MarketPsych Says Let's Make A Deal!: What Would It Take To Buy You Off?

I'm going to assume that if you've visited our MarketPsych blog, that you are, in fact, an investor.

But what kind of an investor are you?

Do you invest for to get a financial return or to get an emotional return?

(Okay. That's a trick question. We invest our money for both reasons.)

But getting back to you for a momemt, what is your style? Which kind of return is most important to you?

Here's one way to get an insight; ask yourself this question:

Imagine that we at MarketPsych can magically guarantee you an average annual return on your investments, but in exchange you will forfeit your right to ever invest your own money again. In another words, for agreeing to keep your paws off your investments we will (again, magically) guarantee you ____ % per year.

Let's Make A Deal: How high does that percent need to be in order for you to agree to the bargain?

(MarketPsych Legal Counsel Disclaimer: The above is meant to be a playful exercise in the hypothetical. In no way is MarketPsych actually offering this deal. In fact, despite Richard's launching of MarketPsy Capital, which we are confident will be a big success, it is always irresponsible and unethical to guarantee market returns. Moreover, MarketPsych does not engage in wizardry, magic, alchemy or any other occult arts. Although Frank does own "lucky socks".)

Now, we know that the average return for "The Market" over time has been close to 10%. (Note: There is still some disagreement on this. How do you define "The Market" -Dow Jones Industrials? S&P 500? Russell 5000?)

But we know over time, major indexes have yield on average close to 10% For the sake of argument, let's call it 9%.

So if 9% is the average, what would it take to buy you off and have you completely delegate all investing to someone else (a financial advisor, for example).

Some investors will immediately say - "I'll agree to the bargain for 9% per year. After all, it's a reasonable return, a "fair" return."

Some investors will say - "Heck, I'll sign up 7%! If the return is guaranteed, I'll never need to worry again. It's worth a "below average" return for the peace of mind."

Some investors will say - "I need more. I like investing money. I enjoy it. And I think I can do better. I need 10%... 15%... 25%! to make it worth my while."

A rare minority will simply never go for it, at any price.

So ask yourself that question. No matter what your answer is; it will be revealing.

It calls to mind a true story of an avid poker player who also happened to be a day-trader. Let's call him, Mr. B.

Mr. B was losing at poker. He'd bluff too much. He'd play ill-advised hands. He'd refuse to fold. Fact is, he sucked.

He became sick of losing, so he hired a professional to teach him how to play winning poker. And lo and behold, it worked. After a few lessons, Mr. B began to see better results. He found himself making a little money, and slowly began to build a bank roll.

And after 2 months, Mr. B quit playing.

Why?

"Too boring," he said.

So was Mr. B playing the game for financial reasons (like he thought), or was he playing for something else, to satisfy emotional needs?

And what exactly were these emotional returns that he valued above financial returns?

Knowing the answer to the above question in red is a great first step to knowing where your investing values, strengths and vulnerabilities lie. All other things being equal, such knowledge makes you a better investor.

We also offer you another deal, to come to one of our Professional Seminars (there's nothing else like them out there - don't be fooled by imitations!) whether one designed for everyday investors, or for investing professionals.

Cheers.

Testosterone and Sexy Ladies

While this isn't yet a porn site (so long as the profit motive doesn't overcome our desire to educate investors), we should report on two independent studies that are showing a correlation between Testosterone, sexy photos and financial risk taking.

I'm not talking about "financial porn."

I know it sounds strange, but a hormone level (Testosterone) correlates with higher trading returns (see this study). Taking external testosterone won't boost returns, but having a higher baseline level in the morning, independent of other events, may increase the aggressiveness of risk-taking and lead to higher returns. However, while the effect was significant, the sample size was fairly small (17) and homogenous (intra-day traders).

Seeing an unrelated sexy photo increases financial risk taking (See Brian Knutson's study here), which is where the above image comes from. Knutson's study indicates that external, irrelevant photos that activate our old friend, the Nucleus Accumbens, appear to have a lingering and substantial impact on subsequent risk taking. This may explain why casinos put ther female staff in revealing clothes and car companies and others use lightly clad women to sell their completely unrelated products. The dopamine surge accompanying the sight of a sexy photo increases financial risk taking going forward. There are other stimuli that also cause dopamine release in the Nucleus Accumbens, and these can plausibly be assumed to increase financial risk taking as well. As I have mentioned in the past, the genius of Knutson's studies is that the researchers are able to PREDICT financial risk-taking behavior. This allows them to study behavioral modification techniques in future experiments. That cannot be said of virtually all other neurofinance studies, including the Testosterone study cited above. In fact, the authors' media comments about the Testosterone effect are highly speculative (can you give a trader testosterone or cortisol to alter their financial risk taking? - now that would be a predictive study), and Testosterone is likely working through the Dopamine circuits anyway.

Happy Investing!
Richard

Rally Ahoy? (again)

A short-term rally will probably happen this Spring. If so, it is a "sucker's rally."

Maybe it's a quirk of human psychology, but it seems like far too many investors buy at the high and sell at the low. It's such a common mistake that the inverse saying ("Buy high, Sell low") may be the most common in the Wall Street rule-book.

Many investors with cash may sit on the sidelines over the next few months as the stock market moves upwards. Near the high they will buy into the market, just when they can't take the pain of watching from the sidelines any longer.

We're coming off a Fear-bottom now (as Frank pointed out, the Bear-Stearns news was the straw that prompted a cleansing "capitulation"). It was "cleansing" because it knocked the weak money out of the stock market. Now strong money remains, and the race to Dow 13,000 is on again.

Why does this "Buy high and Sell low" misbehavior happen, and why is it so predictable? It seems to be one of the many mysteries of market psychology.

Richard

Nice Call, Master Yoda

Market: I'm not afraid!

Rich: You will be.... you. will. be.

Regarding your previous post, you may not have to be worried about the absence of fear for long.

The MarketPsych Fear Index has seen an uptick recently.

One reason I believe it has meandered of late is that a critical and catalyitc component was missing: The appearance of a nightmare scenario that the individual can; 1) experience viscerally, and 2) consider credible.

The Bear Stearns news today presented just such a scenario, and it sent a shockwave of fear through the markets.

We simply do not live in a world where "Modest CPI Numbers" can compete with "Wall Street Institution Imploding Overnight" in a market-moving contest.

If it sets off a "fear cascade" (think dominoes), we may just see Market Panic make it's first reappearance in years.

Getting my cash ready now...

I'm Afraid of the Absence of Fear

The MarketPsych Fear Index has been showing low Fear readings (see our Market Analysis page). This seems odd with stocks falling, the economy slowing, housing values falling, oil rising, and gold rising. Seems that inflation and low growth is coming -- a re-emergence of the old bogeyman: "Stagflation."

I double-checked this low reading by also looking at sentiment levels. Same result -- sentiment about the stock market is not so bad. I guess this makes sense considering the recent articles touting "Bargain stocks" and "Cheap shares."

The bad news, including falling stock prices, doesn't phase investors like it used to. It's like Learned Helplessness. Ironically, I'm worried by that lack of concern. It seems that investors are complacent about the bad news. As a long-time stock market investor, I've learned that we should take advantage of investor fear but avoid a complacent market.

Richard

Emotional Baggage: When it's so hard to let go...

Selling a losing stock shouldn't be hard. Yet many investors find that as bad news begins rolling in, they are in disbelief. The stock they loved has turned on them.

Take Starbucks (SBUX) for example. Last year the announcement that hot creamy drinks weren't selling as well as anticipated during the summer was a shocker to many star-struck (pardon) investors. I could hear the disbelief from investors in slow-motion withdrawal: "Starbucks can always keep growing and raising their drink prices, they just need to serve faster, colder drinks, fresher coffee, expand to Bhutan, etc..., can't they?" Yet, after Starbucks appeared on nearly every street corner, it should have seemed natural that growth had to begin slowing.

The Onion even noted in 1998 that Starbucks had begun opening Starbucks outlets in the bathrooms of existing Starbucks (see article here). To continue growing, Starbucks had to begin cannibalizing itself.

For most investors, the stages of coming to terms with a "Stock Gone South" are like those of someone dealing with other sad events in life. I cou;d even speculate that such stages might follow the logic of the Kubler-Ross model of the "Five Stages of Grief."

First, investors look for reasons why the bad news isn't really true or was maliciously fabricated by outsiders (DENIAL). If the bad news continues, then they feel ANGER (and maybe blame the management or "evil" short-sellers). Next they begin to negotiate (BARGAINING) with themselves, "I know this has been a great stock, but maybe I need to let her go for a while - I can always buy some shares again later." Unsentimental investors then sell, while the more sensitive types become indecisive - paralyzed with disappointment (DEPRESSION). If they make a habit of wallowing in self-pity, then they are likely to end up at the fifth stage of grief called ACCEPTANCE, whilst still owning the Stock as a hopeful "comeback kid" (though in reality it is likely to be sunburned pink (sheets) and panhandling for change somewhere near the equator).

At risk of jeers and taunts from those still in DENIAL, the same as is happening to SBUX might be happening to (drumroll please).... Google (GOOG)!!! Truth be told, GOOG actually looks relatively inexpensive under $450/share ... or am I too emotionally attached to see clearly? (Disclosure: I don't own GOOG shares...yet).

It might seem like an easy decision to cut GOOG loose and re-invest the money elsewhere. Unfortunately for investors there is an innate human tendency, called "the endowment effect," which unconsciously compels them to cling to familiar, fun, or long-held stocks. Associated with the endowment effect is a thought process that justifies continuing to hold a weak stock ("It's just a temporary setback;" "I'm a long-term holder;" "It's actually a good time to buy ... if only I wasn't already holding too many shares..."

We got some great evidence for the endowment effect at a training we ran for financial advisors last week. In our experiment we give out fancy "MarketPsych" pens to half the attendees (because we "forgot" to bring enough, oops!). We then decide to redistribute the pens using a market mechanism - for fairness sake. We ask those who received a pen to write down a price at which they would sell their pen (the ask), and those who did not receive a pen write down how much they would pay for one (the bid).

At our meeting last week there were NO transactions for pens among audience members, The average bid was $1.35 (which approximates the actual value of the pen). Remarkably, the average asking price was $8.80 (ranging from $3 to $15). The sample was small, and we usually see asking prices around $5, which is still remarkably high.

The high asking prices are a testament to the power of emotional attachment and its ability to cause overvaluing of those things we like (and those that are scarce). One way to increase the endowment effect, and widen the bid-ask spread, is to ask those who received a pen to describe the things they like about the pen, and to ask those without a pen to describe objective aspects of the pen. When we do that, the spread is even bigger.

So how can you fall out of love with SBUX, GOOG, or any other stock that is disappointing you? (And it usually is true that these stocks will continue underperforming going forward). Think of the objective aspects of the investment, not the ones you love to love. Don't think about how tasty frappuccinos are, think about the price to book value. Instead of remembering the pleasure you got the first time you Google'ed yourself, think of declining profit margins and ad revenues. It requires deliberate action, but it is definitely possible to toss aside your emotional baggage and learn to see stocks more rationally. It's just not very fun...

Happy Investing!
Richard

MarketPsy Capital

Our new spin-off asset management firm, MarketPsy Capital, was mentioned in a new Popular Science Magazine article. The fund will be using our ground-breaking linguistic analysis technology to identify and exploit psychological mis-pricings in stocks, currencies, and commodities. For more information, please contact Richard Peterson at richard@marketpsy.com.