . |10281.67 |+. *
Tue 26 Mar 02 . | #. |10353.36 + . *
Wed 27 Mar 02 . | . # |10426.91 |+. *
Thu 28 Mar 02 . | . # |10403.94 | + *
Mon 1 Apr 02 . | #. |10362.70 |+ *
Tue 2 Apr 02 . |# . |10313.71 |.+ *
Wed 3 Apr 02 . # . |10198.29 |+ *
Thu 4 Apr 02 . | #. |10235.17 |+ *
Fri 5 Feb 02 . | # |10271.64 |+. *
Mon 8 Apr 02 . | .# |10249.08 |+ *
Tue 9 Apr 02 . | .# |10208.67 |+ *
Wed 10 Apr 02 . | . # |10381.73 |.+ *
Thu 11 Apr 02 . # . |10176.08 |.+ *
Fri 12 Apr 02 . | . # |10190.82 |.+ *
Mon 15 Apr 02 . | # |10093.67 |.+ *
Tue 16 Apr 02 . | . # |10301.32 |. + *
Wed 17 Apr 02 . | . # |10220.78 |. + *
Thu 18 Apr 02 . | .# |10205.28 |. + *
Fri 19 Apr 02 . | .# |10257.11 |. + *
Mon 22 Apr 02 . |# . |10136.43 |. + *
Tue 23 Apr 02 . | # |10089.24 |.+ *
Wed 24 Apr 02 . | # |10030.43 |.+ *
Thu 25 Apr 02 . | # |10035.06 |+ *
Fri 26 Apr 02 . # . | 9910.72 |~+~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 29 Apr 02 . #| . | 9819.87 |+. *
Tue 30 Apr 02 . | . # | 9946.22 |+ *
Wed 1 May 02 . | . # |10059.63 |+ *
Thu 2 May 02 . | .# |10091.87 |+ *
Fri 3 May 02 . | #. |10006.63 |.+ *
Mon 6 May 02 . # . | 9808.04 |.+ *
Tue 7 May 02 . # . | 9836.55 |+ *
Wed 8 May 02 . | . # |10141.83 |+ *
Thu 9 May 02 . |# . |10037.42 |+ *
Fri 10 May 02 # I . | 9939.92 |+. *
Mon 13 May 02 . | # |10109.66 |+. *
Tue 14 May 02 . | . # |10298.14 |+ *
Wed 15 May 02 . | # |10243.68 |+ *
Thu 16 May 02 . | #. |10289.21 |+ *
Fri 17 May 02 . | .# |10353.08 |.+ *
Mon 20 May 02 . | #. |10229.50 |.+ *
Tue 21 May 02 . & . |10105.71 |+ *
Wed 22 May 02 . I # |10157.88 |+ *
Thu 23 May 02 . | . # |10216.08 |.+ *
Fri 24 May 02 . I# . |10104.26 |+ *
Tue 28 May 02 . I# . | 9981.58 |+ *
Wed 29 May 02 . #I . | 9923.04 |+ *
Thu 30 May 02 . #I . | 9911.69 |+. *
Fri 31 May 02 . I .# | 9925.25 +. *
Mon 3 Jun 02 # I . {| 9709.79 +. *
Tue 4 Jun 02 .# I . | 9687.84 |-. *
Wed 5 Jun 02 . I #. | 9796.80 +. *
Thu 6 Jun 02 # . I . | 9624.64 |-. *
Fri 7 Jun 02 .# I . | 9589.67 |- *
Mon 10 Jun 02 .# I . | 9517.26 |~-~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 10 Jun 02 . I #. | 9645.40 |-. *
Tue 11 Jun 02 .# I . | 9517.26 |- *
Wed 12 Jun 02 # I . | 9617.71 |- *
Thu 13 Jun 02 # I . | 9502.80 |- *
Fri 14 Jun 02 #. I . | 9474.21 |- *
========================================================================
COMMENT on NASDAQ "Timer's Trend": In mid-June, this
NASDAQ indicator was still solidly on the SELL of April 22. No surprise, given the NASDAQ's behavior during the past eight weeks. The message continues to be: Stay away
from the techs unless you're bottom-fishing.
____________________________ NASDAQ TIMER'S TREND ____________________________
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 |+. *
Fri 1 Mar 02 . I . # | 1802.74 | + *
Mon 4 Mar 02 . | . # | 1859.32 | + *
Tue 5 Mar 02 . | . # | 1866.29 | .+ *
Wed 6 Mar 02 . | . # }| 1890.40 | . + *
Thu 7 Mar 02 . | . # | 1881.63 | . + *
Fri 8 Mar 02 . | . # | 1929.67 | . + *
Mon 11 Mar 02 . | . # | 1929.49 | . + *
Tue 12 Mar 02 . # . | 1897.12 | . + *
Wed 13 Mar 02 . # . | 1862.03 | .+ *
Thu 14 Mar 02 . | #. | 1854.14 | + *
Fri 15 Mar 02 . | # | 1868.30 | + *
Mon 18 Mar 02 . | .# | 1877.06 |+. *
Tue 19 Mar 02 . | .# | 1880.87 | + *
Wed 20 Mar 02 . # . | 1832.87 | + *
Thu 21 Mar 02 . | . # | 1868.83 | .+ *
Fri 22 Mar 02 . | # | 1851.39 | .+ *
Mon 25 Mar 02 . & . {| 1812.49 | + *
Tue 26 Mar 02 . | # }| 1824.17 | + *
Wed 27 Mar 02 . | .# | 1826.75 | .+ *
Thu 28 Mar 02 . | . # | 1845.35 | .+ *
Mon 1 Apr 02 . | .# | 1862.62 |.+ *
Tue 2 Apr 02 .# I . | 1804.40 |+ *
Wed 3 Apr 02 . #I . {| 1784.35 |+ *
Thu 4 Apr 02 . I #. | 1789.75 |+. *
Fri 5 Feb 02 . & . | 1770.03 +. *
Mon 8 Apr 02 . I # | 1785.87 +. *
Tue 9 Apr 02 . & . | 1742.57 +. *
Wed 10 Apr 02 . I # | 1767.07 |+. *
Thu 11 Apr 02 . #I . | 1725.24 |+. *
Fri 12 Apr 02 . | . # | 1756.19 |+ *
Mon 15 Apr 02 . I .# | 1753.78 |+ *
Tue 16 Apr 02 . | . # }| 1816.79 |. + *
Wed 17 Apr 02 . | . # | 1810.67 |. + *
Thu 18 Apr 02 . | # | 1802.43 |. + *
Fri 19 Apr 02 . | # | 1793.83 |. + *
Mon 22 Apr 02 . #I . {| 1758.68 |.+ *
Tue 23 Apr 02 . #I . | 1730.29 |+. *
Wed 24 Apr 02 . I# . | 1713.34 |+. *
Thu 25 Apr 02 . I# . | 1713.70 +. *
Fri 26 Apr 02 # I . | 1663.89 |-.~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 29 Apr 02 .# I . | 1656.93 | -. *
Tue 30 Apr 02 . I .# | 1688.23 +. *
Wed 1 May 02 . & . | 1677.53 +. *
Thu 2 May 02 .# I . | 1644.82 |-. *
Fri 3 May 02 .# I . | 1613.03 |-. *
Mon 6 May 02 .# I . | 1578.48 |-. *
Tue 7 May 02 . & . | 1573.82 |- *
Wed 8 May 02 . I . # | 1696.29 +. *
Thu 9 May 02 .# I . | 1650.49 +. *
Fri 10 May 02 #. I . | 1600.85 |-. *
Mon 13 May 02 . I # | 1652.54 +. *
Tue 14 May 02 . I .# | 1719.05 |+. *
Wed 15 May 02 . I .# | 1725.56 |+. *
Thu 16 May 02 . I # | 1730.44 |+ *
Fri 17 May 02 . I .# | 1741.39 |.+ *
Mon 20 May 02 . #I . | 1701.59 |+ *
Tue 21 May 02 #. I . | 1664.18 |+. *
Wed 22 May 02 . #I . | 1673.45 +. *
Thu 23 May 02 . I #. | 1697.63 +. *
Fri 24 May 02 # I . | 1661.49 |- *
Tue 28 May 02 . I# . | 1652.17 |-. *
Wed 29 May 02 # . I . | 1624.39 |- *
Thu 30 May 02 . #I . | 1631.92 |- *
Fri 31 May 02 .# I . | 1615.73 |- *
Mon 3 Jun 02 # . I . | 1562.56 |.- *
Tue 4 Jun 02 .# I . | 1578.12 |. - *
Wed 5 Jun 02 .# I . | 1595.26 |.- *
Thu 6 Jun 02 # . I . | 1554.88 |. - *
Fri 7 Jun 02 #. I . | 1535.48 |. - *
Mon 10 Jun 02 # . I . | 1497.18 |. - *
Mon 10 Jun 02 # I . | 1530.69 |. - *
Tue 11 Jun 02 # . I . | 1497.18 |. -*
Wed 12 Jun 02 # I . | 1519.12 |. - *
Thu 13 Jun 02 #. I . | 1496.86 |. -*
Fri 14 Jun 02 #. I . | 1504.74 |. - *
========================================================================
"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 July or August. /Nick Chase