Category Archives: Dow Theory

Quick Take: Dover Corp.

According to Yahoo!Finance, “Dover Corporation manufactures and sells a range of equipment and components, specialty systems, and support services in the United States. The company operates in four segments: Energy, Engineered Systems, Fluids, and Refrigeration & Food Equipment. The Energy segment provides solutions and services for the production and processing of oil, natural gas liquids, and gas to drilling and production, bearings and compression, and automation end markets.”

image

The price of Dover Corp. (DOV) has declined by –32.46% since the early July 2014 peak.  Looking at the stock, it appears that the downward spiral is locked in.  The following are some thoughts about the stock.

Continue reading

Dow Altimeter Review

On May 20, 2014, we said the following about the Dow Jones Industrial Average Altimeter based on the work of Edson Gould:

“Currently, the Altimeter is closing in on the 2007 peak of 47.37.  If the Dow were to attain the 47.37 level in the Altimeter, the index would sit at 17,062.67.  There is no rule that says the Dow Industrials must stop at the prior turning point.  However, our cautious nature instinctively pushes us to wonders if the run from the 2009 low is about to come to an end.”

Since that time, the Altimeter for the Dow peaked at 47.03 on March 2, 2015, just short of the 2007 level of 47.37, and has declined below the 32.05 support level.  From a performance standpoint, the Dow Industrials has fallen -11.95% since March 2, 2015.

image

Naturally we can’t say that we predicted any of the changes in the market since May 2014.  However, our primary goal is to observe indicators that most accurately guides our thinking about possible scenarios for the stock market.  In this case, we believe that the best way to assess the possible scenarios is by applying Dow Theory to Gould’s Altimeter, as seen below.

Dow Theory: The Misunderstood Barometer

Dow Theory is a fickle beast.  While the theory is sound, those that interpret it have their challenges.  A recent article dated May 21, 2015 titled “Transportation Average – A Big Concern for Stock Bulls?” by Chris Ciovacco presents some of the difficulties with the topic of Dow Theory. In this article, we’ll attempt to clarify some issues that should be discussed when making interpretations of Dow Theory.

The article by Ciovacco starts off by pointing out the recent divergence between the Dow Jones Transportation Average and the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  A divergence exists when one index makes new highs or lows while the other index fails to go in the same direction.  According to Dow Theory, if there is a divergence, it could indicate that the previous trend will be reversed.  As the prior trend in the stock market from 2009 to 2015 has been bullish, the implication is that the bull market could be coming to an end.

image

In explaining whether investors should be worried about the “non-confirmation” exhibited by the divergence between the Industrial and Transportation Averages, the article identifies the period from 1989 to 1993 when there appeared to be a divergence between the same indexes.  However, at the time of the divergence, according to the author, the S&P 500 managed to gain as much as +25%.  What is not shown or discussed are the key indications of a bull or bear market in the period from 1989 to 1993.  These elements will complete a picture that is necessary for anyone hoping to understand and possibly benefit from Dow Theory.

Identifying the Bear Market

Below is a charting of the period 1989 to 1993 in smaller segments for a more accurate Dow Theory assessment.  First is the indication of a bear market based on Dow Theory which occurred on October 13, 1989.

image

Our ex post interpretation of when a bear market was signaled by Dow Theory is supported by the Dow Theorist Richard Russell in his Dow Theory Letters publication. In his official investment stance on October 4, 1989, Russell said:

image

This is contrasted by what Russell said in his October 18, 1989 posting:

image

Russell made clear that from a Dow Theory perspective, a bear market had been signaled.  As a side note, Russell’s PTI or Primary Trend Indicator did not confirm the bearish signal until February 7, 1990 (four months later).  The PTI is not a part of Dow Theory but has proven to be a useful market tool.

Identifying the Bull Market

Using our own ex post analysis of the charts of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Dow Jones Transportation Average, we find that a new Dow Theory bull market was signaled on January 18, 1991.

image

Richard Russell was suspicious of the Dow Theory bull market that was signaled on January 18, 1991 and chose to wait for his PTI to give the all clear.  Russell said the following on February 6, 1991:

image

But even the preceding commentary was buried by the following overriding thoughts by Russell:

image

The question is ultimately asked by Ciovacco, “Would it have made sense to sell all our stocks because the Dow Transports failed to make a new high?”  The point being, why get caught up in a “signal” that potentially will result in lost investment gains? After all, the S&P 500 index increased by +25% in the period when it appeared that there was a divergence between the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Dow Jones Transportation Average.

This is where a significant problem comes up in the analysis of Dow Theory.  First, if we assume that a divergence did occur in Ciovacco’s selected time frame, rather than a bear market indication, then an adherent of Dow Theory would accept that a divergence is merely a caution signal.  This would have meant that whatever the previous trend of the market was, it remains in place until a definitive reversal occurs.  In our most recent market action, a bull market was still the indication and thus there would be  no need “… to sell all our stocks…”

Another issue not mentioned is that Dow Theory does not give buy or sell signals as we pointed out in our July 25, 2011 article. Among the many things overlooked about Dow Theory is that it is intended to reflect the changes in the stock market, investment values, and the economy.  As a barometer, it merely indicates the direction that the stock market and economy might go three to nine months into the future. Those who take bull or bear market indications as buy or sell signals still need to be well versed in understanding values and compounding and their role in investing. If a person, not versed in values and compounding, believes that any indication means that they can haphazardly buy or sell stocks then they are most likely to suffer severe losses and quickly become disenchanted with the accumulation of assets.

Identifying Recessions

In the past, Dow Theory was often heralded as a peek into the future for the economy.  In the 1989 example above, the Dow Theory bear market preceded the National Bureau of Economic Research’s (NBER) definition of a recession by nine months.  Dow Theory signaled a bear market in October 1989 and the NBER indicated that a recession began July 1990.  However, the NBER announced their conclusion about when the recession began on April 25, 1991, a full year and a half after the Dow Theory bear market signal and nine months after their own designation of when the recession began.  Additionally, Dow Theory indicated that a new bull market was in place on January 18, 1991 or three months before the NBER announced that the recession ended in March 1991.

Final Thoughts

What some market bears would like to accomplish with Dow Theory is to anticipate scenarios where divergence leads to an actual bear market of significant magnitude like what happened in the period from 1972 to 1974.

DT '72

The decline experienced from the respective peaks was –59% and –44% for the Transports and Industrials.  Since the outcome of a divergence cannot be accurately anticipated, it is far “safer” to wait for the confirmation of the trend before considering any potential actions.  However, if investors had sold their stocks on October 13, 1989 and repurchased stocks on January 18, 1991 (and held until December 31, 1993), the gains would have been +40%, +41% and +76.04% for the S&P 500, Industrials and Transportation Index, respectively.

What some market bulls would like to accomplish without Dow Theory is not selling if the net effect is for the market to ultimately climb well beyond the point of the initial divergence.  As an example,  if we take the October 13, 1989 date and calculate the returns for the S&P 500, Dow Industrials and Dow Transports until December 31, 1993, we find that the returns were +39%, +46% and +25%, respectively.

Dow Theory only works as a barometer for the stock market when taken in the context of investment values and compounding.  As an indicator of coming recessions, as defined by NBER, Dow Theory has an unrivaled track record.  The translation of these ideas often get confused as recessions don’t necessarily result in jarring –50% declines in the stock market every time.

Our tactic on the divergence is to dump more funds into the cash portion of the brokerage account so that we can make large purchases if a precipitous decline ensues.  If a decline does not materialize, we will continue our slow and selective investment buying program for compounding purposes.

Dow Theory: Industrial Production Tipping the Scales

This is our first update to Dow Theory review since October 17, 2014.  At the time, we closed with the following commentary:

“All reasonable interpretations of Dow Theory should indicate that we are in a bear market.

“Most Dow Theorists would suggest that investors sell all stock holdings in order to avoid losses.  However, we only use Dow Theory as an asset allocation tool.  Therefore, we will add cash to our holdings and trim some positions.  Outright selling of all stock positions is not conducive to the concept of compounding income, which is our long-term goal.

“Finally, all is not lost.  In order to change the view that we are in a bear market, the Dow Industrials, Transports and Russell 2000 only need to exceed their previous all-time peaks.  This partially explains the reason why it may not be advisable to sell all positions based on a Dow Theory bear market indication.”

Our assessment of a Dow Theory bear market indication was supported by an October 19, 2014 posting by Dow Theorist Tim Wood.  In his review of Dow Theory, Wood said:

“This all said, on Friday, October 10, 2014, the Transports closed below their August 7th Secondary Low Point. On Monday, October 13, 2014, the Industrials followed with a close below their August 7th Secondary Low Point. In the wake of this development, I have sat quietly to see what, if anything, would be written on this development. The current Dow Theory chart can be found below. As a result of this joint close below the previous secondary low points, an orthodox Dow Theory Primary Bearish Trend change has been triggered (Wood, Tim. Dow Theory Update. October 19, 2014.)”

Seven months later, the changing market conditions indicate that commentary on Dow Theory is necessary.

Continue reading

Scary 1929 Chart Nearly One Year Later

In February of 2014, a widely publicized chart circulated about the similarity between a 1928-1929 stock chart and a 2012-2013 chart.  According to Tom McClellan of the McClellan Market Report:

“…between now [February 11, 2014] and May 2014, there is plenty of reason for caution.”

Since February 11, 2014, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased +11.06%.  In the period from February 11th to May 31st the index gained +4.52%.  So far, the scary 1929 chart has not held up to the lofty claim of presaging a bear market or a even a –10% decline.  We offered up our own interpretation regarding the chart and said the following:

“We love a declining stock market as much as the next value investor. However, implying that an -89% decline is in the works because the pattern appears similar to 1929 is ignoring the path to far more achievable downside targets.”

Our preliminary downside targets seemed reasonable at the time but were never achieved.  One downside target that we thought was important was the ascending trendline from the 2009 low.

image

We still think that investors should watch the ascending line in the chart above, which currently sits at the 15,780 level.  An additional downside target is the Dow Theory 50% Principle level of 12,286.68.

Dow Theory: October 17, 2014

NOTE: In our  Dow Theory posting of May 18, 2014, we revealed an issue with Dow Theory that has gone unaddressed since S.A. Nelson’s book, The ABC of Stock Speculation, coined the term “Dow’s Theory.” We believe the acknowledgment of this issue adds clarity to the writings of Charles H. Dow and may produce new insights that have not previously been explored.

Dow Theory: September 18, 2014

NOTE: In our  Dow Theory posting of May 18, 2014, we revealed an issue with Dow Theory that had gone unaddressed since S.A. Nelson’s book, The ABC of Stock Speculation, coined the term “Dow’s Theory.” We believe the acknowledgment of this issue adds clarity to the writings of Charles H. Dow and may produce new insights that have not previously been explored.

Continue reading

Apple meets NLO Upside Target

On August 19, 2014, Apple (AAPL) stock price rose as high as $100.66.  When Apple was trading at $61.61 on March 9, 2013, we said the following with the accompanying chart:

“Apple Inc. (AAPL) is at the top of our watch list as it is within 5% of the one year low.  In our April 14, 2012 test of the quality of Edson Gould’s Speed Resistance lines, Apple fell from $636 [adjusted price of $90.85] to our projected level of $424.15 [adjusted price of $60.59] (found here).  Now that the stock has achieved our downside target, we expected that a reaction to the upside is likely.”

image

On July 17, 2013, when Apple was trading at $61.47, we re-affirmed our view of the upside potential for Apple with the following commentary:

“Currently, Apple is demonstrating a basing pattern that if successful, could result in a breakout to the upside.  At the current levels, we wouldn’t be opposed to buying some shares of Apple with the expectation that the stock could decline an additional –25% to –35%.”

The work of Edson Gould has proven to be astounding when considered in its context.  On April 14, 2012, we posted an article titled “Considering the Downside Prospects for Apple”.  At that time, we were revising the previous estimates of downside risk done on February 5, 2012 (third party source available here).

What was mentioned on February 5, 2012 is critical to understanding how Edson Gould’s downside projections work.  At the time, we said:

“The very first thing that we look for, to determine speed resistance lines, is the most recent peak in the price. Because AAPL is continually making new highs, we only need to use the latest price of $455.68 [post split price of $65.09] as our starting point….As the price of Apple increases, so too does the SRL lines based on the work of Edson Gould.”

This means that as long as the price of the stock increases to a new high the speed resistance lines are expected to increase as well.  Only when the stock starts on a declining trend can we expect that the stock price might go to the conservative and extreme downside targets.

image

On April 14, 2012, when Apple was trading at $90.89 (pre-split price of $636.23), we said the following:

“…we believe that, based on the current speed resistance lines, no one would expect Apple to decline to our conservative downside target of $424 (post split price of $60.57)...”

The strength of Gould’s downside risk estimates is that we didn’t even have the peak price of $100.71 set on September 18, 2012 but we were still able to see the conservative downside target of $60.57 achieved.  Had we used the peak price, we would have achieved the $67.14 conservative downside target much earlier than the $60.57 level.

Dow Theory: August 14, 2014

In our last Dow Theory posting on May 18, 2014, we revealed an issue with Dow Theory that had gone unaddressed since S.A. Nelson’s book The ABC of Stock Speculation coined the term “Dow’s Theory.” We believe the acknowledgment of this issue adds clarity to the writings of Charles H. Dow and may produce new insights that have not previously been explored.

Continue reading

Priceline.com Overpays for Ctrip.com

It was recently announced that Priceline.com (PCLN) would take a stake in Ctrip.com (CTRP) (found here).  However, we believe that PCLN is vastly overpaying for Ctrip.com as we recommended consideration of CTRP when the stock was trading at $23.10.  At the time, we suggested that Ctrip.com would decline to $14.16 level in our December 16, 2011 Nasdaq 100 Watch List with the following commentary (found here):

Ctrip.com International (CTRP) is on a pace to replicate the performance from the high in April 2008 to the low of January 2009 which equaled a loss of 72%. A similar decline in CTRP from the high of $50.57 would bring the price down to $14.16.Suffice to say, the stock “only” needs to decline another $8.94 or 38% from the current price of 23.10.This seems very easy considering the high volatility of Chinese stocks.We believe that unless CTRP is summarily dismissed from the Nasdaq 100 index, there may yet be life in this company.”

image

Ctrip.com achieved our downside target and is now trading nearly 3x the 14.16 level.  True to form, a company has stepped up to nibble at Ctrip.com just when, in our opinion, the stock is overpriced.  Obviously this is a boon for investors of Ctrip, however, this isn’t such a good deal for Priceline.com investors.  As can be seen in the chart below, Priceline has had ample opportunities in July 2013 and January-February 2014 to acquire two and three times the current amount (based on the relative price change of Priceline and Ctrip).

image

Dow’s Theory on when to consider a stock would have done Priceline.com shareholders a lot of good.  Now the shareholders of PCLN can only be expected to continue to pay up.

Review: Family Dollar

Today it was announced that Dollar General (DG) is considering a bid for Family Dollar (FDO).  This recent indication only adds to the hype that has suddenly fallen upon FDO.  On March 31, 2014, we wrote a Quick Take on Family Dollar that had the following conclusion:

“Investors interested in FDO could break their investment into at least two purchases, the first being 60% of the intended amount now and the second purchase of 40% at either of the two indicated support levels at $44.95 or $34.83.”

It appears that our indication to consider FDO at the $57.88 range was appropriate as the stock never reverted to any of the suggested downside targets and now trades at $77.47 or +33% higher.  This is the second call in a row that FDO has delivered for us.  FDO appeared on our watch list of February 17, 2013 which prompted our research and subsequent purchase on March 5, 2013. There is significant room for fine tuning which we will eventually examine going forward with these recommendations.

image

Dow Altimeter Review

As the Dow Industrials meander near all-time highs, it is necessary to review Edson Gould’s Altimeter for the index.

Continue reading

Dow Theory

On September 30, 2013, we posted our Dow Theory analysis.  In that assessment, we acknowledged that our June 2013 review of Dow Theory was incorrect.  Additionally, we pointed out the importance of using Dow Theory as an asset allocation tool rather that a strict “buy” or “sell” indicator.  A couple of excerpts appear below:

“Since June 21st, as indicated in the chart below, the Dow Industrials and Dow Transports have managed to achieve successive new highs in early August 2013 and mid-September 2013.  In addition, the call for a bear market came slightly before the bottom in the market in late June 2013.”

“In short, we use Dow Theory indications as asset allocation signals rather than strict buy/sell signals.”

Accepting the reality that we were not in a bear market was challenging.  However, realizing it in enough time, along with the fact that Dow Theory is used as an allocation tool, has spared us excessive losses and/or missed opportunities.

Traditional Dow Theory

Recently Dow Theory has registered a confirmation of the bullish trend.  On May 12, 2014, the Dow Jones Industrial Average confirmed the new highs in the Dow Jones Transportation Average.  In fact, on the same day, both indexes made new all-time highs.

image

That this is still a bull market requires a review of various factors that could be at play, both positive and negative.  As an example, already the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased +151% since the March 9, 2009 low.  The amount of the increase is less than the average for the period of 1836 to 1914, a time when the Federal Reserve never existed.  As stated in the article titled “Is the Fed Responsible for the Stock Market Rise Since 2009?” the average increase when the Federal Reserve didn’t exist was +167%.  This suggests that the current rise may have some room to go on the upside.

Dow Theory Reconsidered

There are many who follow the traditional Dow Theory which is really a refined version of William Peter Hamilton’s writings from his Wall Street Journal and Barron’s newspaper columns as well as his book Stock Market Barometer.  The theory itself is generally sound.  More often than not it is the interpreter of the theory that gets it wrong.  However, we can’t help but feel it necessary to point out the specific words of Charles H. Dow which possibly leads to a market theory slightly different from what the legions of modern Dow Theorists are willing to accept.

The following excerpts from the Wall Street Journal outline Dow’s theory on the role of the industrials as it originally was stated:

“This is preeminently the period of industrial speculation, yet the creation of industrial stocks has become pronounced only within a year.”

“…it follows that there must be a very strong body of [venture] capitalists prepared at present to resist anything like a collapse in the industrial market and to promote by every means in their power firm or advancing prices for the market as a whole.  and this effort on their part is being powerfully supported by the excellent conditions of practically all branches of trade.”

Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook. Wall Street Journal. April 22, 1899.

Our interpretation of the preceding quotes is that industrial stocks were, in 1899, considered to be the equivalent to modern small cap stocks which are more speculative in nature and often prone to manipulation and collapse.  The best confirmation of this concept is found in the following New York Times quote:

“Our London correspondent, in yesterday’s Financial Supplement, gave expression to the feeling which the English investor or speculator very naturally has as to the securities that usually go under the title of industrials in our markets.  It is one of distrust and hesitation.  It would be very strange if it were not.

“As to the investor, we suppose that no one on this side of the water would claim that our industrials, taking them ‘by and large,’ the older with the new, the more solid with the more inflated, can be regarded as ‘investment’ securities.”

New York Times. “The Industrials and The Boom”. March 14, 1899. page 6.

By most measures, the New York Times article, from one month earlier in 1899, confirms our view that industrial stocks were of low quality.  Now we need to see what Dow intended for the role of transportation and industrial stocks.

“…railway [transportation] stocks generally occupy a position much stronger than that held by the industrials.”

“The growth of the business of the country accrues on the old stocks [transportation stocks].  The Industrial list occupies an entirely different position.  There has been a very large creation of securities [initial public offerings].  Stocks have been bought on very limited information as to the value of the property acquired.  Attack of these stocks brings selling from those who know little in regard to the worth of what they have bought; also from those who got in at low figures [company insiders] and who propose to get out as well as they can.  This is the ideal condition for bear attacks, checked only by the possibility of not being able to borrow stock [for short selling].  The thoughtfulness of promoters [investment banks] in providing ample capital relieves this danger to great extent and will relieve it altogether when the new Industrials come to be distributed.”

Dow, Charles H. Review and Outlook.  Wall Street Journal. May 31, 1899.

Our views is that Dow’s theory was intended to be based on blue chip high quality stocks to be compared against small cap speculative stocks.  At the time, railroad stocks were the “old stocks” that had a blue chip status while the industrials were the newer [non-railroad] more speculative stocks.  We no longer live in a world where railroad stocks dominate the landscape of companies to invest in. Also, transportation stocks generally don’t provide consistent and/or rising dividend payments as was the case of railroad stocks in the last quarter of the 1800’s.

What would be the equivalent indexes of Dow’s comparison between old blue chip stocks to newer more speculative stocks? We believe that the Dow Jones Industrial Average qualifies as the blue chip barometer and the Russell 2000 small cap index qualifies as the speculative barometer.  Using all of the other elements of Dow Theory except for the Dow Jones Transportation Average, we believe that we would be following Dow’s theory exactly as it was intended.

Just to reiterate, Dow was not specifically concerned with the comparison between industrial stocks because they made the goods and transportation stocks because they shipped those same goods, a popular and logical story that is expounded on what Dow had intended.  However, based on the quotes above, we believe Dow was comparing companies of older blue chip quality that were well established and could be relied upon for their dividends in contrast to newer companies with little in the way of verifiable earnings, nascent but unstable dividends and highly susceptible to manipulation (i.e. small illiquid stock).

If we look at a comparison between the Industrials and the Russell 2000 index, the picture is very different from the confirmation of the bullish trend in the review of the transportation and industrial index above.

image

As can be seen above, while the Dow Industrials has managed to exceed the previous peaks of December 2013 and April 2014, the Russell 2000 has not been able to exceed the peak of March 2014.  Under the rules of Dow Theory, this would be considered a non-confirmation of the rising trend.  However, this does not signal a new bear market.  Instead, it only suggests that investors remain cautious about new investments.

A bear market would be signaled if the Dow Industrials and Russell 2000 were to simultaneously decline below the previous retracement levels during the rise from the March 2009 low to the current market levels.  In the chart above, the initial warning would come if the Russell 2000 and Dow Industrials declined below their respective February 2014 lows.

Unemployment Rate: Our Downside Target Has Been Met

There aren’t many who are convinced that the recession ended in June 2009 and that the jobs numbers are real, as opposed to contrived.  Most investors believe that the economy is still in a recession, which has been masked by Federal Reserve stimulus and that positive jobs data is strictly a ploy by politicians to hold on to whatever perceived powers that they have.

Our take on these topics is most accurately reflected in several articles that we wrote in real time with unflinching candor and little care for conspiracy theories.  On the matter of Federal Reserve stimulus being the reason the stock market rose, we have said the following:

“…those that claim ‘this time is different’ aren’t trying hard enough to prove their claim false. A cursory review of market data during the periods from 1860 to 1914 makes it clear that declines of nearly -50% or more are likely to retrace +66% to +100% of prior declines. This pattern has been easily demonstrated in the periods after 1914. However, we’re only trying to illustrate that the acceptance of the Federal Reserve’s role as the leading cause of the current +69% retracement of the prior decline (2007-2009) is false (January 19, 2011).”

The above point was reiterated in our more detailed revision to the same article on February 17, 2014. On the topic of the recession and its end, we have not minced words about the prospects.  Additionally, we have steered away from the belief that the economy, if in recovery, should exhibit a low unemployment rate similar that of the booming economy of 2006/2007, which was built on excess in many sectors.

On August 21, 2009 (found here), we said the following about the recession:

“Implicit in my discussion of the IPI is that we are at a turning point for the economy. Based on the combination of the Dow Theory confirmation of July 23, 2009 and the IPI turning up from the June low, I will have to guess that the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is going to proclaim June 2009 as the official end to the recession. The end to this recession will be lackluster and questioned from all corners. Additionally, the stock market will only follow the pattern of a cyclical bull market (bear market rally) within a secular (long term) bear market.

I doubt that the general public will agree that the recession is over since jobs will not be as plentiful as the past. However, from the standpoint of an economist the recession is over provided the IPI June low is sustained over an extended period of time.”

We were 13 months ahead of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) on our call that June 2009 would be considered the end of the recession, based on what the NBER looks at (NBER announces end to recession on September 20, 2010).

What is the connection between calling an end to the recession in real time and our work on the topic of the unemployment rate?  First, we are using data reported by the government that is frequently revised.  Second, we apply Dow Theory to arrive at what we believe to be reasonable estimates of future trends.  Do we always fall for our voodoo economics?  We hope not, however, Robert Rhea’s book Dow Theory Applied to Business and Banking suggests that Dow Theory has a broader application than simply stock indexes.

On July 26, 3013 (found here), we said the following of the Unemployment rate:

“According to Dow Theory, expectations of how low unemployment should go are far more reasonable without the requirement of a economic boom that is followed by a bust.  According to the chart of unemployment below, the most realistic scenario for how low the unemployment rate could go is 6.9%.

“Applying Dow Theory’s 50% principle suggests that the best we could expect for the unemployment rate, on the downside, is for 6.9%.  It is important to understand that the 10% and 3.8% unemployment rates are undesirable scenarios.  The 10% unemployment rate is in the depths of a “recession” and the 3.8% unemployment rate at the height of a overextend economic boom.”

What has transpired in the unemployment rate since our July 26th article?  Our downside target of a 6.9% unemployment rate has been achieved. Again, we understand the conspiracy talk of the numbers being made up for the purpose of some politician to rally for more votes come election time.  However, such arguments are a waste of time.   Our view is that we need a detached perspective in order to come up with reasonable estimates.

image

So what do we make of the above chart?  In general, since all downside targets have been met, our next line of reasoning is basically a guess, at best.  However, we believe that our prior line of reasoning with a detached view might serve us well in what might come.

One item that stands out is the 2006 to 2007 low of 4.40% unemployment.  This was approximately 12% below the ascending Dow Theory downside target of 5.87%.  As the current level of unemployment is at or near the same ascending 5.87% level, we have looked at the point where the unemployment first touched the 5.87% line and then calculated 12% below that level as a worst case scenario.  Based on this line of reasoning, the next downside target should be 5.90%.

Given our prior experience with Dow Theory and downside projections, any decline in the unemployment rate below 5.87%-5.90% would be exceptional with only the 4.40% and 3.80% levels as mere reflections of an overextended economic boom which should be followed by an equally impressive bust.

“Scary” 1929 Chart Says Little About the Future

On February 11, 2014, Mark Hulbert of MarketWatch.com posted an article titled “Scary 1929 Market Chart Gains Traction (found here)”.  In the article, Hulbert suggests that the critics of the chart, which shows a parallel between the current market action since July 2012 and 1928-1929, are running out of explanations as to why the chart doesn’t have merit.

image

One aspect missing from the Hulbert article is what it takes to get from the most recent high of 16,588 to the 1,658 level on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  In order to lose -89% in value, the Dow would need to decline first to 15k, 14k, 13k etc.  Leaving out these important hurdles on the downside ignores a wide swath of goings-on that needs to occur in between now and the doomsday low.  To fill the void that is unexamined by the Hulbert article, we’re going to review the various ways that the Dow Jones Industrial Average could decline to new lows.

Before offering our downside take on the market, we’d like to refer you to some basic issues that are mandatory to understanding how the stock market decline from 1929 was an anomaly, at best.  In previous work on the topic, we’ve addressed reasons why the 1929 stock market decline of -89% had more to do with reshuffling of the index by replacing stocks that had fallen significantly with new stocks that had appeared strong but were on the cusp of major declines.  Once the new stocks were added to the index they crashed hard while the stocks that were dropped from the index were at the beginning stages of recovery (2009 article found here).

In another piece, we outlined the fact that the decline of 1929 was followed by a recovery that was much faster than most investors know.  Our theory is that the multiple changes to the index artificially suppress the index on the way down and on the way up.  This resulted in the Dow taking 25 years to achieve breakeven status with 1929.  However, stocks that were not part of the index can be seen to achieve breakeven status on average by 1937.  One of our favorite examples is found in the chart of Monsanto Corp. below (2010 article found here).

Continue reading