Posts tagged ‘consensus’

Fence-Sitting: The Elusive Art of More Data and Pullbacks

Fence Sitting Cowboys

The world of financial markets is full of fence-sitters, especially in the professional realm. Why? Well, for starters, fence-sitting provides the luxury of never being wrong. If fence-squatting observers do nothing and provide no opinions, then they cannot by definition be wrong or mistaken. Why should a professional put their neck out for an economic, sector, or investment specific forecast, if there is a potential of looking stupid or losing a job?

For many, the consequences of possibly being wrong feel so horrendous that participants choose instead to sit on the non-committal fence. In most cases, the fence posts on any financial issue or investment align along the comfort of consensus thinking. Unfortunately, consensus thinking has a limited shelf life, because the views held by the majority are constantly changing. Repeatedly modifying personal opinions to match consensus views may prevent the bruising of egos, however, this naïve strategy can be destructive to long-term returns. Here are a few examples:

2000

Consensus ViewNew Normal tech stocks will continue explosive growth; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.                                                                         

2006

Consensus View: Home prices will rise forever and leverage is beautiful; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2010

Consensus View: Greece and European collapse to cause a double-dip global recession; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2011 

Consensus View: U.S. credit downgrade will be bad for Treasuries and rates; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2012

Consensus View: Uncertainty surrounding election bad for equities; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2012

Consensus View: China’s slowing growth and real estate bubble expected to cause a global double-dip recession; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2012

Consensus View: Impending fiscal cliff bad for equities; Consensus Outcome: Wrong; Investor Net Result: Losses and/or Lost Profits.

2013 

Consensus View: Debt ceiling debate bad for equities; Consensus Outcome: ???; Investor Net Result: ???.

2013

Consensus View: Looming sequestration bad for equities; Consensus Outcome: ???; Investor Net Result: ???.

In recent years the market has continued to climb a wall of worry, but will this year be different? We shall soon see.

Placing the concern du jour aside, if consensus fears coalesce around a specific upcoming event, chances are that particular issue is already factored into existing expectations and price structures. Therefore, rather than wasting personal “worry” bandwidth on those fears, investor anxiety should be dedicated to less prevalent but potentially more impactful unknown concerns. Or if you need clarification about the unknowns to worry about, perhaps Donald Rumsfeld can clarify the situation by highlighting the risk of “unknown unknowns”:

I Love Data and Pullbacks!

When faced with apprehension or uncertainty, many fence-sitting investors revert to wanting more data or waiting for a better price. For example, I often hear, “I love stock XYZ, but I want to wait for the earnings to come out,” or analyst day, or share buyback announcement, or merger closing, or restructuring, etc., etc., etc. For strategists and economists, they are famished for the next critically irrelevant weekly jobless claims number, Federal Reserve policy minutes, ISM monthly manufacturing data, or latest consumer confidence figure.

More data for fence sitters is not sufficient. I often listen to stock-pickers say, “I love XYZ stock, but not at the current $52.50 price, but I’ll back up the truck at $51.50!” Okay, so you’re telling me that you think the stock is worth +40% more, but you want to litigate the purchase price over $1?!

Sadly, there is a cost for all this fence-sitting: a) if good news comes out, investment prices catapult higher and the investor is stuck with a pricier investment; b) if bad news comes out, that long-awaited price pullback is usually not acted upon because fundamentals have now deteriorated; or c) in many cases the price grinds higher before the long-awaited jewel of information is disseminated. The net result is further fence-sitting paralysis, which paradoxically is not helped by more information or a price pullback.

The other reason fence-sitters say or do nothing is because articulating a gloomy thesis simply sounds smarter. For instance, saying “The reason I’m on the sidelines is because we are in a secular bear market due to the debasement of our currency as a result of inflationary Fed monetary policies,” sounds smarter and more compelling than “Stocks are cheap and are already factoring in a lot of negativity.”

Investing is an unbelievably challenging endeavor, but for those fence-sitters with an insatiable appetite for more data and elusive pullbacks, I humbly point out, there is an infinite amount of information that regenerates itself daily. In addition, there is nothing wrong with having a disciplined valuation process in place, but if your best investment ideas are predicated on a minor pullback, then enjoy watching your returns wither away…as you sit on your cozy fence.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.

January 11, 2013 at 10:31 pm 1 comment

Playing Whack-A-Mole with the Pros

Source: Flickr

Deciphering the ups and the downs of the financial markets is a lot like playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. First the market is up 300 points, then down 300 points. Next Greece and Europe are going down the drain, and then Germany and the ECB (European Central Bank) are here to save the day. The daily data points are a rapid moving target, and if history continues to serve as a guide (see History Often Rhymes with the Future), the bobbing consensus views of pundits will continue to get hammered by investors’ mallets.

Let’s take a look at recent history to see who has been the “whack-er” and whom has been the “whack-ee.” Whether it was the gloom and doom consensus view in the early 1980s (reference BusinessWeek’s 1979 front page “The Death of Equities) or the euphoric championing of tech stocks in the 1990s (see Money magazine’s March 2000 cover, “The Hottest Market Ever), the consensus view was wrong then, and is likely wrong again today.

Here are some of the fresher consensus views that have popped up and then gotten beaten down:

End of QE2The Consensus: If you rewind the clock back to June 2011 when the Federal Reserve’s $600 billion QE2 (Quantitative Easing Part II) monetary stimulus program was coming to an end, a majority of pundits expected bond prices to tank in the absence of the Fed’s Ben Bernanke’s checkbook support. Before the end of QE2, Reuters financial service surveyed 64 professionals, and a substantial majority predicted bond prices would tank and interest rates would catapult upwards.   Actual Result: The pundits were wrong and rates did not go up, they in fact went down.  As a result, bond prices screamed higher – bond values increased significantly as 10-year Treasury yields fell from 3.16% to a low of 1.72% last week.

Debt Ceiling DebateThe Consensus: Just one month later, Democrats and Republicans were playing a game of political “chicken” in the process of raising the debt ceiling to over $16 trillion. Bill Gross, bond guru and CEO of fixed income giant PIMCO, was one of the many pros who earlier this year sold Treasuries in droves because fears of bond vigilantes shredding prices of U.S. Treasury bonds .

Here was the prevalent thought process at the time:  Profligate spending by irresponsible bureaucrats in Washington if not curtailed dramatically would cascade into a disaster, which would lead to higher default risk, cancerous inflation, and exploding interest rates ala Greece. Actual Result: Once again, the pundits were proved wrong in the deciphering of their cloudy crystal balls. Interest rates did not rise, they actually fell.  As a result, bond prices screamed higher and 10-year Treasury yields dived from 2.74% to the recent low of 1.72%.

S&P Credit DowngradeThe Consensus: The S&P credit rating agency warned Washington that a failure to come to meaningful consensus on deficit and debt reduction would result in bitter consequences. Despite a $2 trillion error made by S&P, the agency kept its word and downgraded the U.S.’s long-term debt rating to AA+ from AAA. Research from JP Morgan (JPM) cautioned investors of the imminent punishment to be placed on $4 trillion in Treasury collateral, which could lead to a seizing in credit markets.  Actual Result: Rather than becoming the ugly stepchild, U.S. Treasuries became a global safe-haven for investors around the world to pile into. Not only did bond prices steadily climb (and yields decline), but the value of our currency as measured by the Dollar Index (DXY) has risen significantly since then.

Dollar Index (DXY) Source: Bloomberg

What is next? Nobody knows for certain. In the meantime, grab some cotton candy, popcorn, and a rubber mallet. There is never a shortage of confident mole-like experts popping up on TV, newspapers, blogs, and radio. So when the deafening noise about the inevitable collapse of Europe and the global economy comes roaring in, make sure you are the one holding the mallet and not the mole getting whacked on the head.

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

www.Sidoxia.com

DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in JPM, MHP, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC “Contact” page.

October 1, 2011 at 5:53 am Leave a comment


Receive Investing Caffeine blog posts by email.

Join 1,817 other followers

Meet Wade Slome, CFA, CFP®

More on Sidoxia Services

Recognition

Top Financial Advisor Blogs And Bloggers – Rankings From Nerd’s Eye View | Kitces.com

Wade on Twitter…

Share this blog

Bookmark and Share

Subscribe to Blog RSS

Monthly Archives