Monday, December 6, 2010

Market Commentary for the week of December 6, 2010

Splitting hairs.

There’s a fine line between suggesting that “economic data appears to be turning around” and stating “the economy is good.”  Similarly, while any short-term day rallies and interday price advances in the global bourses are always preferable than the alternative, it is far from true to suggest that the markets have bottomed and are poised to reverse course, upwards.

The theory that we have hit bottom is simply not supported by my data, economic or financial.

It would be wrong, then, to bet otherwise and risk the possibility of capital deterioration.  In fact, by my readings, any conclusions to be drawn as to fiscal, economic, or monetary successes might extend into mid-summer of 2011, at best, and could (as I recently wrote) marginalize 2011 altogether.

Federal debt, personal debt, political gridlock and global currency imbalances are systemic problems.  It was difficult and time-consuming getting into these predicaments, and will be equally as difficult from which to extract.  I am seeing indications in my quantitative database that we are in the early stages of cyclic deterioration, a period during which the rate of capital gains probabilities declines and market valuations perform indiscriminately in a non-correlated way.  We should be prepared for the opposite of what we expect or want.

You say potato…

What if I’m wrong?  What if a concerted, cohesive global effort to revitalize capital production succeeds?  In that case, then, we simply rebalance our asset allocation to allow for, not only, the possibility of these things occurring, but also to profit from it.  I’m not in this business simply to hypothesize, but to benefit from the validity and science of the hypothesis.

In the absence of good science, the worst thing you can do is to guess, or to chase fads.

While sentiment and hope are not sufficient market tools, without them we have little in the way of creating the very theories we wish to prove or disprove, profit from or avoid altogether.  The problem, really, is when “conventional wisdom” or “mania” guide one’s theoretical decision.  From a scientific point of view, it is always those theses that are loosely followed that might bear the most fruit.  Follow the gold hordes?  Certainly.  But not at the expense of knowing when to get out and rotate into better opportunity.

Notably, the current configuration of relative strength data shows me that this market cycle is overdone, long-in-the-tooth, and susceptible to a pullback of significant proportion.  In the aggregate, despite news stories that indicate otherwise, economic activity is not picking up, earnings are not accelerating, and confidence (indicated by hiring, savings, and capital expenditures) is not robust.

What we are seeing are year-over-year comparisons to figures which were dire, morbid, and cyclically negligible, thus creating the perception that improvements are in the offing.

Bottom line is the bottom line.

Clients and prospects have commented to me that I’m “getting negative.”  You think?  Check back to my writings in 2006 and 2007.  At that time I began to lay out the scenarios for trend dissolution in which we currently find ourselves.  The mania of real estate and asset speculation was then at its peak, capping off a decade of low interest rates, indiscriminate borrowing and “dart-throwing” investing.

If anything, I am now cautious about our current trend, but cognizant that, ultimately, we are closer to the end of the decline than we were two years ago.  While I remain tactically defensive, I anticipate continuing to outperform the benchmarks through prudent asset allocation.  No single stock, or sector, is going to account for wholesale changes in our portfolio probabilities.  Rather, we can buttress against heightened volatility and still deliver positive “alpha” by planning for the best, expecting the worst.

No comments: