In looking at the stock price of Union Pacific Corporation (UNP) from 1980 to the present, we find the pattern of a parabolic peak and subsequent decline. Parabolic peaks are generally alarming to market technicians because they generally indicate that a crash is coming. Part and parcel with the idea of a crash is the view that such a stock is either a sell or short-sell candidate, definitely not worth being considered for a long-term investment.
Sometimes lost in this observation of parabolas is the importance of other factors that might be at work. Observed parabolas are only as good as the experience of the analyst. In the case of Union Pacific, we don’t believe that the mere presence of a parabola is as meaningful as the pattern of market cycles.
The rule with the above chart pattern is that no parabolic move goes unchecked. This point has been made with the many charts that we’ve run Speed Resistance Lines (SRL) on, most recently illustrated in our April 26, 2012 chart of Chesapeake Energy (CHK) when the stock was trading at $18.10.
In the case of Chesapeake Energy, we said that if history was any indication, the stock was on the cusp of repeating a previous pattern that suggested the stock would fall to $4.94. After applying Gould’s SRL, we arrived at what we thought would likely be the most likely outcome ( as of January 26, 2016, CHK sits at a price of $3.19). The work of Edson Gould helps us to assess the downside prospects of parabolic patterns in stocks. However, the use of technicals like Gould’s SRL have their limits.
In assessing the parabolic UNP chart, we noticed a pattern that isn’t as obvious to the uninitiated. Furthermore, it is a pattern that require a little work. However, once drawn out, the pattern almost jumps out at you and becomes pivotal in deciding which pattern is more important, the single parabola or the repeated cycle.
Since 1980, all major peaks in the price of UNP have declined between –30% to –66%. Below is the data that we’ve selected to demonstrate this fact (using Yahoo!Finance adjusted total return data).
| Year of peak | % chg | where to from 2015 peak? | ||
| 1980 | -65.55% | $41.69 | ||
| 1983 | -41.25% | $71.10 | ||
| 1987 | -44.96% | $66.61 | ||
| 1994 | -31.33% | $83.11 | ||
| 1997 | -46.84% | $64.33 | ||
| 1999 | -47.07% | $64.06 | ||
| 2008 | -59.44% | $49.08 | ||
| Avg. | -48.06% | $62.85 | ||
| 2015 | -43.16% | $68.79 |
The repeated pattern of declines greater than –30% is no coincidence. These are the apparent cycles that UNP happens to experience. Furthermore, the level of consistency for UNP to decline on average –48% over the period from 1980 to 2008 (7 data points) indicates that this is very useful in determining what is “normal” for the current decline in the stock price. Already UNP has fallen –43.16% which is generally in the sweet spot as we believe that the 2008 and 1980 declines were outliers in especially painful recessions.
What distinguishes the difference between any stock price pattern is the history and consistency. A stock like UNP has been around since the late 19th century to the present. Most stock price patterns for UNP will reflect a deep seated adherence to the overall economy and investors. A stock like CHK has been around since the late 20th century. Any stock movement will reflect the recency bias of speculators.
Another important factor when considering the validity of a parabolic move in a stock is the relative movement of a corresponding stock index. In this case, the corresponding index is the Dow Jones Transportation Average. As seen in the chart below, Union Pacific has tracked very closely to what a diversified mix of related companies would do. In fact, UNP has only recently caught up, in terms of performance, with the index that it has been in since inception.
Finally, we’d like to close with a parabolic chart of UNP ranging from 1910 to 1987.
This chart is dynamic because, for anyone in 1987 alarmed about a parabolic pattern, it should have indicated that a collapse was due. However, that was hardly the optimal way to view Union Pacific with the compelling fundamentals to support the rise in the stock price over time. This is contrasted with the absence of fundamental for Chesapeake Energy, which explains why the stock has fallen nearly –90% from its prior peak.
Gould’s SRL for Union Pacific
Below is the Speed Resistance Lines for Union Pacific (UNP) based on the move from 2009 to the present.
