The Bond King Goes Crazy

March 31, 2010

Well, I don’t really know about the crazy part. But Bill Gross of Pimco does have some strong convictions, according to a recent piece in Bloomberg.

Bill Gross, who manages the world’s biggest bond fund, says the 30-year bull market in fixed-income securities is ending.

The article goes on to point out that Mr. Gross will apparently be responsible for a new fund that will invest in stocks (along with high yield bonds and distressed debt). It’s hard to say if Mr. Gross is truly concerned about the bond market or if he is just talking his book, but it is surprising to see someone so strongly associated with the bond market making public pronouncements about its imminent demise.

A couple of things make me think that he might be right. 1) The yield curve is a pretty good forecaster of economic activity and it is very steep right now, suggesting a stronger than expected recovery. 2)Retail investors have been ploughing money into bond funds like there is no tomorrow, and retail investors are almost always wrong. 3) Bonds have outperformed stocks in total return for the last 40 years, something that has happened only rarely in the past. When it has happened before, it’s generally been a sign that stocks are about to outperform bonds for a long stretch. 4) In order to keep the economic recovery going, the Federal Reserve has kept short-term interest rates very low for an extended period. Rates are so low–near zero–that they really can’t go lower. Unless they decline into negative numbers, rates are probably headed up at some point.

In fairness, I’ve also read several well-reasoned arguments about why deflation is a bigger risk than inflation and why bonds will therefore be the only good investments. My gut is telling me otherwise, but my gut could easily be wrong. What is more to the point is that bonds are among the lowest-rated asset classes in the relative strength rankings for our Global Macro strategy.

Posted by:


PDP In The News

March 31, 2010

“Under the Microscope: Powershares DWA Technical Leaders ETF,” Seeking Alpha, 3/31/2010:

While the ETF world started by focusing on tracking well known indexes such as the S&P; 500, it has significantly branched out in recent years, giving investors funds tracking everything from commodity indexes to quantitative methodologies that attempt to deliver excess returns. These quant ETFs haven’t really hit it big yet, but have certainly attracted a fair amount of assets from investors who still believe in the benefits of stock analysis but are also eager to reap the benefits of the ETF structure. One interesting marriage is found in the PowerShares DWA Technical Leaders Portfolio ETF (PDP), a fund that offers access to a strategy that buys and sell securities based on chart patterns and other technical indicators such as relative strength levels.

Relative strength focuses on the idea that stocks showing high relative strength compared to broader indexes are likely to continue increasing in price, and it is better to buy those stocks than to buy stocks with falling prices. In other words, “[Prices] are never too high to begin buying or too low to begin selling,” according to Jessie Livermore. Relative strength investing is a relatively simple strategy, but there is ongoing debate over how the strength should be calculated and the effectiveness of such a strategy in an era when markets are more efficient than ever.

PDP tracks the Dorsey Wright Technical Leaders Index, which includes approximately 100 U.S.-listed companies that demonstrate powerful relative strength characteristics. The index is constructed pursuant to Dorsey Wright’s proprietary methodology, which takes into account the performance of each of the 3,000 largest U.S.-listed companies as compared to a benchmark index, and the relative performance of industry sectors and sub-sectors. Dorsey Wright believes that relative strength is a “very robust and adaptable stock selection method.” Furthermore, the firm states that its process for selecting stocks in the portfolio is “100% systematic” and that they “do not discuss what [they] think should be included or excluded from the portfolio. The systematic process determines the securities and weights, and [they] follow it without question.”

It is nice to see PDP getting a little buzz. It is up 9.99% YTD compared to 5.22% for the S&P; 500 (1/1/2010 – 3/30/2010).

PDP Fact Sheet

Posted by:


High RS Diffusion Index

March 31, 2010

The chart below measures the percentage of high relative strength stocks that are trading above their 50-day moving average (universe of mid and large cap stocks.) As of 3/30/10.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 95% and the one-day reading is 94%. This oscillator has shown the tendency to remain overbought for extended periods of time, while oversold measures tend to be much more abrupt.

Posted by:


Perfect Sector Rotation

March 30, 2010

CXO Advisory has a very interesting blog piece on this topic. They review an academic paper that looks at the way conventional sector rotation is done. Typically, various industry sectors are categorized as early cycle, late cycle, etc. and then you are supposed to own those sectors at that point in the business cycle. Any number of money management firms (not including us) hang their hat on this type of cycle analysis.

In order to determine the potential of traditional sector rotation, the study assumes that you get to have perfect foresight into the business cycle and then you rotate your holdings with the conventional wisdom of when various industries perform best. A couple of disturbing things crop up, given that this is the best you could possibly do with this system.

1) You can squeak by with about 2.3% annual outperformance if you had a crystal ball. If you are even a month or two early or late on the cycle turns, your performance is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

2) 28 of the 48 industries studied (58.3%) underperformed during the times when they were supposed to perform well. There’s obviously enough noise in the system that a sector that is supposed to be strong or weak during a particular part of the cycle often isn’t.

CXO notes, somewhat ironically:

Note that NBER can take as long as two years after a turning point to designate its date and that one business cycle can be very different from another.

In other words, it’s clear that traditional business cycle analysis is not going to help you. You won’t be able to forecast the cycle turning points accurately and the cycles differ so much that industry performance is not consistent.

Sector rotation using relative strength is a big contrast to this. Relative strength makes no a priori assumptions about which industries are going to be strong or weak at various points in the business cycle. A systematic strategy just buys the strong sectors and avoids the weak ones. Lots of studies show that significant outperformance can be earned using relative strength (momentum) with absolutely no insight into the business cycle at all, including some studies done by CXO Advisory. Tactical asset allocation is finally coming into its own and various ways of implementing are available. Business cycle forecasting does not appear to be a feasible way to do it, but relative strength certainly is!

Posted by:


Greg Mankiw on the “The Unknowable”

March 30, 2010

On Sunday, the NYT published an “Economic View” piece from Harvard professor Greg Mankiw. He’s got a couple of quotes that resonate strongly:

One thing we cannot do very well is forecast the economy. The recent crisis and recession caught most economists flat-footed. This is nothing new. We have never been good at foretelling the future, but when the news is favorable, others forgive our lack of prescience.

On why Fannie and Freddie went down:

Why was nothing done? Many members of Congress were worried less about financial fragility than about expanding access to homeownership. Moreover, lobbyists from these companies assured Congress that there was no real problem, while the sheer complexity of these institutions made it hard for legislators to appreciate the enormity of the risks.

Finally, on what we should do to prepare ourselves for the future:

We should plan for future financial crises, to occur at some unknown date for some unknown reason, and arm ourselves with better tools to clean up the mess.

Sounds easy, huh? In the article, he also proposes a radical, commonsense framework for larger financial institutions; you could classify his proposal as a type of “crisis insurance” funded by the private sector. Check out the article to read the specifics.

This is another argument for using relative strength. Forecasting doesn’t work–not for economies or financial crises. Your best bet is to measure and adapt systematically.

Posted by:


Relative Strength Spread

March 30, 2010

The chart below is the spread between the relative strength leaders and relative strength laggards (universe of mid and large cap stocks). When the chart is rising, relative strength leaders are performing better than relative strength laggards. As of 3/29/2010:

The sharp decline in the RS Spread for much of the last 12 months has moderated considerably in recent months, and may well be setting the stage for a more favorable RS environment.

Posted by:


Trends

March 29, 2010

“Trends, like horses, are easier to ride in the direction they are already going.” — John Naisbit

Posted by:


Shaq, Lebron, J.J. and Relative Strength Sensitivity

March 29, 2010

Which of the following is more likely to lead the NBA in scoring over the next couple of years?

Among the topics discussed in our recent white papers (here and here) is relative strength sensitivity. In other words, when selecting stocks, is it best to buy those stocks that have had the best relative strength over short, intermediate, or longer-term time horizons? Our papers pointed out that using a relative strength factor that focuses on relative strength over roughly the last 6-12 months when selecting stocks has led to the best long-term performance.

In a recent presentation, Mike explained stock selection within a relative strength model by comparing it to trying to identify those NBA players that are likely to be the highest scorers over the next couple years. One option would be to look at a player like Shaquille O’Neal who has averaged 24.1 points per game over his 18-year career. That is spectacular performance. However, this year he is only averaging 12 points per game for the Cleveland Cavaliers.

On the other end of the spectrum, you might reason that that player who scored the most points over the last week or month is most likely to be the best scorer in coming years. That might lead you to a player like J.J. Redick who just put up 23 points against the Nuggets, but who has only averaged 6.9 points over the course of his career.

Alternatively, one might select from among the list of players who have scored the most over the last year. The table below is for the 2009-2010 season:

It should make sense that if you use an extremely long time horizon to measure relative strength (Shaq) you run the risk of getting a stock that is running out of steam. If you use a very short time horizon to measure relative strength (J.J. Redick) you run the risk of getting a stock that happened to get a short-term pop, but may be unlikely to sustain that over time. However, using an intermediate-term measure of relative strength (Lebron) leads to those stocks most likely to be the best performers in the coming years.

Posted by:


New Dorsey Wright Podcasts

March 29, 2010

Dorsey Wright Podcast – Bringing Real World Testing to Relative Strength

Paul Keeton and John Lewis, CMT; Portfolio Manager at Dorsey Wright Money Management – Bringing Real-World Testing To Relative Strength, 3/24/2010

Dorsey Wright Podcast – Dorsey Wright Money Management

Tom Dorsey and Andy Hyer – Communicating Dorsey Wright Money Management Strategies, 3/26/2010

Disclosures on Dorsey Wright Money Management Strategies

PDP, PIE, PIZ Disclosures
DWAFX, DWTFX
Disclosures
Rydex DAP Models Disclosures (here)
Systematic Relative Strength Portfolios Disclosures (here, here, and here)

Posted by:


Weekly RS Recap

March 29, 2010

The table below shows the performance of a universe of mid and large cap U.S. equities, broken down by relative strength decile and quartile and then compared to the universe return. Those at the top of the ranks are those stocks which have the best intermediate-term relative strength. Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong.

Last week’s performance (3/22/10 – 3/26/10) is as follows:

Last week was excellent for high relative strength stocks, with the top quartile outperforming the universe by over 100 basis points.

Posted by:


Dorsey Wright Sentiment Survey 3/26/10

March 26, 2010

Here we have Round Two of the Dorsey, Wright Sentiment Survey, the first third-party sentiment poll. As you know, when individuals self-report, they are always taller and more beautiful than when outside observers report their perceptions! Instead of asking individual investors to self-report whether they are bullish or bearish, we’d like financial advisors to weigh in and report on the actual behavior of clients. It’s two simple questions and will take no more than 20 seconds of your time. We’ll construct indicators from the data and report the results regularly on our blog–but we need your help to get a large statistical sample!

Click here to take Dorsey Wright's Sentiment Survey.

Contribute to the greater good! You WILL NOT be directed to another page by clicking the survey. It’s painless, we promise.

Posted by:


The Clown Says It’s Undervalued

March 26, 2010

The Economist has once again published its “Big Mac Index“. As some long-time readers may recall, this index is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity, in which exchange rates should equalize the price of a basket of goods across countries.

The index shows that the Big Mac that costs $3.58 in the U. S. would cost $6.16 in Switzerland and $6.87 in Norway. This suggests that their currencies are overvalued relative to the U. S. dollar. On the other end of the valuation spectrum, a Big Mac in China costs $1.83, suggesting that the yuan is 49% below its fair-value benchmark with the dollar.

source: The Economist. Click to enlarge.

Posted by:


Sector & Capitalization Performance

March 26, 2010

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s). Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong. Performance updated through 3/25/2010.

Posted by:


Another Way to Blow Up Your Bond Fund: Derivatives

March 26, 2010

Given recent investor behavior, we’ve had concerns about bonds and bond funds. Investors have been heavy buyers of this category for months and months. It’s led investors to miss most of the run in the stock market over the past year, and in past instances of heavy buying in one fund category, retail investors have not exactly covered themselves in glory.

It doesn’t make me feel any better that some of the fixed income baskets in our Global Macro strategy are currently among the weakest asset classes. Now this article from Morningstar points out that many bond funds are using derivatives once again. The last go-round didn’t work out very well either.

Posted by:


I Want to Buy Losers

March 26, 2010

I cringe every time I read an article by a value investor that says something like, “You should buy stocks that are on sale, just like you buy [pick your consumer item] on sale.” In the financial markets that can be dangerous.

In a great essay titled, I Want to Buy Losers, Clay Allen of Market Dynamics discusses the problems with this analogy. [You’ve got to read the whole essay to really appreciate it.]

Many investors buy stocks the way many consumers buy paper towels or any other staple. They are attracted to a sale and loss leaders are a proven method for a retailer to increase the traffic in their store. The value of the item is well known and a sale price gets the attention of potential buyers.

Mr. Allen explains brilliantly and succinctly why this analogy is bunk:

But stocks are not like paper towels. Paper towels can be used to satisfy a need and this is what gives the item its value to the consumer. What gives a stock its value? A stock cannot be used to satisfy a need or accomplish a task. The value of a stock is derived from the financial performance of the company, either actual or expected. The fact that the stock is down in price is usually a sure sign that the financial performance of the company is declining.

…if the value of the stock was constant, then buying bargain stocks would be the correct way to invest in stocks. But stock values are constantly changing as business conditions change for the company and the expectations of investors change.

All in all, it seems to me that relative strength often more closely reflects what the expectations of investors are–and the expectations are what counts. Let’s face it: strong stocks are usually strong because business conditions or fundamentals are good, and weak stocks are usually weak for a reason.

Posted by:


Even Your Happiness is Relative

March 25, 2010

Relative strength really is everywhere! If you don’t believe us, take a look at the Wealth Report at the Wall Street Journal. They discuss research from professors who were puzzling over the fact that people tended not to be any happier even though they were making more money, although generally money tends to enhance happiness. Why did that happen?

…the researchers decided to dig deeper into what is called the “reference-income hypothesis,” a fancy way of saying that wealth is relative. If an entire country gets richer at the same time, individuals wouldn’t necessarily feel wealthier, since their relative positions in society hadn’t changed.

It turns out that your happiness hinges much more on your relative position than on your absolute position on the income scale. This explains how you can be miserable even on a high income if your idiot brother-in-law makes more money than you. The people in your comparison set are what counts.

…[researchers] found that the person’s rank within the comparison set was a stronger predictor of happiness than absolute wealth. “If absolute income matters, as we increased our income, everybody should get happier at a national level, but we don’t seem to,” Mr. Boyce said. “So what we are showing is that in terms of life satisfaction, rank is a better predictor than absolute wealth.”

Source: www.despair.com

Posted by:


Fund Flows

March 25, 2010

The Investment Company Institute is the national association of U.S. investment companies, including mutual funds, closed-end funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and unit investment trusts (UITs). Members of ICI manage total assets of $11.82 trillion and serve nearly 90 million shareholders. Flow estimates are derived from data collected covering more than 95 percent of industry assets and are adjusted to represent industry totals.

Net fund flows are shown in the table below:

Last week we saw US equity flows rise off the bottom of the ranks; they held their ground this week in the middle of the pack. Taxable bonds attracted even more new money in the week ending 3/17/2010.

Posted by:


The Big Disconnect

March 25, 2010

Americans love to worry about the economy. It seems like there is always something going wrong, or about to go wrong. There’s one big problem with focusing on the economy–it’s not always very connected with the stock market, or at least not in the way most investors think it is.

Investors seem to have the belief that they can forecast the stock market from watching the economy. According to an article on Bloomberg, most Americans missed the run in the market last year. Only 30% of investors said their portfolio gained value last year, a problem which seems directly connected to the fact that two-thirds of investors feel the economy is getting worse, not better. Their economic views apparently led them to stay out of the market and as a result 70% of them missed the best year in the last decade.

What investors are failing to recognize is that the stock market trades on expectations, not current reality. The stock market is a leading indicator of the economy, not the other way around. In point of fact, the S&P; 500 Index is one of the components of the Index of Leading Economic Indicators–and statistically the most reliable of the components. Trying to forecast the market by looking at the economy is not only impossible, it’s ass-backwards.

Posted by:


RS Diffusion Index

March 24, 2010

The chart below measures the percentage of high relative strength stocks that are trading above their 50-day moving average (universe of mid and large cap stocks.) As of 3/23/10.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 95% and the one-day reading is 97%. This oscillator has shown the tendency to remain overbought for extended periods of time, while oversold measures tend to be much more abrupt.

Posted by:


Adapt or Die Chronicles

March 23, 2010

Our subject today is Blockbuster Entertainment. This article on the Atlantic Business Channel brought to my attention that Blockbuster is on the verge of bankruptcy. Back in the day of the VCR tape, Blockbuster was the largest and healthiest video rental chain. So what happened?

Atlantic’s article suggests three different possible reasons for Blockbuster’s demise, one of which was Netflix. I’m not so interested in why Blockbuster’s fundamentals deteriorated, but I am pretty interested to see what the comparative performance was for the two stocks in the market. That’s what relative strength is, after all.

source: Yahoo Finance. Click to enlarge.

If you are curious too, here are the charts for the last two years or so. Netflix is up substantially, while Blockbuster has gone nearly to zero. Relative strength sorted out the fundamentals just fine, by letting the market be the judge.

Relative strength is powerful because it is objective and because it measures market performance directly. Analysts who examine fundamentals try to ascertain what the ultimate impact will be on the market price; relative strength just measures the market price directly. As you can see, the signal from the market is often worth paying attention to.

Disclosure: Some Dorsey, Wright managed accounts currently have a position in Netflix (NFLX).

Posted by:


Relative Strength Spread

March 23, 2010

The chart below is the spread between the relative strength leaders and relative strength laggards (universe of mid and large cap stocks). When the chart is rising, relative strength leaders are performing better than relative strength laggards. As of 3/22/2010:

The sharp decline in the RS Spread for much of the last 12 months has moderated considerably in recent months, and may well be setting the stage for a more favorable RS environment.

Posted by:


Weekly RS Recap

March 22, 2010

The table below shows the performance of a universe of mid and large cap U.S. equities, broken down by relative strength decile and quartile and then compared to the universe return. Those at the top of the ranks are those stocks which have the best intermediate-term relative strength. Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong.

Last week’s performance (3/15/10 – 3/19/10) is as follows:

Last week went to the laggards.

Posted by:


Are We There Yet?

March 22, 2010

No journey ever seems to get taken without that question getting asked. Most parents have experienced it coming from the back seat of the family car. Most investment advisers have heard it from clients wanting to know if the bull market has run its course.

The Chart of the Day offers some good historical perspective on how our current bull market journey compares to previous ones. Are we there yet?

The Chart of the Day indicates our journey could last a while longer in both distance traveled and time.

Posted by:


Dorsey Wright 3/12/2010 Sentiment Survey Results

March 19, 2010

Our first sentiment survey was open from 3/12/2010 through 3/18. We were a little bit disappointed with the response rate, but we hope that will grow over time. 138 people clicked on the post, but only 87 actually took the survey this week. (We’re not sure what the other 51 respondents were afraid of, but your input is for a good cause.) If you believe, as we do, that markets are driven by supply and demand, client behavior is important. We’re not even asking you what you think of the market–since most of our blog readers are financial advisors, we’re asking instead about the behavior of your clients. Then we’re aggregating responses exclusively for our readership. Your privacy will not be compromised in any way.

After the first 30 or so responses, the established pattern was simply magnified, so we are comfortable about the statistical validity of even our smaller-than-desired sample. Most of the responses were from the U.S., but we also had multiple advisors respond from at least two other countries. Let’s get down to an analysis of the data! Note: You can click on any of the charts to enlarge them.

Question 1. Based on their behavior, are your clients currently more afraid of: a) getting caught in a stock market downdraft, or b) missing a stock market upturn?

Chart 1: Greatest Fear. 76.5% of clients were fearful of a downturn, while only 23.5% were afraid of missing an upturn. Obviously, as the survey moves through time we expect the information will become more valuable. Still, that seems like a significant amount of fear on the part of clients, especially given how good the stock market has been over the past year.

Chart 2. Greatest Fear Spread. One of the other ways to look at this data is to examine the spread between the two groups. That spread is now at 53%. Chart 2 is constructed by subtracting the percentage of respondents reporting clients fearful of missing an upturn from the clients reported as fearful of a market downdraft. My impression is that this is a large spread, but more data and more time will certainly lend some perspective.

Question 2: Based on their behavior, how would you rate your clients’ current appetite for risk?

Chart 3: Average Risk Appetite. The average risk appetite clocked in at 2.72, slightly below the neutral level. The second question is designed not only to validate the first question, but also to gain more precision and insight about the reported risk appetite of clients. This chart will plot the average risk appetite through time. With only one completed survey, this chart is not very informative yet, but should become much more interesting with more data and an overlay of the S&P; 500 price.

Chart 4: Risk Appetite Bell Curve. This chart uses a bell curve to break out the percentage of respondents at each risk appetite level. Right now the bell curve is biased to the low risk side, but this shape will no doubt transform as we go through bull and bear markets over time.

Chart 5: Risk Appetite Bell Curve by Group. The next three charts use cross-sectional data. This chart plots the reported client risk appetite separately for the fear of downdraft and for the fear of missing upturn groups. We would expect that the downdraft group would have a lower risk appetite–bigger yellow bars on the left–and that is what we see. The more aggressive group, worried about missing an upturn, would be expected to have a higher risk appetite–bigger green bars on the right. Again, that is how the data shakes out. This is an important validity check.

Chart 6: Average Risk Appetite by Group. A plot of the average risk appetite score by group is shown in this chart. The fear of downdraft group had an average risk appetite of 2.45, while the fear of missing upturn group had an average risk appetite of 3.55. The downdraft group should theoretically always have a lower risk appetite, but it will be interesting to see if the two groups change their risk preferences in unison or if there are timing differences.

Chart 7: Risk Appetite Spread. This is a spread chart constructed from the data in Chart 6, where the average risk appetite of the downdraft group is subtracted from the average risk appetite of the missing upturn group. The spread is currently 1.10. There is only one data point now, but this should be interesting to follow over time. Theoretically, it should be oriented the same way as the Greatest Fear spread chart, but we’ll see what happens in real time.

As time goes on, we will get a better feel for the most useful ways to present this sentiment data. We think it will be a unique sample because, unlike most of the existing sentiment surveys, it employs a third-party rating system, where advisors rate client behavior. As a result, it has the potential to be more accurate than sentiment surveys that rely on self-reports. Thank you for participating. We look forward to even more of you responding when we open the next survey on March 26!

Posted by:


Sector and Capitalization Performance

March 19, 2010

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s). Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong. Performance updated through 3/18/2010.

Posted by: