Here We Go Again

Once again, we see the word "unexpectedly" being used in conjunction with a monthly move in consumer sentiment/housing/jobs reports.

I'm not sure what it would take to banish this word as it pertains to short term variance in noise-laden indexes. The article features this nugget re: Consumer Sentiment: "Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News had predicted the index would rise to 75 this April (preliminary)from 73.6 in March (final). The Index was at 73.6 in February, 74.4 in January, and 72.5 in December."

In order for something to be unexpected, there needs to be a sufficient degree of expectation.

Is that warranted for the monthly number on consumer sentiment?

You might as well argue how many Angels on the Head of a Pin or How many licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop
.
Statistical navel-gazing of this sort isn't merely silly as I mentioned here, it's counterproductive. It draws people into a pattern-seeking mode and into a destructively short-term focus that causes bad decisions.

Do yourself a favor. Resist it.


-Dr. Frank

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.

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.

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