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 You will find that they are generally rendered moot/outdated/incorrect within the first hour of trading.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

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.

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

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?