Mark Hulbert recently published a post,
"This is what the stock-market indicator with the best track record is telling us.",
on MarketWatch.com, based on Ned Davis research arguing against those who believe that high "sideline cash" could lead to a strong upsurge in equities.
Let me say right off that I don't know where the market is going. I believe that over the next 10 years stocks will do better than bonds and bonds will do better than cash equivalents. I believe that stocks could do a lot better given that the information age puts all kinds of information at the fingertips of very smart, creative, energetic people around the world. But...I could be wrong. Furthermore. I will be the first to stand up and admit that Hulbert is a lot smarter than me and I enjoy reading his posts.
Still, I think one needs to be careful with time series data on stock investing and this post by Hulbert is a prime example.
I wasn't investing in 1951 but I was investing in the 1960s. In the 1960s the investing world was dominated by defined benefit plans and the defined benefit plans were the responsibility of Trustees. Recency bias dominated the the investment process. Trustees looked over their shoulders and saw the markets of the 1930s. As a result allocations to stocks were low.
As an individual my investment choices were actively managed mutual funds that charged a lot expense wise or individual stocks at a high commission. If I wanted to buy or sell I had to talk to a broker who inevitably tried to up sell me by pressuring me into high commission product. To see how my stocks did the previous day I went to the mailbox and got the newspaper.
Today of course I can buy ETFs with the push of a button that track markets around the world. Today we live in a defined contribution world. Today, according to the Census Bureau, 79% of Americans have access to a 401 (k) at work. Today the small investor can easily and economically invest in the overall market, a choice that has been shown to outperform most active managers over the longer term.
The point here is that using time series data from the 1950s on up even to the 1990s compared to today is comparing apples and oranges. In effect, arguing for the "reversion to the mean" maybe misleading as the mean could be changing significantly over the period examined.
So maybe you say "no harm no foul", the data just needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Unfortunately I think the harm is greater in the following sense. Many investors can be persuaded by slick talking advisors using this kind of information to alter their investment approach. Using terms like "mean reversion", R-squared, and performance by "quintiles" gives the report seemingly expert opinion.
Thoughts and observations for those investing on their own or contemplating doing it themselves.
If you are seeking investment help, look at the video here on my services. If you are seeking a different approach to managing your assets, you have landed at the right spot. I am a fee-only advisor registered in the State of Maryland, charge less than half the going rate for investment management, and seek to teach individuals how to manage their own assets using low-cost indexed exchange traded funds. Please call or email me if interested in further details. My website is at http://www.rwinvestmentstrategies.com. If you are new to investing, take a look at the "DIY Investor Newbie" posts here by typing "newbie" in the search box above to the left. These take you through the basics of what you need to know in getting started on doing your own investing.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Be Careful With Statistics
Posted by Robert Wasilewski at 11:24 AM
Labels: Mark Hulbert, Market data, market indicators
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment