Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

A cross, a cistern and a dog house, implying there is a dog.

Comments [3] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

He didn't have a hook and line, he said. I later fixed that.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

It is nice and quiet when no one is there. The bothersome noise of doctrine attaches much more to people than it does to the church per se.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

The place to buy produce, flowers and plants.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Checking out a small fish they caught.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Women of social status, probably nobles. There are three classes here. Royal, nobles and commoners.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

She gains weight when she doesn't want to go.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

The day's catch just came in.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/30/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Girls always give me their best expressions. Lucky old dog that I am.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Steps into the more blue.

Comments [2] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

And over a church, at that.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

It's about to get mowed over.

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Not a whole hull of a lot.
_______

How Trend Trading Compromises the Stock Market

There are three basic approaches to stock market "investing:" fundamentals analysis, charting theories and raw trend trading. Obviously, some market participants mix two or more of these approaches to some degree. By fundamentals analysis, I basically mean a Value Line or Graham & Dodd approach to buying and selling. The other two approaches depend on one or another type of trend analysis. Raw trend trading is simply jumping in and out of the market to ride up long and down trends short, with little real consideration given to the fundamentals of the stocks selected. How is it so little attention need be paid to stock selection, according to investment criteria, in order to successfully trade the market trends? That is the core question. Obviously, a disconnect has clearly arisen between company performance and stock market price performance. Why?

I argue that all forms of trend analysis and trading - anything but classic investment criteria buying and selling - compromises the stock market as a market per se. What do I mean, you say? By compromising the market, I mean the following:

1. Market prices less accurately reflect true company performance;
2. Market prices move less independently of each other;
3. Herd behavior and band wagon effects become more dominant;
4. The market becomes more volatile and less stable;
5. The market is more amenable to manipulation by major players;
6. The market is more open to trading abuses;
7. The market disconnects from reality and has internal life of its own;
8. The market is more inclined to react to irrelevant information;
9. The market also overreacts to external information;
10. The market has a shorter term memory;
11. The market seeks new information to overreact to; and
12. The market is more disposed to bubble up and to crash.

In short, the market does a less good job by far of accurately reflecting companies' current actual and expected performance and of distinguishing between companies in the market and having their stock prices move more independently of each other in the shorter term. These are major failings for a market.

None of this should come as a surprise. The more buying and selling in the stock market is based on factors other than underlying actual and expected company performance based on fundamentals, the less well market prices will reflect that performance and those fundamentals. The reverse is true as well. The more actual company performance becomes irrelevant to buy and selling stocks, the more the stock market takes on the characteristics (1) through (12) above and the less effective the market becomes as a market for the stock of those companies. These may not be popular notions, but that does not alter the truth of them.

The real difficulty is that, given these results from trend trading and given the market's consequentially developed failings, it is still not unreasonable to engage in trend trading. More do it all the time, in one time frame and manner or another. That is because, for everyone, the market is about making money, not about the health of the market per se. But the situation does become a vicious circle and the problems (1) through (12) above are exacerbated the more trend trading occurs. The market is further compromised. Trading manipulations and abuses become more prevalent.

As a practical matter, I believe that little can be done about this problem, but it is very much worth noting and keeping an eye on because it does have a strong bearing on what you should be able to expect from your investments, especially in the shorter term, if you investment using classical investment criteria.

Rejected for publication. Very unpopular notions? Too controversial? Who knows? Its just economic analysis. The more buying and selling in the stock market is based on factors other than underlying company actual and expected performance, the less well market prices will reflect that performance. Surprise! Obvious, at that level, but not at others. One of my more insightful articles, too.

Flash Bulletin: The article was published, albeit late and out of order. Perhaps there was a struggle among the editors or perhaps an assigned editor was simply on vacation. Whatever, it made it.

Posted and published on seekingalpha.com

Comments [2] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

It is just turtles all the way down, young man.
____

The following three comments were posted to Paul Krugman's blog under his article Stimulating Thoughts: Third Quarter Edition in which he argues for ever bigger stimulus programs. My comments:

I. In fact, consumer spending could clearly be better because in truth it tumbled 1.5% in September, as vehicle sales plunged, following a 1.4% gain in August (previously 1.3%). The saving rate rose to 3.3% as consumers returned to saving after buying cars to get clunker monies in August. Real spending dropped 0.6%.

Like too many government programs, including the stimulus program, the effects are too transient and the programs are too expensive. Too little bang per buck and too little impact on the real economy.

The answer is not therefore, as you suggest, to then just make the (stimulus) programs bigger.

___ Kimball Corson

II. The Chicago Fed´s National Activity Index indeed rose for the last quarter, but it is interesting that many of the non-averaged components have been falling for the last two months after a July peak. The Chicago Fed summarized the data:

"Thirty-two of the 85 individual indicators made positive contributions to the index in September, while 53 made negative contributions. Thirty-nine indicators improved from August to September, while 46 indicators deteriorated."

The bad news in this data is that much monthly data has been falling for the last 2 months. If this trend continues, next month this index will likely fall. This would be significant evidence that the recovery is now stalling, after the effects of the government's bump-up programs have passed.

We must face and address our structural problems of the trade deficit, the maldistribution of income, the dysfunctional banking sector and the decline of employment in the manufacturing sector if we want GDP to grow on a solid footing. Until we do this our prospects are poor.

The problem is none of the Keynesian policy makers even recognized these problems or take them seriously enough or believe they really matter. We are barking up the wrong tree, as I keep saying.

___ Kimball Corson

III. What we should be doing is addressing our structural problems of the trade deficit, the maldistribution of income, the dysfunctional banking sector and the decline of employment in the manufacturing sector and we could do that as follows:

The Trade Deficit: adopt an auctioned quota certificate system allowed by the WTO for persistent deficit countries and develop tax employment incentives for the more labor intensive companies in the US engaged in export. Put a surtax on gasoline and use the money to press for the development and use of smaller vehicles that use less or no gas. Provide tax incentives for their purchase. Put a luxury tax on gas guzzlers. We need a big and serious push here, politics be damned.

The Maldistribution of Income: use the tax system and a negative income tax if necessary to quickly redistribute income and raise the marginal propensity to consume. Now, those earning over $85,000 a year get half of all income and dump too much of it into secondary financial markets to create bubbles and messes.

The Dysfunctional Banking System: Run the money center banks through one or another type of FDIC insolvency proceeding to correct incentives, repair debt damage and pass financial reform with less opposition from those banks, while at the same time getting better supervision over them in the interim. We need to get serious here.

Employment in the Manufacturing Sector: We need to subsidize and support employment in this sector and companies with higher labor to capital ratios engaged in exporting a high percentage of what they make. All kinds of programs should be considered to do this.

We need to focus in on our problems and adopt some real fixes if we want to see more sustainable real economic improvements, not just throw more money at the priming pump of aggregate demand and getting temporary increases in aggregate demand that do not last.

We are on the wrong track.

___ Kimball Corson

Comments [0] | | More

Kimball Corson
10/27/2009, Neiafu, Vava'u, Tonga

Waiting, for his hair to fade.
____

Good Picks Can Be Clobbered by Trading Trends

We speak of strategies like perhaps this is a good time to be invested in emerging markets, Latin America or perhaps China or maybe even the BRICs, typically by means of spdrs, ADRs, mutual funds, ETFs or the like. Often these strategies are considered defensive plays where there is a lack of confidence in U.S. companies, the economy or the stock market, but good confidence in what is developing elsewhere. The problem is too often this approach does not work, at least in the short term. Why? Because the market on a downward tear, for example, takes just about everything with it, except maybe gold and a few similar picks. A downward tear seems more likely these days, if Friday, October 30th, is any indication, when the DOW dropped by almost 250 points and the NASDAQ, by over 52.

Although Brazil may be on a terrific upswing, BRE and EZW will sink or drop along with everything else. That China is trending up doesn´t matter; your Chinese GXC and FXI will tank along with the rest of the market. Ditto for emerging market funds such as ESR and EWX. Your BRIC fund BIK will sinks like one. The market takes the good, the improving and everything else all down together when it is dropping quickly. Why? I think simply because they are there and in the same market. A collective herd mentality indiscriminately takes hold. Buyers and sellers react emotionally and not not discriminate.The good sink with the bad and the over-priced. The drop is not about individual funds or stocks; it is about what the market itself is doing and participants getting out of it.That things might well sort themselves out much further down the road is little consolation for the adversities and losses in the here and now.

Several years ago, before the Great Recession, but after problems in the world economy began to emerge, The Economist Magazine attracted much attention by arguing that the emerging markets were no longer closely coupled or tied to American and European markets. The emerging markets had "decoupled" and now had independence and freedom of movement, we were told. I was skeptical, as were others at the time. The financial collapse of the Great Recession made it quite clear how wrong the Economist Magazine was, at least in regard to financial markets. Indeed, world financial markets are closely tied together. It was an example of what economists jokingly refer to as Walras' third law: 'everything is related to everything else.' America sneezes and Ecuador catches a cold. So perhaps the good sinking with the bad or over-priced is not just a stock market phenomenon, but a larger real or financial one as well, at least to an extent. But again, in a market on a downward tear, is this the market's prescience, or simply a friction or vacuum effect of being along side? I suspect the latter. It is kind of like being financially rear-ended.

This phenomenon has several untoward consequences, generally. First, it makes it harder to determine what a good stock, mutual fund or ETF pick is, at least short term, by looking at price performance. This is because performance gets separated from the company's or fund's fundamentals in a strongly trending market. Secondly, it is hard on the truly good picks. Instead of basking in their earned glory with rising prices, they sink with the market trend and the bad and over-priced apples. Thirdly, depending on your internal rate of discount, even if your careful picks will do better in the longer run and stand out then, the beating you can take in the short run by having them move with a downward trend can be prohibitive. These facts, in turn, themselves have significant consequences for the market.

What we observe is why many players in the market are much more concerned about going long with the trend if it rises and short with the trend if it drops, rather than in picking good solid stocks, funds and ETFs. Playing the trend and believing the trend is your friend are nothing new. You can aggressively go after trying to pick the turning points or like old J.P. Morgan, you can sit back and take your bite out of the middle. There are many kinds of trend players and many time frames within which to play trends. The argument is you don't care how good your picks might really be on a Value Line or Graham & Dodd basis, because if you fight the market, using those selection criteria, you can get clobbered. If you go with the trend, even riding picks that are known dogs, you can make money. Quirky, but true. In this case, a changing tide lifts or lowers all boats, even those about to sink.

The problem is that the net result of these developments, if too many market participants become trend players instead of investors, is the market begins to look more like a casino and it more readily disconnects from the real economy and the companies whose stocks are involved. It becomes less and less like a forum for good secondary investment, according to time honored investment principles. Herd behavior, band wagon effects, manipulation and the like are able to generate increasing instability in such stock markets. Such increased volatility is viewed opportunistically by traders playing the trends, even if they are only daily ones. At the same time, stock markets become more amenable to bubbles and their consequences. The market incentives to participants have become non-optimal.

These are not developments we should like to see. They reflect on the health of the market as a market per se. They leave us few safe havens in the event of a down pour. They can waste or compromise a lot of good work on careful stock or fund selection and they can send mixed signals to IPO and secondary offering markets. These matters go far to keep money market funds in business and brokerage cash accounts active and busy.

But what are reasonable market participants to do?

Comments [0] | | More