the data on price momentum seem to show remarkable long-haul success. As I noted last month, Tom Hancock--co-head of GMO's global quantitative equity team--has crunched the numbers and found that, between 1927 and 2009, a simple strategy of investing in stocks with the highest trailing-12-month returns surpassed the broader market by 3 annualized percentage points.
And Yet … A healthy dose of skepticism is in order. While momentum may look terrific under laboratory conditions, it can be devilishly difficult for actual investors to exploit.
[see also buy low or buy high]
Sunday, February 13, 2011
two-year bull market topping out?
The bull market is fast approaching its second birthday.
In just four weeks—on March 9, to be exact—it will have been precisely two years since the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit its closing low for the 2007-2009 bear market, at 6,547. The S&P 500 index on that day closed at 677.
Both averages today are nearly double where they stood then.
In preparation for what no doubt will be lots of celebrations and self-congratulatory back-slapping among the bulls, I am devoting this column to comparing the current bull market to its predecessors over the past century. How many of them even lasted two years? Compared to those that did, how does the current one's valuation stack up?
The first step in answering these questions was to construct a list of past bull markets. I followed the precise definition employed by Ned Davis Research, the institutional research firm: For them, a bull market requires one of three conditions to hold: (1) at least a 30% rise in the Dow in 50 calendar days, (2) at least a 13% rise in the Dow in 155 calendar days, or (3) at least a 30% reversal in the Value Line Geometric index. Since the beginning of the last century, using this definition, there have been 27 bull markets prior to the current one.
The current bull market's age is right in line with the typical length of those prior bull markets. The median length of the 27 bull markets is 1.9 years, which is exactly how old the current one is. That means that half of those prior bull markets didn't even make it to their second birthday.
How does the current bull market's valuation compare to those prior ones that did live to be at least two years old? Unfortunately, the comparison is not an encouraging one for the bulls.
Consider a modified P/E ratio that was made famous in the late 1990s by Yale University professor Robert Shiller, particularly in his book Irrational Exuberance. This modified P/E is one in which the denominator is average inflation-adjusted earnings over the trailing 10 years—sometimes called P/E10, or CAPE (for Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio).
The CAPE has a markedly better forecasting record than the simple P/E. Another reason to prefer the CAPE: The simple P/E gets artificially inflated during economic downturns, when trailing earnings are depressed.
The current CAPE, according to Professor Shiller's website, is 23.7. The average of comparable levels for this valuation metric at the two-year point of those prior bull markets that lived this long is 18.0. At least according to this measure, therefore, the stock market's current valuation is 32% higher than where it stood at the comparable points of prior bull markets.
An even more alarming comparison comes when focusing on those prior occasions when the CAPE was as high as it is currently. Over the last 100 years, there have been only three other occasions when the CAPE was that high: In the late 1920s (right before the 1929 stock market crash), in the mid-1960s (prior to the 16-year period in which the Dow went nowhere in nominal terms and was decimated in inflation-adjusted terms), and the late 1990s (just prior to the popping of the internet bubble).
To be sure, a conclusion based on a sample containing just three events cannot be conclusive from a statistical point of view. Still, regardless of the historical comparison, it will be hard to argue that the current stock market is undervalued or even fairly valued.
-- Mark Hulbert [via bdparts]
In just four weeks—on March 9, to be exact—it will have been precisely two years since the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit its closing low for the 2007-2009 bear market, at 6,547. The S&P 500 index on that day closed at 677.
Both averages today are nearly double where they stood then.
In preparation for what no doubt will be lots of celebrations and self-congratulatory back-slapping among the bulls, I am devoting this column to comparing the current bull market to its predecessors over the past century. How many of them even lasted two years? Compared to those that did, how does the current one's valuation stack up?
The first step in answering these questions was to construct a list of past bull markets. I followed the precise definition employed by Ned Davis Research, the institutional research firm: For them, a bull market requires one of three conditions to hold: (1) at least a 30% rise in the Dow in 50 calendar days, (2) at least a 13% rise in the Dow in 155 calendar days, or (3) at least a 30% reversal in the Value Line Geometric index. Since the beginning of the last century, using this definition, there have been 27 bull markets prior to the current one.
The current bull market's age is right in line with the typical length of those prior bull markets. The median length of the 27 bull markets is 1.9 years, which is exactly how old the current one is. That means that half of those prior bull markets didn't even make it to their second birthday.
How does the current bull market's valuation compare to those prior ones that did live to be at least two years old? Unfortunately, the comparison is not an encouraging one for the bulls.
Consider a modified P/E ratio that was made famous in the late 1990s by Yale University professor Robert Shiller, particularly in his book Irrational Exuberance. This modified P/E is one in which the denominator is average inflation-adjusted earnings over the trailing 10 years—sometimes called P/E10, or CAPE (for Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio).
The CAPE has a markedly better forecasting record than the simple P/E. Another reason to prefer the CAPE: The simple P/E gets artificially inflated during economic downturns, when trailing earnings are depressed.
The current CAPE, according to Professor Shiller's website, is 23.7. The average of comparable levels for this valuation metric at the two-year point of those prior bull markets that lived this long is 18.0. At least according to this measure, therefore, the stock market's current valuation is 32% higher than where it stood at the comparable points of prior bull markets.
An even more alarming comparison comes when focusing on those prior occasions when the CAPE was as high as it is currently. Over the last 100 years, there have been only three other occasions when the CAPE was that high: In the late 1920s (right before the 1929 stock market crash), in the mid-1960s (prior to the 16-year period in which the Dow went nowhere in nominal terms and was decimated in inflation-adjusted terms), and the late 1990s (just prior to the popping of the internet bubble).
To be sure, a conclusion based on a sample containing just three events cannot be conclusive from a statistical point of view. Still, regardless of the historical comparison, it will be hard to argue that the current stock market is undervalued or even fairly valued.
-- Mark Hulbert [via bdparts]
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Cramer's Funds
I'm looking through the book Jim Cramer's Stay Mad For Life (that I got via paperbackswap).
In the last chapter he lists his 11 best mutual funds which he chose on their managers ability to lose less than the market in down years. He based the ratings on the years 2000-2006. Well, now we have have four more years of data.
The market has been up in three of those four years, with the S&P 500 losing 37% in 2008. Let's see how Cramer's funds did in those years.
CGMFX: -48.18% (though it did crush the market 79.97% to 5.49% in 2007)
DAGVX: -36.01% (and just about matching the S&P 500 in the other three years)
BRAGX: -56.16% (like CGMFX it outperformed in 2007 at 25.80%)
RHJSX: -39.80%
SHRAX: -42.40%
BUFSX: -29.84% (but it underperformed in 2007 at -0.33%)
FBRVX: -33.85% (but manager Chuck Akre has left to form his own fund AKREX)
PSLAX: -39.48%
HRTVX: -39.53%
BERWX: -27.09% (it underperformed in 2007 at -3.68%)
MUHLX: -40.39% (and also underperformed in 2007 at -9.66%)
So four of the 11 outperformed in 2008.
How about some of my funds?
FAIRX: -29.70% (and also outperformed in the three other years as well)
TAVFX: -45.61%
FLPSX: -36.17%
OAKLX: -36.22%
OAKIX: -41.06%
JAVLX: -41.97%
MFOCX: -40.75%
GABGX: -45.92%
FCNTX: -37.16%
FDGFX: -42.96%
ASVIX: -27.63%
BSCFX: -40.24%
WVALX: -40.74%
JENSX: -29.97%
RCAPX: -33.71%
SLSSX: -44.72%
SWPSX: -39.27%
HFCGX: -43.69%
LMGTX: -60.44%
LMOPX: -65.49% (83.14% in 2009)
FDSSX: -41.66%
MUTHX: -37.92%
MDISX: -26.55%
JAWWX: -45.02%
FIEUX: -44.02%
PRASX: -60.99%
AKREX: N/A
So only four of my funds were down less than 30%: FAIRX, ASVIX, JENSX, MDISX. And three of my funds were down over 60%: LMOPX, LMGTX, PRASX.
That should be telling me I should buy FAIRX. And sell the Legg Mason funds.
In the last chapter he lists his 11 best mutual funds which he chose on their managers ability to lose less than the market in down years. He based the ratings on the years 2000-2006. Well, now we have have four more years of data.
The market has been up in three of those four years, with the S&P 500 losing 37% in 2008. Let's see how Cramer's funds did in those years.
CGMFX: -48.18% (though it did crush the market 79.97% to 5.49% in 2007)
DAGVX: -36.01% (and just about matching the S&P 500 in the other three years)
BRAGX: -56.16% (like CGMFX it outperformed in 2007 at 25.80%)
RHJSX: -39.80%
SHRAX: -42.40%
BUFSX: -29.84% (but it underperformed in 2007 at -0.33%)
FBRVX: -33.85% (but manager Chuck Akre has left to form his own fund AKREX)
PSLAX: -39.48%
HRTVX: -39.53%
BERWX: -27.09% (it underperformed in 2007 at -3.68%)
MUHLX: -40.39% (and also underperformed in 2007 at -9.66%)
So four of the 11 outperformed in 2008.
How about some of my funds?
FAIRX: -29.70% (and also outperformed in the three other years as well)
TAVFX: -45.61%
FLPSX: -36.17%
OAKLX: -36.22%
OAKIX: -41.06%
JAVLX: -41.97%
MFOCX: -40.75%
GABGX: -45.92%
FCNTX: -37.16%
FDGFX: -42.96%
ASVIX: -27.63%
BSCFX: -40.24%
WVALX: -40.74%
JENSX: -29.97%
RCAPX: -33.71%
SLSSX: -44.72%
SWPSX: -39.27%
HFCGX: -43.69%
LMGTX: -60.44%
LMOPX: -65.49% (83.14% in 2009)
FDSSX: -41.66%
MUTHX: -37.92%
MDISX: -26.55%
JAWWX: -45.02%
FIEUX: -44.02%
PRASX: -60.99%
AKREX: N/A
So only four of my funds were down less than 30%: FAIRX, ASVIX, JENSX, MDISX. And three of my funds were down over 60%: LMOPX, LMGTX, PRASX.
That should be telling me I should buy FAIRX. And sell the Legg Mason funds.