When you hear a reference to how the market is doing on the news, it is pretty common for the report to reference the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Dow is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S. blue-chip
companies. It covers all industries with the exception of
transportation and utilities. While this index is not as broad a representation of the US economy as the S&P 500, the Dow's performance typically tracks the S&P 500 pretty closely.
Recently, however, the blue-chip Dow has been a notable laggard compared to the broader S&P 500.
The chart below shows the relative strength of the DJIA vs. the S&P
500 over the last ten years. When the line in the chart is rising it
indicates the DJIA is outperforming, and when the line is falling the
DJIA is lagging.
As you can see, in the last several months the DJIA has been underperforming to such a large degree that the relative strength vs. the S&P 500 is at its lowest levels since the depths of the Financial Crisis.
Do you take that as a bullish sign for the broader market, or early indicator that we are in for a lull before the next move up?
Sometimes business feels like a debate. Other times, dinner conversation or a family discussion takes a contentious turn. In any case, here is a quick primer on logical fallacies.
A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. In other words, logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought. Consequently, they are
often used by politicians and the media.
It is fun to identify which of these certain people (including yourself) use when arguing.
TWENTY LOGICAL FALLACIES:
They fall into three main types: Distraction (10); Ambiguity (5); and Form (5).
A. Fallacies of Distraction
1. Ad baculum (Veiled threat): "to the stick": DEF.- threatening an opponent if they don’t agree with you; EX.- "If you don’t agree with me you’ll get hurt!"
2. Ad hominem (Name-calling; Poisoning the well): "to the man": DEF.- attacking a person’s habits, personality, morality or character; EX.- "His argument must be false because he swears and has bad breath."
3. Ad ignorantium (Appeal to ignorance): DEF.- arguing that if something hasn’t been proved false, then it must be true; EX.- "U.F.Os must exist, because no one can prove that they don’t."
4. Ad populum: "To the people; To the masses": DEF.- appealing to emotions and/or prejudices; EX.- "Everyone else thinks so, so it must be true."
5. Bulverism: (C.S. Lewis’ imaginary character, Ezekiel Bulver) DEF.- attacking a person’s identity/race/gender/religion; EX.- "You think that because you’re a (man/woman/Black/White/Catholic/Baptist, etc.)"
6. Chronological Snobbery DEF.- appealing to the age of something as proof of its truth or validity; EX.-"Voodoo magic must work because it’s such an old practice;" "Super-Glue must be a good product because it’s so new."
7. Ipse dixit: "He said it himself": DEF.- appealing to an illegitimate authority; EX.- "It must be true, because (so and so) said so."
8. Red herring (Changing the subject): DEF.- diverting attention; changing the subject to avoid the point of the argument; EX.- "I can’t be guilty of cheating. Look how many people like me!"
9. Straw Man: DEF.- setting up a false image of the opponent's argument; exaggerating or simplifying the argument and refuting that weakened form of the argument; EX.- "Einstein's theory must be false! It makes everything relative–even truth!"
10. Tu quoque: "You also" DEF.- defending yourself by attacking the opponent; EX.- "Who are you to condemn me! You do it too!"
B. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Accent: DEF.- confusing the argument by changing the emphasis in the sentence; EX.- "YOU shouldn’t steal" (but it’s okay if SOMEONE ELSE does); "You shouldn’t STEAL" (but it’s okay to LIE once in a while); "You SHOULDN’T steal (but sometimes you HAVE TO) ."
2. Amphiboly: [Greek: "to throw both ways"] DEF.- confusing an argument by the grammar of the sentence; EX.- "Croesus, you will destroy a great kingdom!" (your own!)
3. Composition: DEF.- assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole; EX.- "Chlorine is a poison; sodium is a poison; so NaCl must be a poison too;" "Micro-evolution is true [change within species]; so macro-evolution must be true too [change between species]."
4. Division: DEF.- assuming that what is true of whole must be true of the parts; EX.- "The Lakers are a great team, so every player must be great too."
5. Equivocation: DEF.- confusing the argument by using words with more than one definition; EX.- "You are really hot on the computer, so you’d better go cool off."
C. Fallacies of Form
1. Apriorism (Hasty generalization): DEF.- leaping from one experience to a general conclusion; EX.- "Willy was rude to me. Boys are so mean!"
2. Complex question (Loaded question): DEF.- framing the question so as to force a single answer; EX.- "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
3. Either/or (False dilemma): DEF.- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification; EX.- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."
4. Petitio principii (Begging the question; Circular reasoning): DEF.- assuming what must be proven; EX.- "Rock music is better than classical music because classical music is not as good."
5. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False cause): "after this, therefore because of this;" DEF.- assuming that a temporal sequence proves a causal relationship; EX.- "I saw a great movie before my test; that must be why I did so well."
According to SentimenTrader, extremes in
hedgers' positions in the futures have been good clues to the future
prospect for stocks in the intermediate-term.
For example, the chart below shows that there were heavy short positions last September, immediately
preceding a correction. In addition, there was a near net long position last November,
immediately preceding a rally. Finally, look at the record net short in
May right before another rough few weeks for stocks.
Obviously, we are close to those levels again.
Neither of the recent record short positions by commercials marked a major market peak. At its worst point during the next 4-8 weeks, the S&P 500 lost 4% – 6% before recovering … painful but not damaging.
Still, it is prudent to notice these kind of early indicators. However, remember that the trend has been bullish recently. Price is the primary indicator, and until it breaks down, expect dips to be met with buying.
How long would it take for an average person to earn a million dollars?
To find out, the Economist looked at how much the main breadwinner in an average household makes each year (before tax).
On this measure, America creates the swiftest millionaires, and also the most (around 5m households, or 4% of the total). South of the border, Mexicans can expect to work for three centuries to earn the same amount.
This chart displays the price of the Dow going all the way back to 1885 — and adjusts it for inflation. Clearly, if you do that, it is lower now than it was 13-years ago.
But, does the series of lower highs (marked at the far right of the chart) imply a meaningful technical analysis resistance level? Moreover, can you safely infer that the Dow is 'struggling' with that level? I don't think so.
Technical analysis is supposed to help you understand, and respond intelligently, to what is happening in the market. This pattern seems more coincidental, rather than causal.
Support and resistance zones supposedly reflect meaningful price points where a genuine disagreement between the Bulls and Bears is contested. I doubt this pattern was caused by Traders making big bets based on inflation-adjusted charts.
Consequently, I view this as interesting, but not tradeable, information … What about you?
How high is high? Here's a comparison based on historical PE ratios.
Most country equity valuations are trading at their 10-year average valuation or lower. However, a few countries like Mexico, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States are trading at levels above their respective 10-year valuations.
I just spent a few days with family. While that was great, what struck me was how much different our time together was now. Each of us was constantly checking our phones or watching the proceedings through the camera's viewfinder.
We seem to take it for granted that more of our time and attention is spent staring into a screen.
It's become our central interface with the world. In fact, we're consuming as about three times the amount of information today that we did in 1960, according to researchers at University of California, San Diego.
What does this do to our brains, attention span, relationships, and moods?
It would be one thing if our phones just sat there quietly until we needed them. But they don't. They exert a kind of tyranny over our attention and actions. Sixty-one percent of respondents said they cannot ignore their devices and check them within an hour of receiving an email, text, or alert — and 81 percent of those surveyed interrupt conversations, meals, all kinds of fun things, to do it.
Rethink the urge. When you feel yourself reaching for your phone, hit pause. Ask yourself what could be gained from checking right now. Delay it–especially if you're in the middle of food or conversation.
We Feel Worse After Checking
I could almost understand the Pavlovian response we have to buzzing and ringing if we were guaranteed to feel better after tuning in to our screens. But it turns out we'll stop mid-sentence or mid-chew to check our email and texts — only to feel worse. Sixty-one percent of those surveyed reported feeling jealous, depressed, or even annoyed after checking updates! It's no surprise, then, that 73 percent of respondents believe that their devices contribute to stress in their lives.
Rethink the effects. Next time you do a quick scan of email, text, and social networks, ask yourself, what did you learn and how did it make you feel? We rarely take the time to reflect on it, but doing so and owning up to how it makes you feel and what, if anything, it's doing for you, is the first step to making a shift.
We Spend More Time With Screens Than People
It's bad enough that we'll stop what we're doing with those we love to do something that will undoubtedly leave us more stressed — but more and more people are opting for screen time over the company of others. Three out of five people admitted to spending more of their free time on their computers than with their significant others.
Rethink your time. Rather than let digital inertia take over, make a plan: to go out, to see people, to get food, meet someone for a walk. It does require an extra effort to put yourself in front of other people, even the ones you live with — but the rewards you'll reap from that company will outweigh anything you'll find on Facebook.
