Disregard Conventional P-E Ratio Theory

Don’t base your portfolio buys on P-E Ratio alone; you will most likely miss the biggest winners of each cycle!

I use the Price Earnings (P-E or P/E) Ratio as a secondary indicator for buying and selling stocks but I don’t use the ratio in the same a manner as many value investors teach. I will explain the difference in my methodology for using the P/E ratio to your advantage.

100907_aapl_peratio.png

Many value investors will pass on a growth stock that has a P-E ratio higher than a predetermined level. For example, they may discard all stocks that have a ratio of 20 or higher, regardless of the industry group they come from. Some investors will discard any stocks that have P-E ratios above the industry group averages, concluding that they are grossly overvalued. I am not saying that this method doesn’t work, because it does but it will not work when you focus on buying young innovative small cap stocks that are growing at tremendous rates, rates that “big caps” can no longer sustain. Growth stocks cost more because they GROW!

[Read more…]

Friday Morning “Chinese” Breakfast

Mike Steinhardt from HEDGEfolios uploaded a great post today Comparing China’s Stock Market to the NASDAQ of the late 1990’s. As you know, I wrote about the technical comparison on Wednesday in my post titled Is Shanghai a Nasdaq Déjà vu

Please understand that we are offering opinions based on fundamental and/or technical data. With that said, you must realize that the market doesn’t care about our own personal opinions and will do what it wants, how it wants, when it wants. So, comment on what you think about what we are presenting (both technical and analytical).

I completely agree with Mike when he says:

“The dangers in comparative analysis are heightened when we only look at the similarities and then extrapolate a similar ending. Instead, we must look at the differences as well and when we do that, we still need to avoid the expectation that the ending will follow previous examples.”

And

“The chart overlay tells one part of the story. Of course, markets are much more complex than just looking at a chart. All the factors I mentioned and many others I have not discussed make the market. The chart is just a composite image of them and by only focusing on a picture we oversimplify everything else that is going on.”

That last sentence is the most important as I would expect readers of this blog to understand that we never try to predict anything and that technical tools are just a portion of your overall system. We as humans do tend to oversimplify markets when plotting them on a chart, forcing our eyes to see repeating patterns (that may not be there).

“I wouldn’t make a new entry into China’s stock market but then again, I have been saying that for over a year – a year in which the SSEC has gone up about 200%.”

I have taken part in the mania with individual stocks in the Chinese market in 2007 but I am becoming skeptical of the sustainability of the current rise. Is this due to my over-analysis of what may happen based on past events? Am I playing games with my own mind by trying to see something that is not there?

Maybe, maybe not! I took a position in my sixth Chinese stock (of 2007) this week and it’s showing a quick profit but I am skeptical as it was a pure spec play. I have a tight stop and I am not leaving much room for disaster in case things start to turn on a dime. As said on Tuesday, I was keeping my exposure low with a smaller than normal position (a very tight R factor).

Maybe the bubble will burst in China, maybe it will deflate slowly and then move even higher; whatever the case, I will take my individual signals while keeping an eye on the bigger picture. Thank you for the analysis Mike, I really appreciate your input.

“Will the chart of the decline mirror the pain we felt on the Nasdaq? I have no clue.”

Neither do I!

Is Shanghai a Nasdaq Déjà vu

The rise of NASDAQ in the late 1990’s has been compared to the rise of the Dow of the late 1920’s. Chart overlays are amazingly similar.

100207_dow_nas.png
Image from BullandBearWise.com

Well, the current two year rise of the Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite Index looks remarkably similar to the rise of the NASDAQ of the late 1990’s and the charts below explain better than I can!

100207_nas_up.png

The NASDAQ rose from 1,250 to 5,132 from March 1997 to March 2000: 310% gain!
The Shanghai Stock Exchange has moved from 998.23 in June 2005 to 5,552.30 today (10/2/07): 456% gain!

100207_shanghai.png

As you can see, the blue line of the late 1990’s NASDAQ has moved meticulously with the Shanghai Index of today.

100207_nas_shang.png

Will the Shanghai Stock Exchange end up with the same result as the NASDAQ of the late 1990’s. As you can see, the NASDAQ went from 1,250 to 5,132 back down to 1,192 (all within a five year period).

100207_nas_rise_fall.png

This won’t happen overnight but human nature always repeats so expect a huge decline in the Shanghai Stock Exchange within the next several years.

1929, 1999, 2007, etc…

“Wall Street never changes, the pockets change, the stocks change, but Wall Street never changes, because human nature never changes” – Jesse Livermore.

“The price pattern reminds you that every movement of importance is but a repetition of similar price movements, that just as soon as you familiarize yourself with the actions of the past, you will be able to anticipate and act correctly and profitably upon forthcoming movements” – Jesse Livermore

“All through time, people have basically acted and re-acted the same way in the market as a result of: greed, fear, ignorance, and hope – that is why the numerical formations and patterns recur on a constant basis” – Jesse Livermore

Donchian’s 5 and 20 day Moving Averages

Richard Donchian is known as the father of trend following. His original trend following ideas form the basis for all trend following success that has followed. Below in an excerpt from an article written in 1995 about his 5 and 20 day moving average system:

Title: Donchian’s five- and 20-day moving averages.
Author: Richard Donchian
Publication: Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa) (Magazine/Journal)
Date: November 15, 1995
Publisher: Oster Communications, Inc.
Volume: v24 Issue: n13 Page: p32: ISSN: 0746-2468

BODY:
On Wall Street there are two conflicting adages:
1. “You’ll never go broke taking a profit.”
2. “Cut your losses short and let your profits ride.”

Experience has shown that in commodities trading, the first of these “old saws” is dangerous and misleading, while the second may well be regarded as the one lesson the inexperienced commodity trader should learn if he wishes to have a better-than-even chance to come out ahead.

Every well-designed, trend-following, loss-limiting method for trading in futures (or stocks) rests on the basic principle that a trend in either direction, once established, has a strong tendency to persist, at least for a time. Among the many trend-following approaches now in use are the Dow Theory, point-and-figure chart techniques, swing methods (other than the Dow Theory), trendline methods, weekly-rule methods and moving average methods. We’ll focus on moving average methods and, in particular, the comparatively simple five- and 20-day moving average method.

The Method
The rules for the five- and 20-day moving average method break down into two categories: general and supplemental.
General rules:

[Read more…]

Markets are not Efficient

Haven’t you noticed that everyone that tells you the markets are efficient are not traders, they don’t invest and are not wealthy.

This is not meant to poke fun at anyone in particular, especially based on economic class, but I would like to set the record straight as to why we all have proof that the markets are inefficient. Markets are not random.

While reading market wizards on a train last night, I once again enjoyed the Larry Hite, Ed Seykota and Michael Marcus interviews which inspired me to write this post. Market Wizards are the best books to bring on short trips, doctor office visits and anywhere else you don’t need to concentrate but gain great insight.

Larry Hite Notes (points below from his interview):
*Larry Hite started Mint Investment Management Company in the 1980’s and averaged an annual compounded return of over 30 percent starting in 1981 (data from time of published book in mid-1988). They began with $2 million in 1981 and managed over $800 million in mid 1988, a very large sum for a futures fund in the late 1980’s. The size of the fund didn’t hinder the consistent results either, making it all the more impressive.* – the original Market Wizards book

Academia (and the like) claim that markets are efficient and argue that if a person or firm can develop a winning system on a computer, so could others, and we would all cancel each other out.

So what’s wrong with this logical argument?

  • Well, people develop these systems and people will ALWAYS make mistakes.
  • Some will alter their system and jump from system to system as each one has a losing period.
  • Others will be unable to resist second-guessing the trading signals

People will never change as human psychology always stays the same, therefore, patterns will exist and the markets will never be random.

Can you argue that people change? You can’t! Examples:

  • Tulip craze in Holland in 1637: they sold for 5,500 florins and then crashed to 50, a 99 percent loss
  • Crash of 1929, stocks such as Air Reduction traded as high as $233 but then fell to $31, a decline of 87%
  • Texas Instruments traded as high as $207 in 1961 but dropped below $50, a 77 percent loss.
  • Silver shot as high as $50 in 1980 but fell 90 percent to $5
  • During the bubble bust of 2000, stocks such as Cisco (CSCO) reached a peak of $82 but fell to $8.12 for a loss of 90%.

You should be getting the point by now: Humans will NEVER change and markets will form patterns and form booms and bust forever! We (the mass majority) don’t learn from the past because we didn’t live in the past so we will always make the same emotional mistakes regardless of the technological advances in trading.

If markets were efficient, no one and I mean NO ONE could sustain consistent returns in the market year after year. Traders such as Hite, Seykota, Marcus and others would have never been able to make returns of 30% or greater for extensive periods of time (20+ years in some cases). If we were trading random markets, a new master trader would prevail each year, leaving the others to random chances for success. It would be a crap shoot and expectancy would be thrown out the window because nothing would be consistent.

Markets will change but people never will!

I now leave you will some additional quotes from Larry Hite:
“What makes this business so fabulous is that while you may not know what will happen tomorrow, you can have a very good idea what will happen over the long run”

“If you never bet your lifestyle, from a trading standpoint, nothing bad will ever happen to you”

“If you know what the worst possible outcome is, it gives you tremendous freedom. The truth is that, while you can’t quantify reward, you can quantify risk”

“You can lose money even on a good bet (trade). If the odds on a bet are 50/50 and the payoff is $2 versus a $1 risk, that is a good bet even if you lose”

“It is incredible how rich you can get by not being perfect”

“Anyone can sit down and devise a perfect system for the past”