Last week, I wrote about various “indicators” for markets that just don’t make sense — like the Superbowl Indicator. The lesson from those indicators is that we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem a little bit more predictable, even where there are none. This is especially true in complex systems like the stock market, where so many variables and factors are at play that it can be difficult to predict or explain why things happen.
Now, it doesn't mean there aren't patterns - and benefits to watching them. Warren Buffet has proven that. In order to improve your understanding of "markets" you can focus on the fundamentals of individual companies and industries rather than broader market trends. By conducting thorough research and analysis of financials, management, and competitive landscapes of companies, you can make informed decisions about which stocks to buy or sell. Another way to improve your understanding of the market is to focus on long-term trends and avoid getting caught up in short-term fluctuations. It's about focusing on what doesn't change - instead of what does. But, ultimately, you should realize that if you don't know what your edge is ... you don't have one. And, market movements are getting faster, more automated, and harder to predict over time, not less.
With that said, Wall Street is still inundated with theories that attempt to predict the performance of the stock market and the economy. More people than you would hope, or guess, attempt to forecast the market based on gut instinct, ancient wisdom, and prayers.
While hope and prayer are good things ... they aren’t good trading strategies.
It’s true that there are many indices and economic indicators that can provide valuable insights into the workings of economies and markets. While some of these indices may seem “out there,” or even frivolous, they can often shed light on underlying economic trends and realities.
One example of this is the Big Mac Index, which is published annually by The Economist. This index is based on the idea of purchasing power parity, which suggests that exchange rates should adjust to ensure that the price of a basket of goods is the same in different countries. The Big Mac Index uses the price of a McDonald’s Big Mac burger as a proxy for this basket of goods. It compares the price of a Big Mac in different countries to determine whether currencies are overvalued or undervalued.
While the Big Mac Index is not a perfect measure of purchasing power parity, it can provide valuable insights into the relative value of different currencies and the economic factors that influence exchange rates. By looking beyond the headline numbers, and digging into the underlying data and trends, investors and economists can gain a deeper understanding of the forces shaping the global economy.
Ultimately, the key to using economic indicators like the Big Mac Index is to approach them with a critical eye and a willingness to dig deeper. By looking beyond the surface level and using data-driven analysis to understand the underlying trends and drivers of economic performance, we can gain a more accurate picture of the economic realities shaping the world around us.
In 2020, when I last talked about the Big Mac Index, the Swiss Franc was 20.9% overvalued based on the PPP rate. That math was based on the idea that, in Switzerland, a Big Mac costs 6.50 francs. In the U.S., it costs $5.71. The implied exchange rate was 1.14, and the actual exchange rate was 0.94 - thus, 20.9 was overvalued. At the time, the most undervalued was South Africa.
As of the end of 2022, The Swiss Franc is still the most overvalued but has now increased to a whopping 35.4%. Meanwhile, the South African rand has “increased” to only 45.9% undervalued, making the Egyptian Pound the most undervalued currency at 65.6%.
Click the image below to see the interactive graphic.
via The Economist
Obviously, there are more factors at play if something can be significantly overvalued or undervalued for multiple years without significant consequences.
It is not meant to be the most precise gauge, but it works as a global standard because Big Macs are global and have consistent ingredients and production methods. It’s lighthearted enough to be a good introduction for college students learning more about economics.
You can read more about the Big Mac index here or read the methodology behind the index here.
The Cost Of Thinking Linearly In Today's Age
Humans can’t do a lot of things.
Honestly, the fact that we’re at the top of the food chain is pretty miraculous.
We’re slow, we’re weak, and we’re famously bad at understanding large numbers and exponential growth.
Our brains are hardwired to think locally and linearly.
It’s a monumental task for us to fathom exponential growth … let alone its implications.
Think how many companies have failed due to that inability … RadioShack didn’t foresee a future where shopping was done online. Kodak didn’t think digital cameras would replace good ol’ film. Blockbuster dismissed a future where people would want movies in their mailboxes because they were anchored to the belief that “part of the joy is seeing all your options!” They didn’t even make it long enough to see “Netflix and Chill” become a thing.
via Diamandis
Human perception is linear. Technological growth is exponential.
There are many examples. Here is one Diamandis calls “The Kodak Moment.”
In 1996, Kodak was at the top of its game, with a market cap of over $28 billion and 140,000 employees.
Few people know that 20 years earlier, in 1976, Kodak had invented the digital camera. It had the patents and the first-mover advantage.
But that first digital camera was a baby that only its inventor could love and appreciate.
That first camera took .01 megapixel photos, took 23 seconds to record the image to a tape drive, and only shot in black and white.
Not surprisingly, Kodak ignored the technology and its implications.
Fast forward to 2012, when Kodak filed for bankruptcy – disrupted by the very technology that they invented and subsequently ignored.
via Diamandis
Innovation is a reminder that you can’t be medium-obsessed. Kodak’s goal was to preserve memories. It wasn’t to sell film. Blockbuster’s goal wasn’t to get people in their stores; it was to get movies in homes.
Henry Ford famously said: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Steve Jobs was famous for spending all his time with customers but never asking them what they wanted.
Two of our greatest innovators realized something that many never do. Being conscientious of your consumers doesn’t necessarily mean listening to them. It means thinking about and anticipating their wants and future needs.
Tech and AI are creating tectonic forces throughout industry and the world. It is time to embrace and leverage what that makes possible. History has many prior examples of Creative Destruction (and what gets left in the dust).
Opportunity or Chaos … You get to decide.
Onward!
Posted at 06:24 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Gadgets, Healthy Lifestyle, Ideas, Just for Fun, Market Commentary, Movies, Science, Television, Trading, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)