The backfilling I thought was mostly over last week continued in earnest this week. Call me superstitious but I find the S&P 500 chart (closing prices) a bit too perfect to expect a big rally from here. Jason Goefert is talking about many sentiment divergences, but in order for those to play out in textbook fashion, we'll need to see a new market low first. But who knows? We could see a picture-perfect double bottom. In either case, I still believe we're close (within 4%) to an intermediate bottom. Unfortunately I'm a lot less encouraged about the duration and extent of the next leg up.
Now for politics:
I realize many you are sick of politics, especially after being subjected to the longest POTUS campaign of all time. That said, I don't think all politicians are corrupt, although I agree most politicians will do what's in their own short term best interest, as well as what's in their constituent's short term best interest. Unfortunately both of these are usually NOT in our country's long term best interest.
Like it or not, political decision can have an impact on both the economy and the markets, and that's one reason I write about politics on this blog. Secondly, I grew up as a son of a commercial plumber who started his own company as a contractor. I saw first hand the sacrifice, the long hours, the personal financial risk, and the insanity of government policies that almost seemed designed to punish anyone who attempted to run a company and create jobs. And God forbid if you made a profit - Uncle Sam was right there with hand open and arm extended.
Most people believe the economic impact of political decisions are immediate. They erroneously judge the success or failure of presidents and their policies by looking at job, stock market, and GDP growth from inauguration day until new drapes are hung. This is ridiculous of course, but try telling that to the dolts in the MSM.
Here are a couple examples:
- Our country has yet to pay the piper for entitlement programs, programs that began decades ago with the FDR administration. Since then, both parties have ignored the actuarial tables and sold Americans a mathematical lie. There's no way in hell future generations can keep this system solvent without a massive overhaul. And the Medicare situation is worse. To many Americans, especially older Americans, FDR is seen as a savior and Social Security has enormous political support. Even politicians who believe the system is fundamentally flawed and see an impending day of reckoning don't dare speak the truth in public. I find it ironic the same people who are wringing their hands about the current banking/mortage mess (e.g. Bill O'Reilly) are so willing ignorant and disinterested in the impending entitlement implosion.
- Ronald Reagan was roundly critcized by the media and Democrats for boosting defense spending during '80s, but for a few leftist historians, most agree that his build up played a role in greatly reducing the military threat of our then arch nemesis, the Soviet Union. Fast forward to the Clinton administration, who Democrats and the media applaud for generating budget surpluses in the late '90s. Clinton supporters never point out his administration cut military personnel from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll during the Clinton years, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. Could he have made such cuts were it not for Reagan's policies? Forget the tech bubble and the Revolution of 1994, Clinton cashed in the peace dividend and is now seen as an economic Houdini.
Barack Obama believes a bigger government and more spending is the answer to every problem. I do not. I'm deeply concerned that we no longer have any policy or ideological checks and balances in this country.
Most Americans aren't news, market, or political junkies. They get their news from Katie Couric and political advice from Oprah. They watch David Letterman and listen to the politics of Bruce Springsteen. They drink from the trough of an unending stream of leftist professors and watch movies that lambast conservatives at every turn.
Mark my words: The policies we're about to witness will result in a mountain of debt which will eventually result in economic circumstances that will effect our market negatively.
5 comments:
Jason Goefert is talking about many sentiment divergences,
What do you mean by sentiment "divergences"? That there are conflicting, contradictory signals?
I keep wondering if too many people are aware of the various technical and sentiment indicators (historical October bottom, apparent S&P support at 850ish, etc) to effectively invalidate them as a reliable predictive tool
The divergences he refers to are sentiment indicators that show progressively lower spikes in pessimism with every successive, lower spike down in market prices.
The specific indicators he referred to are: % stocks > 10 day avg., Equity only Put/Call ratio, the Rydex beta chase, and his Short Term Indicator Score, which is actually a model composed of these indicators:
VIX
VXN
PUT/CALL RATIO (EQUITY 5-DAY AVG)
TRIN (5-DAY AVG) - NYSE
TRIN (5-DAY AVG) - NASDAQ
DOWN PRESSURE (S&P)
DOWN PRESSURE (NDX)
PRICE OSCILLATOR (S&P)
PRICE OSCILLATOR (NDX)
INTRADAY TICK (NYSE)
INTRADAY TICK (NASDAQ)
RYDEX BULL/BEAR SPREAD
Goefert showed charts with similar sentiment behavior just before the March 2003 bottom.
I agree with your comment that indicators often lose forecasting value, but not because too many people are using them. There are more fundamental reasons why an indicator can fail and Goefert cites many indicators he has dropped (and added) over the years with well-founded rationale.
One reason my timing model is constructed of many indicators is to avoid being led astray by one or two indicators that break.
Forget sides on this issue....consider the question just an empirical inquiry. What's the percentage of people that listen to talk radio or Fox cable/broadcast(the right) and to what many regard as MSM (the left)?
Do not people seek the media that mirrors their own bias...as long as there is a choice? And, yes, politics does play role in the stock market..so it does make sense to intertwine the two.
I can't answer your question on percentages of media consumption - but I'm sure most politically interested Republicans gravitate to Fox News, Talk Radio, and right wing blogs, just as most politically interested Democrats gravitate to NBC/MSNBC, CNN, NPR, and the left wing blogs.
My point is most politically disinterested Americans and self-described Independents, possibly as much as a third of the electorate, consume news and entertainment with a liberal bias: Oprah, The View, SNL, The Today Show, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, 60 Minutes, etc. Most moderate news consumers are also headline skimmers - many they get their news from headlines: Time magazine at the dentist office, USA Today at their hotel room, The News headlines on their browser default page, Newsweek at the checkout counter of their favorite book store.
I believe Americans that are least interested politics and the economy are much more likely to base their political opinions on the narrative served up to them by a media dominated by liberals.
I like your optimism. I wasn't sure a lot of voters could read :)
BTW, I think you would be surprised by fox liberal and center of the road views. They really present both views.
But, seriously could you focus on equities.
Post a Comment