Has the Dow Jones bottomed?

If you have already started buying back into the Dow - its not bad timing. Judging by the banking stocks in Australia and the Dow index, the market has yet to reach its trend line lows. The facts however suggest its probably unlikely to do so.
The chart to the right is particularly interesting because it shows the log-linear trend for the Dow over its entire life (1897 to 2009). Rarely do we get a history of 112 years.
This chart is interesting because there should in theory be a relationship between price increases and the money supply, or the nominal value of money and the size or real value of the economy. We can take the Dow Jones as a measure of this because prices between stocks should find a comparative value equilibrium based on yield.
We can see from the chart that the Dow in 1929 was far more overvalued than it is today; but that the Dow today was more seriously overvalued in 2007 than the 1965. More recent consolidation and sell-offs have brought the Dow back to support, which should provide a basis for market support, but the market could not be considered good value.
The question we have to ask is - Was the collapse of asset values in 1929 the result of poor Fed and government policy, or was it because of the extent of the exuberance. In as much as the 2000s was almost as exuberant as the 1920s, we might conclude that we are going to fall back to the base line trend (index level of 3.5). The alternative is the prospect of the markets going sideways for 20 years with brief, unsustainable rallies. That strikes me as a long time, but that's exactly what the market did back in the 1970s (1965-1985). There were gains in nominal terms, but after adjusting for inflation, the market effectively went sideways for a long time.
The implication is not that investors should sit on cash for the next 20 years, as it will be eroded by inflation. The challenge ahead is to pick the bottoms and tops as the market passes through a period of protracted consolidation. These will be significant rallies of at least 30% I would suggest.

Most people will not be aware, but we have actually be in a consolidating market trend for a decade already. We can expect to break-out of this consolidation trend in around 2022, so that's in about 13 years. That is too long to invest for the long term. The 'buy & hold' strategy will not make you money over this period. You need to learn to become a trader. You will need to check your stocks at least weekly, and better still daily because the corrections will be rapid. More rapid than they were in the past because the market is better informed. This is not the first time, and some people will know it.

----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Market outlook by Marc Faber (critique)

Marc Faber has been a long time cynic of US monetary policy, and sits in the 'gloom' camp a long with myself, though in that regard he might be considered more gloomy than me, but only slightly. We do however differ on market trends, particularly in the short term. A friend sent me a link to one of his Bloomberg interviews, to which I would make the following comments.

I won't be too critical of him because when I listen to what he says, some of his points can be misinterpreted. I can see that because he clarifies his position later. He is open to the prospect of the market going lower. I don't see that. Fear grips the early phase of the market. Are things going to get worse? Certainly. There will be higher unemployment, a slowing of output, but I would argue we are going to see a rise in inflation, and not so much a fall in asset prices. Why? Because the 'fear phase' is over and yields are compellingly good. We are now experiencing a recovery, which will quickly be exhausted in the wake of bad news from the real economy. We will then have erosion of yields by higher prices. So I don't agree that 'we are a long way from the bottom', but rather than we will avoid a significant fall as a result of fiscal stimulus, and that stimulus will end up keeping us in recession longer than we would otherwise have to be.
The lesson investors need to learn is to trade stocks from lows, and when to sell. They need an education in technical analysis. He suggests that the 'best thing for the government to do is nothing'. I disagree with that, though I agree that the government should have avoided this by prudent debt management. He actually suggested he was very negative on the commodity countries like Australia and NZ, so I'm inclined to think he does not appreciate the merits of these countries. Assets in these markets have been severely sold down, and offer very good buying at a time when the currency is so low. Commodity exporters are generating good revenues based on prices denominated in USD. That is a wonderful paradigm in a consolidating market.
I disagree with his point that the US will fare better than emerging markets. He argues that the US does not produce anything, so it will not be hurt so much, but the reality is that the US produces a lot of high value, discretionary product, and anyway, it has investments abroad in similar 'lower value' capacity. True, the Middle East will be worse off because their currencies are pegged to the USD. But Australia and NZ will be better off because they are not pegged. Aside from the protection provided by their weaker currencies, Australia particularly has low levels of government debt compared to the USA. Contrary to Marc Faber, I see Australia and NZ faring far better, particularly Australia. He did not mention Japan, but one could argue that Japan is well-positioned to recover from any global recession because its been subdued by no credit bubble for the last 19 years. It does need to engage in reform, and its still hard to see that happening. But these are otherwise painless markets to invest in. South Africa will also fare better.
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com