Cashing in in 2010

A link to a fine article written by Bob Frick over at http://www.kiplinger.com/ on poker and investing - specifically how working on the former can greatly improve your skill in the latter.

The article features insights from MarketPsych's Frank Murtha, as well as from Daniel Negreanu, which - if you're a poker fan - is always at treat.

Fun and interesting stuff.

MarketPsych offers advanced coaching/seminars to traders, financial analysts, financial advisors, money managers as well.

If you want to get better at your game, give us a shout at info@MarketPsych.com for more information.

Cheers. And good luck in 2010.

Dr. Frank Murtha

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

My home page is the Yahoo! Finance page. There are two reasons I chose it: 1) If I want to check a stock price, or market action, I can do so with just one click; 2) The pre-market headlines crack me up.

Go ahead, check them out yourself one day. You will find that they are generally rendered moot/outdated/incorrect within the first hour of trading.

Look, I'm trained as a psychologist. I look at things differently. It probably makes me a "bit of an odd duck", to borrow a phrase from my father. (It's true. Ask any of my remaining friends.)

But you don't need to be the quirky type to see why this (lead) sentence from the pre-market headline article is just silly.

"The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week as the recovery of the nation's battered labor market proceeds in fits and starts."

What's wrong with this sentence? Well for starters it notes that unemployment claims rose "unexpectedly" last week. Later on in the same sentence, it notes that the labor market "proceeds in fits and starts."

First of all, all economic forecasting is incredibly complex. Why a rise of 1% rather than a decline of 1% for one lousy week's worth of data rates as a "surprise" is beyond me. It's like standing in a rain shower and saying you got hit by a particularly unexpected raindrop. (Really? Didn't see that one coming??)

But the second clause of the sentence says the market proceeds in "fits and starts". Yes, it does. Truly. It is a point that is universally acknowledged. So how can you be suprised by a slight decrease while simultaneously noting the market proceeds in a herky jerky fashion?

For crying out loud, pick a side and stick with it!

Behavioral finance research has taught us how rarely data conform to our pre-supposed parameters. We know a coin will come up heads 50% of the time. Yet somehow we find ourselves wanting results to alternate heads/tails when we flip it. We see a run of 3 or more heads in a row, our pattern-seeking brains screams, "anomaly!"

It's not an anomaly. It is the essence of randomness.

Back to the article; if you read it in its entirety, you will see just how complex the jobs data are. You will find yourself wondering if the first paragraph still makes sense by the end of it.

The skinny: When it comes to a week's worth of economic data, market movements... the weather, don't "expect" anything.

It is sillyness that calls to mind this famous bit of sillyness .

I'm going to have my coffee now.

(Entirely too much sillyness.)

-Frank Murtha

You have Gone Favre Enough!: Leading a Portfolio Comeback

The NFL is back and for the 18th consecutive year and so is Brett Favre.

I was watching the Jets in New York when the network went to a game update - Vikings vs. 49ers. Favres Vikings were down 24-20 at home to the upstart Niners. With time for one play remaining on the clock, Favre dropped back but was quickly flushed from the pocket. Scrambling desperately, with the final seconds ticking away, Farve stepped up and threw a pass about fifty yards on a line to the back to the back of the endzone. Miraculously, with two defenders all over him, Gregg Lewis plucked the ball out of the air and got two feet in bounds and - Pow! Lighting strike! - the Vikings had won the game.

The crowd at the Metrodome went nuts. His teammates mobbed him at midfield. And the sports cliches came poring in -- Brett Farve, the river-boat gambler! Farve, the old gunslinger! Hes done it again! It was truly an amazing comeback.

And because I am a geek, it made me think of investing.

If you’ve been in the game the last few years, chances are you have been losing too; your net worth that is. Yes, the major indices have rallied considerably in the last 6 months, but all in all those indices are still down approximately 40% from their highs.

Investors want a comeback. But how do you lead a comeback in these circumstances? What does it take to get your portfolio back on track?

The choice comes down to two major sports cliches that any NFL fan (sports fan in general, really) will recognize. Do you try to make make something happen? Or do you take what the defense gives you? The choice for investors is clear.

It can be very tempting to go for the latter and try to make a play. You know, like Brett Favre did. Youre down big. You feel restless, like time is running out, you have to make a play. In football these plays are often called Hail Marys. In investing they are called, well, Hail Marys.

It’s the same play. High risk, big reward, chuck the ball down field into heavy coverage and pray your guy is the one who catches the ball. That is essentially what Favre did. And in his case it was the right play.

When Favre threw his last second pass into heavy coverage, he had no alternative. Could his pass have been intercepted? Absolutely. (And knowing Brett Favre, there’s a good chance it would have been). But the clock was about to run out. He needed a touchdown to win. Not only was it an acceptable risk in this case - it was really no risk at all.

But for investors, even though the temptation can be overwhelming, trying to make something happen is the wrong call.

Football games have binary outcomes. You either win or you lose. (Yes, technically you can tie. But that is an extreme outlier). The object in any one game is to win, so sometimes you have to take risks you ordinarily wouldnt like to.

But investing success is not measured this way (e.g., 2 million dollars or die trying!) Framing one’s investments as all or nothing/win or lose is one of the absolutely worst traps an investor can fall into. It causes us to take foolish, reckless chances - the equivalent of throwing into triple coverage. In a football game with a minute left in the 4th quarter there can be nothing to lose on a play. In investing, it just feels that way. You can always lose 100% of what you have.

In addition to a win/lose framework a second difference is that the clock doesn’t run out on your investing - not like it does in a football game anyway. It is ticking, and thats part of the problem. Sometimes the clock seems to be ticking so loud that it’s all we can hear. But the bottom line is we do have more time left. We don’t know how much. In some cases decades, in other cases much less. But barring the most extreme and unusual circumstances, we are not in a position with our investing to say, I need to make 50% on my money by the end of the year or its game over.”

And even when our biological clock expires, our investments do not. They get, in most cases, passed on to the people we love, spouses, children, grandchildren.

The right way to lead a portfolio comeback is to take what the defense (read: Market) gives you. That is not a code for be ultra conservative. By all means take advantage of cheap valuations. Adjust your asset allocation. But let your choices be dictated by opportunities, not a desperate desire to make it all back on one play. You may find that the supposed long, slow climb back can happen more quickly than we expected - and without advanced warning. Those with broad equities exposure have seen just that in the last 6 months.

Maybe your comeback has begun. I hope it has. Or maybe you have been on the proverbial sideline. If the latter is the case, you may feel an even greater temptation to make something happen. Resist this temptation. Evaluate your goals. Evaluate your holdings. Evaluate your opportunities. And start making sound, measured decisions. Do it. Take what the defense gives you and you will come back.

There is only one Brett Favre.

And as any Jets fan will tell you, he led the league in interceptions last year.

-Dr. Frank Murtha

Swine Flu: Don't Panic! (Seriously. Don't.)

A few years ago they terrified us with chicken.

In 2009 it's pork, bacon and ham. Once again, the world's tastiest creatures appear bent on revenge.

Yes, we have another potential pandemic on our hands, this one goes by the name of Swine Flu. And like most every medical scare, the response is all out of proportion to the facts as we know them.

Since Swine Flu touched down here in New York City, it's all people seem to want to talk about. And the media reports rather than dowsing fears, have predictably poured gasoline on the fire.

"New virus"... "no known cure"... "quarantines"... "stockpiling Tamiflu"... and now this "money quote"; "I fully expect we will see deaths from this infection." (Richard Besser, acting director of the CDC.)

Scary, right?

A little perspective is called for here.

Yes, there may be deaths resulting from the Swine Flu in the United States. There have been 150 deaths (at last count) in Mexico.

But there are ALWAYS deaths from an outbreak of influenza. (Sad but true) How many? The CDC estimates that complications from influenza kill approximately 36,000 people each year.

Thirty-six. Thousand.

Today I read "Fears of Swine Flu" were the reason the DJIA gave its gains back. If this episode seems like a repeat (perhaps of repeat of Quincy), it is. A few years ago it was Avian (Bird) Flu that captured the imagination of the media. It weighed on the necks of the world markets, like an infected albatross.

Let's check the stats on that "Superbug". In the last 10 years (according to the World Health Organization) it has killed 248 people (as of January of '09).

Look, I am not making light of Swine Flu. It has already inflicted horrible suffering on people. It is truly a killer and all out effort to combat it should be taken with the utmost alacrity.

But if people feared the mundane killers out there a fraction as much as they fear these inflated medical scares, they'd never leave the house.

My wife, (bless her heart) worries when I take a plane. "Let me know when you get you there, honey", "Call me when you get in", she says to me.

What I (wisely) no longer bother to point out is that the most dangerous part of my journey arrives after I get into JFK.

Flying is amazingly safe. So safe, that when something bad happens amidst the millions of flights that take off every year, it makes news. More than that, it IS news. Cars on the other hand...

You know what kind of flying isn't safe? Flying down the Long Island Expressway at night and weaving in and out of traffic on the Triboro bridge at 75 miles an hour, while your Russian taxi driver is screaming epithets at his girlfriend over the phone.

That's legimitately terrifying.

Turbulence? Piece of cake.

So let's not lose sight of the baseline here.

We have enough real economic indicators out there scaring us already.

Do we really need the Pig Flu torpedoing our rallies?

MarketPsych on TV

Been a little remiss in my blogging the past month, but I wanted to update folks.

I will be on CNBC Monday morning (supposedly between 10:30 and 11:00 AM) with Erin Burnett and Mark Haines talking about Fear and Market Bottoms.

So tune if you wish.

And congrats to Richard and the MarketPsy Asset Management crew who have been riding high through these turbulent markets. When it comes to secret formulas for deliciousness, there's Coca Cola, Kentucky Fried Chicken... and MarketPsy.

Yeah, But Are You "Sure-Sure"?

Ivory soap is famously 99.44% pure. I like that extra 44/100s. It gives me peace of mind.

If only financial forecasters would follow the Ivory model in their predictions. I've been hearing/reading/seeing a lot of expert predictions these days. New calendar years and volatile markets seem to attract them.

Now, let's be clear, I don't have a crystal ball. (I do have a Magic 8-Ball. But when I asked it if the Jets would make the playoffs it told me "Signs Point to Yes." So I'm thinking it's busted.)

The only predictions I will make with any confidence are these:

1) All consensus predictions will be too narrow in scope.

2) People will overuse artificial parameters in the form of round numbers and calendar years when formulating those overly narrow predictions.

Okay, I cheated.

Those aren't predictions. They're observations of human behavior that are among the most reliable you will ever find.

How reliable? Research into the area that behavioral finance folks call "overconfidence" indicate that when people are asked to predict a range in which they are 99% confident results will fall (i.e., a 99% confidence interval) they are correct 80% of the time.

Now at first blush, that may not seem so awful. 80% vs 90-something%...what's the big deal?

But it is awful.

Truly, horribly, make-you-want-to-toss-your-cookies awful.

Why?

Think of the corresponding behavior in light of such predictions. When we're 99% of something, it's basically as close to saying we're absolutely certain as we're going to get.

You could go Ivory Soap and say 99.44% certain but when we blurt out, "I'm 99% sure that won't happen", we're essentially saying, "No shot in hell."

That's dangerous even when it's TRUE.

Once in a hundred years was the standards to which they built the New Orleans levees. That works fine... right up until your neighborhood has to be airlifted off the rooftops.

But with market predictions, it's 20x worse. Events that people - and this includes experts, mind you -- say would happen every 100 years (1%) - happen EVERY FIVE YEARS (20%).

Let's say you listen to a more conservative expert predictor. He/she is twice as good and are accurate 90% of the time.

That STILL means every 10 years we're going to experience something that "nobody" saw coming.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote a book called The Black Swan. (It's not as good a book as Richard Peterson's Inside the Investor's Brain, but it's certainly worth reading).

Where are we seeing such predictions these days?

Oh... everywhere.

"Where do you believe the S & P will be a year from now?"

"How high do you think unemployment can go?"

"What are the chances you will have to cut your dividend, Mr. CEO?"

Remember, fellow investors, fight the danger of narrow framing and don't be drawn into sharing the outlook of those who look at the horizon through a key hole and tell you wide it is.

We have no reliable way of knowing how bad (or how good) it's going to get.

The key is to expand the scope of expectations and to have plans in place for even the most unlikely-seeming scenarios.

Think "Ivory Soap".

And good luck.

-Frank

(If you are interested in a MarketPsych seminar, please feel free to contact us at info@marketpsych.com. I'm 99.44% sure you will find our seminars valuable.)

CEO's do it.

Oh, Ye of Little Faith

Faith.

What is it? What does it mean to investors?

If something is provable, certain... there is no need for it.

You don't need faith when you already know.

Faith is for the times when you really don't know.

It's the belief in something despite a lack of evidence.

The essence of faith is doubt.

We investors are getting our faith tested these days.

Faith in policies that we were assured will fix the problems. Faith in the people who make them. Faith in companies who say their balance sheets really are okay. Faith that investing in stocks is a good and safe choice for the long term.

Algonquin Round Table raconteur, Alexander Woollcott once said, "Everything I love is either illegal, immoral or fattening."

Exactly.

Cheating vs. Owning Up?

Looking the Other Way vs. Taking a Stand?

Broccoli vs. Red Velvet Cupcakes?

You want a short and reliable guide to making the "right" choice?

It's the one that's most difficult to choose.

So here we have a market that is tantalizingly cheap (historically speaking) and absolutely terrifying.

What choice do you make if you have a long term horizon?

I say unto thee, brothers and sisters: Those who have faith in this market will be rewarded somewhere down the road.

I believe that. In fact, I'm acting on it.

But to tell you the truth, I'm just going on faith.

The Value of the Time Out

In the words of Dick Vitale... "Get a T.O., Baby!!"

The value of the time out to the investor and investors plural (i.e., "the market") is hard to exaggerate.

Whether it's FDR's famous "Bank Holidays," or suspended trading, or simply going for a long walk when you're tempted to make an impulsive trade, the "time out" is a major weapon in an investor's fear-fighting aresenal.

Why? Because fear FORCES us to think short term. It's simply the way our brains are wired. There is a sound biological/evolutionary reason behind this reaction.

When you're out gathering firewood for the cave and lock eyes with a large male Smilodon (read Sabretooth Tiger) who has just emerged from the glade, your brain simply CANNOT LET you indulge in thoughts like "what to wear to Zog's birthday party?" or "should I redo the cave paintings for the harvest season (antelopes are so "early pleistocene")?"

The Sabretooth has gone the way of the Dodo, but the evolutionary function remains. Intense fear still draws our focus on the here and now. As well it should.

This is where the time out can help. The ablility to take a break and regain our bearings (to "step out of the box" as Crash Davis would say) gives our amydalas a chance to stop firing. When that happens we can engage other parts of our brain. That's when we can pull up and out of the tailspin of panic. It's neurobiology. See Rich's critically acclained tome for more information.

This is, of course, the eternal struggle for investors: To pull out of the short-term focus and think big picture.

When we do calm our brains and revisit the situation, it doesn't mean our outlook becomes rosy. It just means we've given our brains the ability to reintroduce reason to our thinking processes - and perhaps a chance to spot the fantastic opportunities such crises produce.

A few days off may be just what the doctor ordered.

In the meantime, good luck out there, everyone.

Frank

Pressure Valve: Letting off Steam

Have you ever seen a steam pipe explode?

I did. I was in Boston driving down Boylston. I heard an explosion, checked the rear view mirror and what I saw looked amazingly close to the above photograph.

Market crises can create the investing equivalent of steam pipe explosions. Investors get caught between two competing pyschological forces that build up pressure:

On one hand, uncertainty causes indecision.

But on the other hand, when we are anxious, we naturally feel a need to do SOMETHING.

The result of these two psychological forces work against each other until -- Kaboom! -- the pressure becomes too much.

It's a vicious cycle and it goes something like this: Do nothing (and suffer), do nothing (suffer some more), continue to do nothing (suffer to the breaking point) then PANIC!!! (do something rash).

It's a wealth killer.

We need a way to let off steam, so that the pressure doesn't build to the point of explosion.

Now, let it be said that we don't give specific advice to investors here at MarketPsych.

Nonetheless, there are some tricks that people often employ to relieve the pressure.

One of the best pressure valves we have is to sell a small percentage of certain positions to free up some cash.

This works on a financial level, but more importantly it works on an emotional level.

Why does it work?

1) It fulfills a deep-seated psychological need to do something, to take back control of our lives.

2) It creates something safe. It lets us know that at least part of the money that was at risk, is now safe. We have less exposure to pain.

3) It gives us freedom. We now have money that we can put to work on our terms. Emotional forces can no longer compel us to sell what will we have already willingly sold.

4) It's a hedge against regret. We all have the same nausea-inducing fears of regret: E.g. "The moment I sell, the market will bottom out" or "It's going to keep going down, and I'm going to hate myself for riding it to the bottom." Selling a small percentage mitigates this crippling fear.

5) It allows us to reframe crises as opportunities. We know that market panics create opportunities. The problem for so many people is they simply don't have the cash available to take advantage of those opportunities. The ability to engage other parts of our brain is another fear-fighting tool that helps put investors back on a healthy investing track.

How much is enough? 1%? 5%?... 20%? Only you can decide. Sit down with your advisor and see where you stand.

If you would like more information on our trainings, please feel free to contact us.

In the meantime... good luck out there.

Frank

The Wicked Garden Effect (TM)

I don't know if you've noticed, but it's been a bumpy ride for "The Market" so far this year.

And by bumpy, I mean horribly nauseating.

Many of us have individual holdings that have dropped 20%.

And many of us have holdings that have dropped a lot more than that.

Now, if you managed to hit the eject button early on and have resisted the urge to grasp at the knives falling all around us, I offer you my sincere congratulations. You've held fast to Warren Buffet's first rule of investing, "Don't lose money."

But if you're Un-Buffet-Like (and most of us are), you may be holding some positions that are way down. And if you need to clear up some cash, you may be put in the unenviable position of having to sell stocks when you'd prefer not to.

The question becomes; which stocks do you sell?

Here's a question: Imagine you've got two stocks in your portfolio. Stock A is up 25% from your buying price. Stock B is down (ugh) 25% from what you paid for it. Given just this information, which one would you be most inclined to sell?

What does your gut tell you to do in this situation?

Go ahead and think about it for a moment.

I'll wait.
...
...
...

Which one did you pick?

If I were a gambling man (and I am), I'm going to say you picked stock B. Most people do.

Now, Stock B may indeed be the best choice to sell. We have no way of knowing in this scenario.

But reflect on the reasons, the inner justifications for your decision above.

You may find yourself thinking things like.."It'll come back" or "Now is a bad time to sell" or "I can lock up a gain if I sell stock A" or "Why didn't Dirk Benedict get more work after he did The A Team... he was cool as hell on that show?")

Sorry. Got a little off track on that last one.

The desire to sell the winners in our portfolio, but hold the losers is a phenomenon that we at MarketPsych call "The Wicked Garden Effect."

We call it that because it's the investing equivalent of clipping all the flowers in a garden, and watering the weeds. And in my book, this is the worst mistake investors make. Over time you are left with a garden that is overrun by weeds, and the flowers have long been gone. The effect is devastating.

You may recognize this tendency in yourself or even recognize a couple of accounts that have become like Wicked Gardens.

Behavioral finance would cite the concept of Loss Aversion as the culprit. And they'd be right. But I view it as allowing our emotional needs (e.g., to feel good about ourselves, to not be a "loser") to override our financial needs (e.g., to invest in the best companies, to make money.)

Unfortunately, the price for feeling okay about ourselves often comes at the expense of our returns.

How do you defend against the Wicked Garden Effect?

1) Be aware of this powerful tendency.

2) Use solid objective criteria on which stocks to sell. (This is tough. It requires research and thinking... do it anyway.)

3) Identify the emotional need behind the sell decision and get some leverage on yourself. The fool isn't the one who made a mistake. The fool is the one who can't admit it.

For those who are interested, MarketPsych does (fun and interesting) investing workshops, trainings and presentations that explore this and other concepts.

Happy Investing.

Frank

Negative Expectations at Their Highest in History

Our MarketPsych index of negative stock market expectations is now the highest we've ever seen (we've got data back to 1984).

The Fed's actions and words -- explicitly committing to bail out mortgage lenders -- should have lowered market negativity. Instead we got a morning rally afterwards and then further selling.

What we saw last week was everyone jumping ship - a real crowd effect. The only information driving investors was downwards price action and rumors of further collapses. The more stocks dropped, the more they sold. A positive feedback loop was created.

In psychology, a positive feedback loop is created when people base their opinion of how bad a situation is on the actions of others. When everyone is doing this, we can usually call it the peak of a mania or the bottom of a panic.

The market stopped being comforted by the Fed, which is a bit scary. Fortunately, it was primarily the financials getting hit today. The Biotech index was actually up 4%. A rally is certainly near (though I was wrong last week).

Eventually, when the supply of sellers decreases, because they've run out of shares or capital to sell, positive feedback loops can't sustain their negative price momentum.

The danger is that acting on negative expectations can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I wrote about this in my book, with the example of Brazil's near debt default in 2002.

Essentially, the more investors avoid new bond offerings, and the higher rates go (especially for junk bonds), the more squeezed are companies that need to raise capital. Eventually many will go bust because they can't afford the high interest rates (which are high because investors are afraid the companies will default). If the rates had been lower (because investors were more calm), then the debt would have been service-able and the company would have survived. The crowd's pessimism really can make things worse (just as its optimism was problematic in allowing such overconfident risk taking through 2007).

At this point, it's important to ask "can it get worse?" (yes), "will it get worse?" (probably), and "has this been priced in?" (in many sectors, yes, much too much).

In financials it's not clear to me if it has been priced in, hmmm.... A rally in financials won't happen until we know where the next bogeyman is. And right now, there are lots of terrible rumors, but no new sources of pain. I think investors are waiting to see how the current pain will spread, since it's clear that the economy is slowing and the real economic slowdown hasn't been reflected in the numbers yet. "Who's next to collapse?" is often heard.

There are some amazing bargains out there. A stock or bond screen will demonstrate great values. I don't trust the numbers on financials (never have), but in some traditional industries low debt stocks with PEs of 6 and trading under their book values are much more common. I won't get specific because the blog is about psychology, not stocks picks at the moment.

But watch out for stocks vulnerable to the self-fulfilling prophecy of higher interest rates for "risky" bonds. That's whay I mentioned to look for "low debt" stocks.

Solutions to the current crisis include better political and regulatory management of the psychology of risk-taking, which isn't likely anytime soon (as I mentioned in my last blog post). It will take some deep understanding of human behavior in the Fed and SEC (and maybe an in-house psychologist or two) before we get such enlightened policy. In the meantme, there will always be bubbles and panics to take advantage of.

Historic times we're in. Now let's make the best of it!

Richard

Fearless Forecasting: How Low Can You Go?

It's official. The DJIA dropped 20% from its highs last October.

In other words, the Bear is back.

Whenever we hit a nice round number (e.g., "Dow 10,000) or experience a round number move (e.g., "Down 20%) it leads to a big picture discussion of where the market has gone... and where it will go next.

That means "market predictions".

In an earlier post, I observed that employing a black-tailed marmoset to throw darts at a board would prove just as useful an exercise (and an infinitely more entertaining one.)

It may be useful in at this time to review two major causes of precisely why.

One major cause is something called the Gambler's Fallacy, a miscalculation that ironically tends to afflict more market savvy investors (pros) than casual investors (amateurs).

Quick Example: Say you're at Mohegan Sun (where I was last week) and you're observing the roulette table. The wheel turns up "red" results 7 times in a row. These results don't fit with our mental schema. We know that the odds of a ball coming up "red" vs "black" at a roulette table is roughly 50%/50% (47.368/47.368 to be more precise). Our brain says something to the effect of "Black is due"! And we feel the urge to bet (overbet?) on a black result next time. Of course, the odds of the wheel yielding a "black" result are the same as ever - roughly 50/50. But it feels like it should turn up black, and that feeling overrides our rationality.

This is the classic manifestation of the Gambler's Fallacy - the notion a series of independent events yield useful information about predicting future independent events.

Pretty elementary stuff, I grant you. So why should something so obvious effect even top Wall Street Strategists?

Because the same tendency reveals itself in Market Predictions.

Hersh Shefrin, in his landmark book, Beyond Greed and Fear, provides a relevant example. At the beginning of 1997, Barron's interviewed chief strategists from top Wall Street firms, requesting 12 month market predictions.

On June 20, the market had risen 19.7% for the year to 7796, well above every strategist had forecasted.

A chief strategist for Smith Barney said in response, "We've all been humbled".

When Barron's asked the strategists for revisions predictions in late June, the average prediction was for the DJIA to drop 10.3% by year end.

Point of fact, the DJIA close slightlty higher for the year at 7908.

So despite all we know about market tendencies to move higher, the experts predicted a steep, upstream move in the opposite direction.

Why did they do it then and why do they continue to do it?

The answer is the investing version of the Gambler's Fallacy, that template driven interpretation of regression to the mean. We know the Dow tends to go up on average 9% or so every year. And we have a strong desire to fit predictions into that template.

But there is nothing magical about a calendar year - it's just a handy way of charting time. And if stocks tend to go up 9% or so every 12 months, than regression to the mean demands we predict that stocks will go up 9% or so every 12 months - not that they will reverse themselves according to our schedule in order to provide yearly averages.

Now, I'm not throwing stones here. Believe me, I'm not. I'm wrong constantly. And certainly all the participants were wise and learned professionals whose opinions are worthy of respect. But that's part of what makes this so fascinating.

Even they (especially they?) are not immune from the same impulses that drive roulette players to overbet because they think "red" is overdue or because a single digit number hasn't popped up in a while.

And - I can't help myself, I'm gonna say it - the other factor is no, (gosh darnit) they were not humbled, despite declarations to the contrary.

Wrong? Yes. Embarrassed? Perhaps. But humbled? No way.

A crucial component to being humbled is admitting you are wrong.

By prediciting a 10% reversal, the experts adjusted their predictions to support their original predictions.

Trying to prove you were right all along is not humility. It is the opposite of humility.

So with a bear market here and the inevitable market predictions to come, what are some things for investors to keep in mind?

1) Stay ready.

2) Stay humble.

3) Recognize the mathematical illusions inherent in regression to the mean.

Happy Investing.

Frank

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.

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...

How To Scare the Pants off an Investor

Fear may drive the markets. But when it comes to scaring investors, most people are amateurs.

Take all these doom and gloomers you see on TV. I bet they think they're reeeeeeally scary. With their "GDP numbers" and their "recession forecasts".

"Well, Sue, it's pretty bad out there. In fact, we've upped the likelihood of recession from 45% to 52% by Q2." (Pause for reaction).

Is that supposed to scare me? To you, I say, "Ha, would-be fearmonger! You've got nothing! I've seen Barbra Streisand movies that are scarier than that!"

(Actually, I find all Barbra Streisand movies utterly terrifying... perhaps that's a bad example)

You know why their analysis isn't scary? Because it's not emotion... it's math. I mean, you're not even engaging the right part of the human brain! (Dr. Peterson's opus is the definitive source on that subject).

"Uh, wait. There's a 52% chance of recession... but only a 76% chance of that. And that's only if LIBOR drops under 4%... Hold on, let me get my calculator." I mean, honestly.

Math is only scary when you're in 5th grade and are asked to go up to the blackboard and do long division problems in front of the class (and you know Mrs. Schecter picked you because she caught you passing notes to your buddy, Rob earlier in the day).

You want to know how to really scare the pants off investor? You want to really know how to get the stampede started?

First off, ditch the math. The odds of experiencing a loss don't scare people; it's the amount of that loss that scares people. This is the first crucial step toward sewing fear. Ever seen that show, Deal or No Deal? (e.g., I know my odds, but I could lose a guaranteed $300,000). It illustrates the difference beautifully.

And it's not just the degree of loss. Even that's still numbers, and number is the language of math. It's how those numbers will impact the quality of the investors' lives that generates the fear.

Investors have to imagine what they will feel like when the loss changes their lives. That's what turns their stomachs.

Also, fear is personal. You want to scare investors? You gotta make it personal.

You pictured sending your beloved son to an Ivy League School. You pictured walking across the quad and soaking in the beauty of the gorgeous Georgian style buildings and 300 year old Elm trees. How proud you would feel. Nothing but the best for your son! But...

There's no way you can afford that now. Your vision and his dream have been crushed. Instead, imagine the sense of shame and longing when you pull up to that shabby dorm at the state school with it's ugly utilitarian architecture. The best companies barely even recruit there. He'll never get the opportunities there you envisioned for him.

(MARKETPSYCH LEGAL COUNSEL DISCLAIMER): State schools provide excellent educational experiences. The quality of education is often superior to that of private colleges. In fact, Marketpsych founders have attended public schools, proudly. Moreover, many state schools have lovely campuses. They are not necessarily ugly or utilitarian, with the exception of the State University of New York at Buffalo's Amherst Campus which was apparently outsourced to the Soviet Ministry of Architecture in 1971.)

Not scary enough yet? Fine. You know that 0ctogenarian who was behind the counter at that chain book store? Remember the twinge of pathos you felt? Well guess what? You're going to be that guy because you can never afford to retire. Every morning you will put on your uniform, get the bus to the mall and spend all day on your aching feet squinting at book prices because your eye sight "isn't what it used to be". At lunch you will get a half an hour to eat the bologna sandwich you made that morning. You will be doing this the rest of your life.

I think we're getting warmer.

Lastly, add some regret. (i.e., And not only did this awful thing happen... but it was all your fault!)

Of course, different investors imagine different worst case scenarios. But we all have them. Wheyn you create the connection from how their investing loss would lead to that terrifying reality, and the investor actually pictures themselves in that situation and feels what it would feel like... that's when you really.

Fifty-two percent chance of a recession?

Whatever, math-guy.

Talk to me when we get to the catfood.

The Market Prediction Game: Here We Go Again...

There's been a lot of activity in the markets so far in 2008. We've seen uncommon (though harldly unseen) volatility. And with volatility comes one of "The Street's" favorite pastimes; The Market Prediction Game.

But how do these predictions tend to pan out? With talking heads doing their talking thing everyday, it's hard to keep track of the daily (hourly?) deluge of prognostications.

But when we do collect the information, it is telling. The Wall Street Journal surveyed top economists semi-annually, to get forecasts on what bonds were going to do over the next 6 months. The data go back to 1982.

The experts (intelligent people all, to be sure), were wrong in the predictions of the direction bond yields 66% of the time. That is to say, when asked 6 months from now will the yield on a 10 Year Treasury be A) Higher or B) Lower... they got it right 1 out of 3 times. (Source: Davis Advisors)

Do you realize how bad that is?

Employing a black-tailed marmoset to throw darts at a board marked "higher" and "lower" would be a better predictor!

MARKETPSYCH LEGAL COUNSEL DISCLAIMER: Marketpsych.com does NOT promote or otherwise endorse the practice of marmoset dart throwing. Sure, it's fun. But that's beside the point. Arming small, wiry primates with sharp objects for throwing is dangerous and most likely illegal in the US (with the possible exception of licensed establishments in the state of Nevada). Marketpsych partners are NOT responsible for damages suffered by those engaging in this activity.

The fact is, human beings are notoriously lousy predictors of future market events. A study by George Wolford and associates at Dartmouth College found that even rats and pigeons outpeform humans in short-term market prediction. (No word on marmosets).

This does not mean the market doesn't have cycles, or that patterns don't emerge. Indeed, to be wrong 2 out of 3 times (as the economists were on bond yields) lends credence to the notion that the predictions are NOT random. It points to the central theme of short-term reactivity that seems to dominate investing patterns - something we call Whack-A-Mole Syndrome. (TM)

My colleague, Dr. Richard Peterson, has written about it here in his superior book, and even developed the Marketpsych Fear Index which tracks how investor emotion is often an inverse predictor.

But the point is you don't need a crystal ball to be a succesful investor. You need a few simple but undervalued qualities. 1) The ability to recognize companies with proven records. 2) The ability to recognize when their stocks are at an attractive valuation vs. earnings. 3) The discipline to invest your money in them... and not monkey with it. (pardon the pun).

But we can't help ourselves. With so much information available, with so much money on the line, we love to engage in the Prediction Game. (By the way, Pats 34 - Giants 14 - you heard it here first!).

The Market Prediction Game reminds me of the end of the classic 80's flick, War Games (starring a young Matthew Broderick), when "Joshua", the American military super-computer aborts a nuclear launch on the Soviet Union because it realizes that it would result in mutually assured destruction. The computer learns the folly of the eponymous "War Game".

"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Indeed, Joshua. So don't play.

How about buying some great companies cheap?

Or perhaps a nice game of chess, instead?

For Smooth Sailing, Winch up Your Financial Anchors

What's your anchor? If you don't know, it could be costing you.

There were some fascinating (but expected) results during a training program Frank and I ran for financial professionals this week. We asked one-half of attendees whether the Dow Index was likely to close above or below 18,500 in 12 months. The other half we asked whether the Dow would close above or below 10,250 in 12 months. After this first question, we asked each group to estimate where they thought the Dow would actually close in 12 months.

This is a classic experiment in which the irrelevant number mentioned in the first question profoundly affects the predictions made in the next one. It's called "anchoring" because people anchor their expectations to a recently seen, but irrelevant, number. In this case we had a positive anchor (18,500) and a negative one (10,250).

Amazingly, the average prediction for the high-anchor group was 15,644.
With the low anchor it was 13,792

The low-anchor group predicted a Dow gain of 2% over the next 12 months, while the high-anchor group predicted a 16% return. That's a 14% difference in range!

We get a spread about this wide whenever we do this experiment, and virtually every audience is shocked to see the size of the difference.

Anchoring affects analysts (who anchor on the most recent earnings estimates of other analysts), portfolio managers (who anchor on analysts' expectations), and individual investors (who anchor on IPO and recent or 52-week high and low prices).

Many investors anchored on an expectation of a 0.50% Fed rate cut this week. Ooops.

When expectations are anchored, then they can easily be disappointed, leading to emotional reactions that further impair judgment. It's a slippery slope.

Always good to be sure where you're standing (and what your anchor is).

Just some thoughts for improving self-understanding.

Happy Investing!
Richard

THE EROI (Emotional Return on Investing)

Has this ever happened to you?

Recently I sold half of a position (large drug company) that I had held for 5 years. Did I have a good reason? Not especially. I figured that as a solid company it was wort owning - I just didn't need THAT much of it.

But - as is always the case with Whack-A-Mole Syndrome (TM) - it immediately started to move up. In fact, it almost seemed that the stock had become aware that I had sold it and used that information as the catalyst to move up 3 percent over the next two days.

Then something weird happened; I found myself rooting against it.

As a rational, self-interested being I was struck by this reaction. After all, since I still owned the stock, every move higher was making me money. But every move up was also a stinging rebuke of my in retrospect completely arbitrary decision to dump half my shares. This resulting conclusion was inescapable; I literally found myself wanting to lose money.

Why would an investor ever want to do that??

It's simple. We invest for an emotional return that more important even then the financial return. In fact, money is never the goal of investing. It is the means to the end, a currency that buys us emotional states (e.g., feeling safe, feeling proud, feeling free).

Unfortunately, sometimes our emotional goals and financial goals are imcompatible.

Being aware of our secret reasons for investing The E.R.O.I (Emotional Return on Investing) is what helps us overcome our psychology and navigate through the emotional mindfield of equities investing.

Are there any times you felt yourself actually wanting to lose money? Feel free to post a response.

In the meantime, happy investing.

Oh! And check out Dr. Peterson's cool book for more great insights into how to become a better investor.

Market Fear: The Poison and The Antidote

If behavioral finance teaches us one thing, it is that Fear trumps Greed. In fact, it's not even close. Fear is like the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals. Sure, ostensibly it's a real contest, but despite the ups and downs along the way, we always know who's going to win in the end. The outcome is predetermined, inexorable.

(Authors Note: I used to use the Yankees and the Red Sox for this analogy. But then David Ortiz hit that home run off Mariano Rivera in 2004 and rendered my metaphor obsolete. A pox on your house, Red Sox Nation!!!)

Fear drives the market. Why? Because losing hurts more than winning feels good. Because the future is uncertain, and the default emotion in cases of uncertainty is fear. Because you're not paranoid, the Market really is out to get you, and fear is the greatest weapon in the Market's arsenal.

How do we fight our fear? With "reason"? Well, some people do. And by "some people" I am chiefly referring to Vulcans - the supremely rational beings from the eponymous planet who are not afflicted by such human weaknesses as emotion. (Then again, Vulcans mate only once every seven years, so you can see why emotions could be a big drawback.)

No. For most of us on Planet Earth, we are forced to fight the battle on an emotional level. Reason definitely helps, but only so far as it helps us reacquire our emotional equilbrium.

Fear is a poison. But there is an antidote - Control. Not actual control (which is irrelevant) but the belief that that you have control. Fear beats Greed. Perception beats Reality - at least where our emotions are concerned.

We have seen this play out recently on marketwide level with the recent actions of the Fed Charmain, Ben Bernanke. The market flagged due to fear. (It always does due to fear.) But the fires of fear were stoked in large part because one of the main sources of investors' (sense of) control is the Federal Reserve Board.

After months of hearing "Inflation remains our primary concern", investors began to wonder if the esteemed Dr. Bernanke really "got it". The Market was saying; "Does he understand our concerns? Does he even care?"

Investors were riding shotgun with the Fed Chairman on a dangerous road. They were concerned there may be a cliff up ahead, but they were even more concerned that the Fed Chairman was asleep behind the wheel.

The first shot of control was injected back in July when Chairman Bernanke acknowledged that the mortgage crisis (and credit crunch) were on his radar screen. (Whew! He's not sleeping after all.) The second shot of control came when he lowered the discount rate. (He's awake and he's willing to hit the brakes.)

People called his decision to lower the discount rate a "largely symbolic move". Exactly. Symbols are important, especially when the symbolic gesture tells people, "Relax. I'm on it".

The Market has been calling (or is it whining?) for an interest rate cut. And I, for one, think that would be splendid. But investors got something even more important. They got back their sense of control.

It's like the immortal words of Mick Jagger:

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need."

Bernanke's awake. It'll do for now.