Dorsey, Wright Client Sentiment Survey – 2/3/12

February 3, 2012

Here we have the next round of the Dorsey, Wright Sentiment Survey, the first third-party sentiment poll.  Participate to learn more about our Dorsey, Wright Polo Shirt raffle! Just follow the instructions after taking the poll, and we’ll enter you in the contest.  Thanks to all our participants from last round.

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 Client Sentiment Survey.

Contribute to the greater good!  It’s painless, we promise.


Sector and Capitalization Performance

February 3, 2012

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s).  Performance updated through 2/2/2012.


Momentum Travels

February 2, 2012

That’s the title of a Forbes article detailing research on relative strength in international markets.  The research was done by the asset management firm Gerstein Fisher and encompassed 21 developed markets from 2004-2011.  The summary:

Momentum works. Seminal research by Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Sheridan Titman in 1993 first identified momentum as a systematic source of risk for equity investors. Their research—corroborated by numerous subsequent academic studies—revealed that, historically, momentum investing had provided excess stock returns over a market index.

…..

Overall, momentum returns outperformed market returns by an average of 3.13 percentage points on an annualized basis.

You can see the results on a country-by-country basis below.

Source: Forbes/Gerstein Fisher

Leaving aside the ridiculous statement about momentum being first identified in 1993, their study is important because it shows that momentum returns are universal.  Based on their study and others, we agree.  Dorsey Wright has been running a Systematic RS International portfolio since 2006 and the results have been excellent.  Our net returns have exceeded the EAFE benchmark by a similar amount to what Gerstein Fisher found–not surprising given the substantial overlap in time frames.

To receive the brochure for our Separately Managed Accounts, click here.  

Click here and here for disclosures.  Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.


Fund Flows

February 2, 2012

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.

Although early in the year, taxable bond funds are well in the lead–having already attracted over $18 billion in net new money.


That Darn January Effect

February 1, 2012

Bespoke has a brief article about what is commonly known as the January effect.  This year it has been quite noticeable.

No matter how you look at it, the month of January was a month where most of last year’s losers played catch up and most of last year’s winner dropped back with the pack.  The first chart below shows the performance of the S&P 500 (red dot) and each of the ten sectors in 2011 versus their performance in January.  As shown, the three sectors that were down in 2011 (Financials, Materials, and Industrials) rank in the top three in terms of performance so far this year, while the two best performing sectors last year (Utilities and Consumer Staples) are two of only three sectors down so far this year.

Losers playing catch up and winners lagging is obviously not a formula for good performance by relative strength!  January is typically the worst month for relative strength, but it usually gives way to better performance for the rest of the year.


Revisionist History

February 1, 2012

In certain regimes, political figures who fell into disfavor were expunged from the history books.  The Conference Board is somehat better, in that the old and the new indicators can be compared.  Specifically, the Conference Board has changed the composition of the US Leading Economic Indicator.  Ed Yardeni comments:

The Conference Board has made the first major overhaul of the components of the LEI since it assumed responsibility of the index in 1996. It replaced real money supply with its proprietary leading credit index, and the ISM supplier delivery index with the new orders index. In place of the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan consumer expectations measure, it will now use an equally weighted average of its own consumer expectations index and the current measure. Also, the nondefense capital goods gauge was tweaked to exclude commercial aircraft.

The impact of these changes has been shocking, and really questions the credibility of constructing LEIs. The old LEI rose to a new record high in November, exceeding the previous cyclical peak (where it hovered during 2006 and 2007) by 12.7%. The new LEI edged back up in December to its previous high for the year during July, but that’s 13.1% below the previous cyclical peak!

I added the bold, but you can see why economists are shocked when you see the visual difference in the chart reproduced below (I think Dr. Yardeni included the ECRI leading indicator for good measure):


Source: Ed Yardeni/Conference Board/Haver Analytics (click on chart to enlarge)

The old LEI is blasting off into the stratosphere, but the new LEI is still way, way below the old highs.  In addition, the old LEI showed a very modest decline from the 2006 peak, while the new version shows a bloodbath that took out the 2000-2002 recession lows!

Mr. Yardeni has a very apt comment on the problems with indicators that are revised:

These man-made indexes combine a bunch of indicators that purportedly lead the business cycle. When they fail to do so, the men and women who made these indexes recall them, retool them, and send them back out for all of us to marvel at how well these new improved versions would have worked in the past. I can accurately predict that when they fail in the future, they will be recalled and redesigned yet again.

Of course, it’s not just the US LEI that economists revise.  They revise GDP, CPI, employment data, and virtually everything else.  Analysts revise earnings estimates with regularity, which I suppose is a good way to avoid saying “Our old estimate turned out to be wrong.”

Here we see one of the benefits of using relative strength: since it uses only market prices, it is not subject to revisionPrices reflect true supply and demand.  No one can come back to you and say, “You know those IBM shares you sold in 2010 for $141?  We’ve revised the data and it was really only $123, so you need to send us a check.  Of course, we might revise it again later, so keep your address current.”  It is difficult to make good investment decisions even when using good data!  It’s got to be near impossible using data that turns out to have been completely wrong.


From the Archives: Supply & Demand is Everywhere

February 1, 2012

NPR has a great story about monkey economics and how special skills in short supply translate into higher monkey income.  I first saw this on Greg Mankiw’s blog.  Even monkeys bow down to supply and demand!

—-this article was originally published 11/12/2009.  Human economics and monkey economics are exactly the same–scarcity creates value.  The story is quite funny too.


High RS Diffusion Index

February 1, 2012

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 1/31/12.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 88% and the one-day reading is 84%.


Quantitative Wheezing

January 31, 2012

Central bank balance sheets are being rapidly expanded all over the world.  Jim Bianco has a nice piece at The Big Picture, replete with amazing graphics.  For the record, I’ve known Jim for 20 years and he does some of the most intriguing fixed income research you will ever see.  He writes:

The degree to which central banks around the world are printing money is unprecedented.

He proceeds to show the balance sheets for each of the large central banks, converted back into dollars.  Your eyes will bug out when you see the original article.  For the sake of brevity, all I show here is his graphic of the composite of eight large central banks.

Source: Bianco Research/The Big Picture  (click on image for a sharper version)

Jim points out that:

The combined size of  these eight central banks’ balance sheets has almost tripled in the last  six years from $5.42 trillion to more than $15 trillion and is still on  the rise!

I have no idea if this is a good or bad thing.  How you interpret it probably depends on which group of economists you put your faith in.  My guess—and this is only a guess—is that huge increases in the money supply will eventually result in some inflation.  Commodities generally respond fairly well to inflation, while fixed income may be gasping for air.  (This sort of fits the ”retail investor is always wrong” template, given the huge amounts poured into bonds over the last couple of years.)  Inflation might be a good thing from the Federal government’s point of view, as it will make paying off debt a lot less expensive in real terms.  It might not be so good for investors, depending on how their portfolio is constructed.

The one thing I don’t have to guess at is that quantitative easing, whether it continues to accelerate to ever-giddier heights or starts to wind down, will lead to trends of some kind.  When that happens, relative strength will be a useful guide to sort out where the investment opportunities lie.


A Winner In The “War On Savers”

January 31, 2012

Jim Jubak on why dividend-paying stocks are one of the winners in a low interest rate environment:

The Federal Reserve’s low interest-rate policy has been called a war on savers. That seems pretty accurate to me. Currently you can earn a whopping 0.248% (national average) on a three-month certificate of deposit (with a $10,000 minimum). Want to make a decent return — say, something as magnificent as 1%? Forget a 12-month CD. The yield is just 0.556%. Willing to go out two years? The national average for a two-year CD is just 0.875%. To add insult to injury, the headline inflation rate for 2011 was 3%; the core rate (which excludes increases in the prices of food and fuel) was up 2% for the year. No matter which inflation rate you use, all of those CDs lost value in 2011.

No wonder, then, that dividend stocks paying more than 3% (so an investor at least stays even with inflation) are among the hottest stocks on the market. In a year when the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index managed a return of just over 2%, a not-especially-stellar drug company like Merck returned 8.9% — because it paid a dividend of better than 4%. Verizon Communications, in not a particularly good year for phone companies, managed a 17.6% total return — because it paid more than 5%. Pipeline master limited partnerships such as Oneok Partners, with a dividend yield of 6%, returned 51% for the year. Another master limited partnership, Magellan Midstream Partners, returned 27%.

I don’t see any reason that dividend stocks with yields above 3% won’t turn in another stellar performance in 2012. After all, the Federal Reserve just guaranteed that savers won’t be able to make 2% even if they buy seven-year Treasury notes. And, looking at the number of financial advisers and gurus that I see praising dividend stocks, I think 2012 could be even better for anything with a pulse and a yield.

Dorsey Wright currently owns Verizon and Oneok Partners.  A list of all holdings for the previous 12 months is available upon request.  Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.


Relative Strength Spread

January 31, 2012

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 1/30/2012:

Over the past two and a half years, relative strength leaders have had similar performance to the relative strength laggards.  Using history as a guide, we expect this spread to eventually resume its upward trend.


The Cleansing Effect of Recessions

January 30, 2012

Now that we seem to be through the recession and investor sentiment is beginning to improve to the point that maybe Recession 2.0 is not on the immediate horizon, investors are faced with trying to figure out what to do next.  The Freakonomics blog has a useful thought about what they call the “cleansing effect” of recessions:

In the past, when I’ve tried to schedule our window cleaners they have always been able to come within two days. Despite the still-slow economy, the first available appointment this time is not for three weeks.

“Why?” I ask. The owner says that during the worst of the recession his firm had enough clients to survive, but barely; smaller, less efficient companies died off. Now that demand for cleaning has increased, his own customers are coming back; and the customers of the now-defunct companies are hiring him too, so he’s swamped with business. Recessions kill off inefficient firms; but at least in this case, those that survive come out stronger than before.

Relative strength is a good tool for sorting out the winners from the losers.  Companies that have been hit hard from the lingering recession often show weak relative strength, while companies that have managed to power through tough times and grow despite it are often leaders.


Weekly RS Recap

January 30, 2012

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 (1/23/12 – 1/27/12) is as follows:

RS laggards had another strong week last week.


Consumer Sentiment Improves

January 27, 2012

The final University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index came in at 75.0 for January.  That’s a sharp improvement from where it was last summer and fall, but it’s still in the lower part of the range over the past 30 years.  Check out the fantastic graphic from Calculated Risk:

Source: Calculated Risk  (click on chart to expand)

Maybe the world isn’t ending after all.  One never knows exactly how investors will respond to economic data, but movement from low levels to consumer sentiment to high levels of consumer sentiment is usually associated with decent equity markets.  The best entries tend to occur when sentiment is very poor—i.e., investors are perhaps overly pessimistic.


Harnessing the Power of Momentum

January 27, 2012

That’s the title of a recent article in Advisor Perspectives about relative strength investing.  (Academics call it momentum.)  The article was written by a principal at a Canadian money management firm, Michael Nairne, so it’s nice to see a little cross-border validation.  From the article:

Numerous academic studies have confirmed that, when measured in periods of approximately three to 12 months, past investment winners tend to keep on outperforming while past losers tend to keep underperforming.

Momentum is not simply a US phenomenon. A recent study2 covering equities in 23 countries from November 1989 to September 2010 found evidence of strong momentum returns in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific; only Japan was an exception. Another study tracking the largest 100 stocks in the British market from 1900 to 2009 found that a portfolio comprised of the 20 best performers over the prior 12 months outperformed the worst performers by 10.3% annually3.  The same authors found momentum in 18 out of 19 markets, dating back to 1975 in larger European markets and 1926 in the US.

Momentum is not confined to portfolios of individual stocks – it exists in a variety of asset classes. A recent study4 has found that momentum exists in government bonds, commodities and currencies as well as country equity indexes. Momentum has also been found in corporate bonds5 as well as the financial futures market6.

The article is well-footnoted.  I recommend you read the original, which I linked to above.  The article does a good job discussing both the pros and cons of relative strength.  For example, the author points out that:

…there are prolonged periods where stocks with positive momentum underperform the market.  Despite an overall annualized premium of 3.9%, there have 22 periods where stocks with positive momentum have underperformed the market by greater than 5%, with durations as long as several years.

Although investors have a marked tendency to abandon strategies when they underperform for a period of time, that might not be a good idea with relative strength.  Despite periods of underperformance, long-term results have been remarkable:

The $1.00 investment in momentum stocks grew to $67,309, nearly 30-times larger than the $2,321 earned in the S&P 500. [August 1927 to July 2011]  For long-term investors, this outperformance has been remarkably enduring. In 99.6% of the 10-year rolling periods since July 1937, momentum stocks have outperformed the S&P 500. [my emphasis]

Investors have a lot of choices when it comes to selecting an investment strategy, but not many have been as well validated over as long a period of time in multiple markets as relative strength.


Sector and Capitalization Performance

January 27, 2012

The chart below shows performance of US sectors and capitalizations over the trailing 12, 6, and 1 month(s).  Performance updated through 1/26/2012.


Whole Wide World

January 26, 2012

Sometimes we focus so much on our own situation that we forget there is a whole wide world out there–and lots of investment opportunities.  A chart that was eye-opening for me appeared recently on Dr. Ed’s Blog, written by the estimable Wall Street economist Ed Yardeni.  Check it out:

Source: Ed Yardeni   (click on image to expand)

Ok, so the developed world isn’t really boosting oil demand.  There could be a lot of reasons for that besides a lack of economic growth: conservation, increased efficiency, substitution of other energy sources, etc.  But emerging markets—wow!  The financial crisis was barely a blip in oil demand.

Money will go wherever it is treated best–and it tends to seek out growth.  Markets are global and your portfolio should be too.


Fund Flows

January 26, 2012

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.


Why Capitalism Works

January 25, 2012

Incentives!  I first saw this story on Carpe Diem, the blog of economist Mark Perry at the University of Michigan.  He excerpts a story from NPR‘s Planet Money that details a secret contract that Chinese farmers made in 1978, during a period of communist rule.  Everyone in a small village essentially agreed to become capitalists!  And the results were remarkable.  From NPR:

In 1978, the farmers in a small Chinese village called Xiaogang gathered in a mud hut to sign a secret contract. They thought it might get them executed. Instead, it wound up transforming China’s economy in ways that are still reverberating today.

The contract was so risky — and such a big deal — because it was created at the height of communism in China. Everyone worked on the village’s collective farm; there was no personal property.

“Back then, even one straw belonged to the group,” says Yen Jingchang, who was a farmer in Xiaogang in 1978. “No one owned anything.”

At one meeting with communist party officials, a farmer asked: “What about the teeth in my head? Do I own those?” Answer:  No. Your teeth belong to the collective.

In theory, the government would take what the collective grew, and would also distribute food to each family. There was no incentive to work hard — to go out to the fields early, to put in extra effort, Yen Jingchang says.

“Work hard, don’t work hard — everyone gets the same,” he says. “So people don’t want to work.” In Xiaogang there was never enough food, and the farmers often had to go to other villages to beg. Their children were going hungry. They were desperate.

So, in the winter of 1978, after another terrible harvest, they came up with an idea: Rather than farm as a collective, each family would get to farm its own plot of land. If a family grew a  lot of food, that family could keep some of the harvest.

This is an old idea, of course. But in communist China of 1978, it was so dangerous that the farmers had to gather in secret to discuss it.

One evening, they snuck in one by one to a farmer’s home. Like all of the houses in the village, it had dirt floors, mud walls and a straw roof. No plumbing, no electricity.

“Most people said ‘Yes, we want do it,’ ” says Yen Hongchang, another farmer who was there.   “But there were others who said ‘I don’t think this will work — this is like high voltage  wire.’  Back then, farmers had never seen electricity, but they’d heard about it. They knew if you touched it, you would die.”

Despite the risks, they decided they had to try this experiment — and to write it down as a formal contract, so everyone would be bound to it.  By the light of an oil lamp, Yen Hongchang wrote out the contract. The farmers agreed to divide up the land among the families. Each family agreed to turn over some of what they grew to the government, and to the collective. And, crucially, the farmers agreed that families that grew enough food would get to keep some for themselves.

The contract also recognized the risks the farmers were taking. If any of the farmers were sent to prison or executed, it said, the others in the group would care for their children until age 18.

The farmers tried to keep the contract secret — Yen Hongchang hid it inside a piece of bamboo in the roof of his house — but when they returned to the fields, everything was different.

Before the contract, the farmers would drag themselves out into the field only when the village whistle blew, marking the start of the work day. After the contract, the families went out before dawn. “We all  secretly competed,” says Yen Jingchang. “Everyone wanted  to produce more than the next person.”

It was the same land, the same tools and the same people. Yet just by changing the economic rules — by saying, you get to keep some of what you grow — everything changed. At the end of the season, they had an enormous harvest: more, Yen Hongchang says, than in the previous five years combined.

Listening to this story makes me much more optimistic about the possibility for eventual intelligent economic reform.  The power of incentives to transform behavior is truly remarkable!  Thoughtful incentives make the economy better for everyone.  I hope it is not lost on policymakers that a 15% tax on the huge harvest generates more revenue than a 70% tax on the lousy harvest.  (Even bad incentives, I suppose, make the economy better for certain groups while making it worse for others.  Relative strength is a good way to detect who is benefiting and who is being held back.)

HT to FT Alphaville.

Divergent Investment Market Scenarios

January 25, 2012

TFC Financial Management makes an argument for divergent market performance:

The global financial markets today appear to be divided into three distinct economic modes: 1) Europe with its sovereign debt crisis seemingly headed into recession; 2) the emerging countries and Asia, most apparently back on a moderate growth track; and 3) the U.S. entering a surprisingly improved economic recovery which seems to have caught the “experts” unaware.  What may be unfolding is a global picture of divergent investment market scenarios, not the free market convergence which investors have come to accept as gospel these past 15-20 years.

As a general rule, the larger the dispersion in returns in a given investment universe, the better the environment for relative strength strategies.

HT: Real Clear Markets


High RS Diffusion Index

January 25, 2012

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 1/24/12.

The 10-day moving average of this indicator is 88% and the one-day reading is 87%.


Tasty Flavor of the Month: Low Volatility

January 24, 2012

Low volatility funds have been hot lately.  They are easy to market right now.  Low volatility sounds appealing and they have performed well.  According to the Wall Street Journal:

…it’s not difficult to see why investors might prefer a low-volatility strategy. It certainly paid off last year: The S&P 500 Low Volatility Index returned 10.9% in 2011, more than eight percentage points higher than the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index.

But there is a caveat:

If the market continues to rally this year, low-volatility strategies could underperform.

Since 2008, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index has underperformed during years when the Chicago Board Options Exchange Market Volatility Index, or VIX—which  tracks investor expectations for market volatility—dropped, while outperforming when the VIX rose. (One exception: In 2007, the VIX rose, but the Low Volatility Index underperformed.)

Low volatility funds tend to lag when markets get hot.  Investors, wrapped in their current bearish gloom, aren’t worrying about that right now.  But flat market years like 2011 are often followed by above-average years.

One way to use low volatility funds in your portfolio without perhaps taking the full brunt of underperformance is to pair the low volatility return factor with relative strength.  Examine, if you will, an efficient frontier constructed from SPLV and PDP.  Relative strength often outperforms when markets trend.  It’s a nice efficient frontier and might smooth out your core equity exposure over time.

Source: Dorsey Wright Money Management (click on chart to expand)

For the time periods when hypothetical returns were used, the returns are that of the PowerShares Dorsey Wright Technical Leaders Index and of the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index.  The hypothetical returns have been developed and tested by the Manager (Dorsey Wright in the case of PDP and Standard & Poors in the case of SPLV), but have not been verified by any third party and are unaudited. The performance information is based on data supplied by the Dorsey Wright or from statistical services, reports, or other sources which Dorsey Wright believes are reliable.  The performance of the Indexes, prior to the inception of actual management, was achieved by means of retroactive application of a model designed with hindsight.  For the hypothetical portfolios, returns do not represent actual trading or reflect the impact that material economic and market factors might have had on the Manager’s decision-making under actual circumstances.  Actual performance of PDP began March 1, 2007 and actual performance of  SPLV began May 5, 2011.  See PowerShares.com for more information.


From the Archives: Why Americans Are in Debt

January 24, 2012

James Surowiecki has a fantastic article in the New Yorker about why Americans take on so much debt.  Incentives work and we have incentives to use debt embedded in our financial structure.  I’m a big fan of his writing anyway, but this short piece explains a lot.

John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that all financial crises are the result of “debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale.”

That’s his thesis and in a couple of paragraphs he explains how we got there so efficiently.

—-this article was originally published 11/16/2009.  This article has a fantastic explanation of how effectively incentives work.  And a couple of years down the road we can see even more clearly how debt has saddled Western economies.


What’s Hot…and Not

January 24, 2012

How different investments have done over the past 12 months, 6 months, and month.

 1PowerShares DB Gold, 2iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF, 3iShares DJ U.S. Real Estate Index, 4iShares S&P Europe 350 Index, 5Green Haven Continuous Commodity Index, 6iBoxx High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, 7JP Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Fund, 8PowerShares DB US Dollar Index, 9iBoxx Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund, 10PowerShares DB Oil, 11iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond


Debt and Deleveraging

January 23, 2012

This is the title of a new report from McKinsey & Company on global debt.  So far, things are playing out pretty much like Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart suggested they would.  To wit:

…major economies have only just begun deleveraging. In only three of the largest mature economies—the United States, Australia, and South Korea—has the ratio of total debt relative to GDP fallen. The private sector leads in debt reduction, and government debt has continued to rise, due to recession. However, history shows that, under the right conditions, private-sector deleveraging leads to renewed economic growth and then public-sector debt reduction.

In many countries, debt is still growing.  In a few, debt has gone down in the private sector (corporations and individuals), mostly offset by rising debt in the government sector.  The good news is that the public sector debt may start to drop when the economy begins to grow.

The Economist has some nice graphics from the McKinsey study.  It’s very interactive and allows you to see what happened around the world over time.  And they make a good point about debt and wealth:

Wealth ebbs away a lot faster than debt. Our interactive guide shows levels of debt as a % of GDP for a selection of rich countries and emerging markets. With a few exceptions, such as Germany and Japan, most rich countries saw a huge rise in debt levels in the years running up to the crisis. Unwinding these dues will take a lot longer. In many rich countries the process of debt reduction hasn’t even started.

I added the bold.  It will take some spending restraint and renewed economic growth to start to pare the debt burdens.  By the way, this is true on an individual level as well as a national level!  When asset values implode, the debt remains.

It’s too early to tell if the US market has turned the corner and will pay more attention to growth than debt going forward.  There are still a lot of things up in the air in Europe and in domestic politics.  Once again, relative strength may be the best option for sorting out what assets are going to perform over time.