Skip to main content

The Cruel Psychology of the 1,000-Point Drop

If you don't already read Jason Zweig's regular column in the Wall Street Journal, you should. He is one of the few financial journalists worth reading. His recent article on the psychology of the recent market drop is rational and instructive.

====

Click here to read the article in it's entirety:

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/08/24/the-cruel-psychology-of-the-1000-point-drop/

See below for a snippet:

Experiments have shown, for instance, that people believe cancer is riskier when they are told that it kills “1,286 out of 10,000 people” than when they hear that it kills “24.14 out of 100 people.” Hearing “1,286” immediately brings a large number of victims to mind, while “24.14” is simply a much smaller number.
To notice that the first number is less than 13%, while the second is more than 24%, you have to focus on the denominators of the fractions and do some quick division. But your emotions will likely hijack your brain long before you get to that point.
Ask almost any investor if the stock market is more volatile than it used to be, and you will hear a resounding “yes.” That’s because the Dow routinely moves up or down at least 100 points in a day—a round number that sounds large and important.
But, even after the recent spike in volatility, the market has fluctuated far less sharply in the last three years than has been typical in the past. And even after the market’s recent haircut, 100 points is only about a 0.6% change in the Dow.
A 1,000-point move, on the other hand, is a full 6.6% decline. But how significant is it, and what should you do about it?
Stocks are still not cheap. The best guide we have to the valuation of the stock market—the 10-year average “cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio” or CAPE, popularized by Yale University economist Robert Shiller—says U.S. stocks are still above their historical average.
On Aug. 4, stocks were selling at a CAPE of 26.4 times, about 50% higher than their average since 1871 and about 10% higher than they’ve run in the past three decades.
At the depth of Monday’s drop, stocks were down to 23.6 times—far from a bargain based on past levels.
But investors who want absolute certainty will be utterly disappointed. To be realistic about the future, you have to recognize the limitations of the past.
Historical data might feel as unchanging as an exhibit in a museum, but the financial past is nonstationary. As St. Augustine pointed out more than 1,600 years ago, time is a continuum. Today’s returns will be in the market’s past results tomorrow, and the “long-term” return changes slightly almost every day as the latest increment or decrement of performance gets averaged into it.
So the belief that the long-term average for CAPE of roughly 16 times is the “right” value for the market is dubious, says Prof. Shiller. Because the past is forever in flux, determining the proper level of valuation “is so fuzzy,” he says. “It’s not a science.”
The lowest the CAPE ratio got during the financial crisis was 13.3, in March 2009—partly because the 10 years of data on which CAPE is based still included, at that time, the euphoric period of 1999 and 2000. That ratio of 13.3 was barely below the long-term average. So investors who waited for a definitive sign, in 2008 and 2009, that stocks had gotten to bargain levels never got one—and missed out on the ensuing bull market.
We all long for certainty, some kind of chime or singing telegram that would tell us exactly what to do. After all the drama of the past few days, stocks are a little cheaper than they were before. They could get a lot cheaper still before this is over.

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day. ...

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.   But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amoun...

Why Smart People Make Dumb and Costly Mistakes With Money

"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."          Sir Isaac Newton, Response to the 1720 collapse of the "South Sea Bubble" Isaac Newton not only invented Calculus and discovered his Three Laws of Motion. Isaac Newton also lost a majority of his wealth in the South Sea Bubble, falling victim to behavioral mistakes investors make.  Research indicates that humans are not naturally wired for prudent, long-term investing. And if a genious like Isaac Newton falls victim, what are ordinary investors supposed to do? In the video accessible through the link below Scott Bosworth of Dimensional Fund Advisors describes common forms of behavioral bias and discusses how these biases influence investment decision making. He also explains how knowledge and discipline can help investors control their instincts for a better investment outcome. Click here to watch the video . (Approximate run time is 20 minutes.) ...