Balkinization: Good Economic News for the Holidays: Volatility Is Down

Comments:

The VIX slid to 38% as of yesterday. This rate, it should slide under 30% by February.

The major houses are beginning to snap up undervalued quality stocks to get ahead of the curve.

I reentered the market last week.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:46 PM

Well, what to say about charts and magic numbers like these...? It's calculations like these that brought us to the crisis and imminent depression we are facing right now. The first Bush said it best when he called such thinking "Voodoo Economics".

Speaking more specifically about market volatility: derivatives, computer-initiated trading and sovereign wealth funds have made studies in volatility and predictions as to volatility completely obsolete.

www.usparliament.blogspot.com

# posted by

Jacob : 2:37 PM

I reentered the market last week.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:46 PM

Less than a week after you said you were taking all your money out of the market in fear of Obama. It was unintentional comedy at it's finest.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:45 PM

And Bart: re-entering the market was a big mistake. Take my advice and wait at least 5 years. Don't you realize that the market was just a big house of cards, and that it still is? In a best case scenario, stocks will plateau for 5 at least years, but they will probably go down more pretty soon.

There will be more Lehmans, Madoffs, AIGs and Henry Paulsons, mark my words.

# posted by

Jacob : 2:46 PM

Jacob:

There will indeed be a series of bankruptcies over the next year or two by marginal companies whose stocks will tank. However, substantial portions of the markets are undervalued by between 25% to 50%.

I have invested in nine stocks of companies that have long histories, are leaders in their sectors, are still profitable and have low real and sector comparative P/E ratios. These companies sell everyday products or services and their income is not based on investments or derivatives of investments. Just in case one of these companies is cooking the books, I am well diversified and have set computerized sell points if the stock dives.

If you know how to evaluate stocks, you should get back in now before the rest of the sidelined money returns and jacks up the price of stocks.

If you do not know how to properly value stocks, stay out until the overall market starts rising again in a year or two, then invest in a market index fund. You will miss a great deal of profit this way, but it is safer than mistakenly investing in bad companies.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:07 PM

Bart- can you tell us what the 9 companies are? Then Bartbuster can short those stocks, and we can see who comes out on top.

# posted by

mls : 3:20 PM

Bart- can you tell us what the 9 companies are? Then Bartbuster can short those stocks, and we can see who comes out on top.

# posted by mls : 3:20 PM

One day Bart is saying he's getting out of the market, the next day he's all in. Why would I get involved in that? My investments pay a 7% dividend and go up about 10% each year. I'd have to be crazy to jump from that onto a roller coaster with an idiot like Bart.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:38 PM

Bart: I appreciate your approach, but I do not believe that it works. If analyzing stocks according to P/E ratios, sectors and other more traditional measures were enough, then getting rich would be easy.

The reality is that, in today's environment, a good stock is never isolated from a bad stock.

# posted by

Jacob : 3:56 PM

Increasing volatility is certainly a bad sign, because it indicates confused and worried investors, who will sell IBM if Intel forecasts a loss, but
that the time to the next 700-point drop (or rise) in the Dow is correlated with the time until the next bad news (or good news) seems to be a logical confusion of the converse with the contrapositive.

Apropos of "voodoo economics", one of the laws of magic is the law of similarity, which is exactly the confusion of the contrapositive with the converse.

The idea that, because Bart likes to gamble on the stock market, and others think that's a bad idea, that those who think it's a bad idea should be willing to bet against Bart, is also illogical. If he is comfortable gambling with his little all, good for him. God loves a fool, so he may be successful.

# posted by

C2H50H : 5:41 PM

Jacob said...

Bart: I appreciate your approach, but I do not believe that it works. If analyzing stocks according to P/E ratios, sectors and other more traditional measures were enough, then getting rich would be easy.

Getting rich by investing in individual stocks IS easy and so is avoiding trouble.

Indeed, creating your own business or investing in other great businesses are the only realistic ways of getting rich on your own.

You can make money in sideways as well as up markets. The only time you need to go into cash is when the market is undergoing a broad correction. For example, last year, I made a net of 15% in the early sideways market and then bailed early in the correction when my automatic sell points were triggered.

Far from something to dread, market corrections are opportunities to become far richer because the bottom of corrections offer a wide selection of solid profitable companies whose stocks were dragged down in the general market panic selling and are substantially undervalued.

Finally, prudent investments are NOT gambling. Our markets are basically transparent and, absent fraud, the average investor with access to a good computerized financial analysis service has all the information he or she needs about a company to make prudent investments. You mitigate the risk by diversifying and setting automated sell points.

I strongly urge those who think that investments are "voodoo economics" or simple gambling to seek an education on how the markets work and basic stock valuation. It will be one of the best things you can do for yourself.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:16 PM

Let me clarify what I said, since Bart apparently misunderstood, and to make clear what I meant.

Thinking that the volatility is predictive is (IMHO) voodoo economics.

I base my comments about Bart's willingness to gamble on his story in a past thread, where he put, according to him, almost all his investment money on APL after seeing the iPhone.

Whether he is, at present, gambling, I can't say, of course, but imagine, if you will, that, on the day after Bart plunked down his bet, an unforeseen problem with the iPhone had been discovered, as has happened to a lot of products over the years -- including Apple products.

What Bart says, about investing in individual stocks (properly chosen for variety) may be true. What he says about transparency is certainly arguable. But, given his bet on APL, what he practiced was unquestionably gambling.

# posted by

C2H50H : 6:50 PM

Whether he is, at present, gambling, I can't say, of course, but imagine, if you will, that, on the day after Bart plunked down his bet, an unforeseen problem with the iPhone had been discovered, as has happened to a lot of products over the years -- including Apple products.

Actually, Apple stocks slid for a solid month after Bart's buy-in point, losing 12% of its value. So, his automated sell points were presumably set lower than that particular mini-trough.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 7:11 PM

The idea that, because Bart likes to gamble on the stock market, and others think that's a bad idea, that those who think it's a bad idea should be willing to bet against Bart, is also illogical. If he is comfortable gambling with his little all, good for him. God loves a fool, so he may be successful.

# posted by C2H50H : 5:41 PM

If Bart is taking all his money out of the market one day, and putting it all back in a few days later, how can you tell when you're betting against him?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 7:59 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:53 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:58 PM

PMS_Chicago said...

Actually, Apple stocks slid for a solid month after Bart's buy-in point, losing 12% of its value. So, his automated sell points were presumably set lower than that particular mini-trough.

What are you talking about?

I purchased Apple within a couple weeks after Job's January 2007 Macworld Conference unveiling of the iphone. The price was $92 per share.

I did increase my risk by investing all of my protfolio in Apple, but mitigated the risk by setting sell points at between 6-10% below the price of the stock.

There was no trough. There was a slight drop for several days and then the stock more than doubled in 2007 to about $200 per share. I sold in early 2008 in the $180s and doubled my money.

The share did drop after I sold out. I bought back in with a smaller portion of my portfolio at $133 per share and sold again at about $172 in the Summer of 2008. Nothing like making the same money all over again.

During the correction, Apple fell to pre iphone levels even though the iphone is now the best selling smart phone on the market, the Macintosh is the best selling PC and Apple is sitting on about $20+ billion in profits. I jumped back in at a little over $85 a share and have made another 6% in just the past days. Once again, I am making the same money for a third time.

Moral: Invest in great companies, buy low and sell high - sometimes multiple times on the same stock.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:59 PM

Baghdad, what sort of dividend does Apple stock pay?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:18 PM

yaoyao479919401 makes a very compelling argument for buying gold.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 8:50 AM

bb:

Apple is not a dividend paying stock. You invest for value.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:58 AM

There is another variable to keep an eye on. CBO just projected the 2009 federal deficit at $1.2 Trillion with no changes in spending. Mr. Obama's planned "stimulus" package will plunge that deficit to around $2 Trillion!

If this spending boondoggle is not stopped or we do not cut current spending to compensate, Mr. Obama will be vacuuming out unprecedented amounts of investment capital out of the world economy, if he can get people to lend the United States such amounts.

I am unsure how this will affect the markets, but removing investment capital from the economy by the trillions of dollars does not sound like a recipe for economic growth. I am getting ready to bail back from stocks into cash again.

If Mr. Obama considers printing the money he cannot raise through borrowing, get into gold immediately because inflation will run wild.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:08 AM

Bart: I wish you the best of luck in your ventures, but the fact that you say:

"Getting rich by investing in individual stocks IS easy and so is avoiding trouble."

makes me doubt. You speak with the words of someone who is highly vested in the stock market, probably both directly and indirectly.

I don't object to gambling by those who are fully aware of what they're doing, but I do object to the American people being unknowingly pulled into stock market gambling, which is something that has had disastrous consequences over the last year.

Politicians have been able to abdicate responsibility for the provision of pensions, living wages, affordable college education and much more, simply by fooling people into thinking that the stock market can take care of all that.

# posted by

Jacob : 11:09 AM

The golden ratio shows up in nature because it is a constructed number, built up from previously constructed pieces. However, even though the ratio shows up in identifiable stages of growth, nature does not record a time dimension along with the visible and measurable physical dimensions. But it should be obvious that there are no natural examples of such ratios recording a decline in size.

# posted by

rmadilo : 12:38 PM

There is another variable to keep an eye on. CBO just projected the 2009 federal deficit at $1.2 Trillion with no changes in spending. Mr. Obama's planned "stimulus" package will plunge that deficit to around $2 Trillion!

A piker compared to Dubya's $4T hiking of the national debt...

Not to mention, you really need to lay blame for the next year's projected $1+T on Dubya's doorstep.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:48 PM

Jacob:

Bart: I wish you the best of luck in your ventures, but the fact that you say:

"Getting rich by investing in individual stocks IS easy and so is avoiding trouble."

makes me doubt. You speak with the words of someone who is highly vested in the stock market, probably both directly and indirectly.

I heard (from the horse's a$$) that "Bart" made well over twice his couple thousand dollar investment in a "Daytrading For Dummies™" course. Maybe that will give you a fair idea of the financial stratosphere that "Bart" soars in.....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:52 PM

Apple is not a dividend paying stock. You invest for value.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:58 AM

What value?

If there is no dividend, the only incentive anyone has to buy the stock from you is that they think they can find an even bigger fool to buy it from them.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:53 PM

Arne Langsetmo said...

BD: There is another variable to keep an eye on. CBO just projected the 2009 federal deficit at $1.2 Trillion with no changes in spending. Mr. Obama's planned "stimulus" package will plunge that deficit to around $2 Trillion!

A piker compared to Dubya's $4T hiking of the national debt...

You are comparing 8 years to 1 year. FY2008's deficit was less than $500 billion, even with the giveaways to the banks and the UAW. Mr. Obama plans to quadruple that deficit in 2009. Of course, you knew that already before you made the dishonest comparison.

Not to mention, you really need to lay blame for the next year's projected $1+T on Dubya's doorstep.

This is a recession deficit, for which the correct response is to cut spending like nearly every state is compelled to do under their constitutions.

Of course, reportedly several hundred billion dollars of Mr. Obama's "stimulus" deficit is to maintain or boost state government spending, especially in fiscally bankrupt blue states like CA and NY with enormous union obligations.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:47 PM

Peeing into the wind, no doubt, but frustration motivates illogical behavior.

Since the comments sections of essentially all legal/political posts degenerate immediately and almost totally into exchanges with Mr. DePalma which include large doses of partisan hackery on one side and personal insult on the other, I have given up reading them. Thinking that surely on this topic the exchange would be substantive, I violated that policy. Ooops.

While I place equal blame on those who take his bait, the only practical solution would seem to be banning the one rather than the many. Apparently some derive a benefit from this situation, which is fine, but if there are others who don't, it might be worth their voicing that position.

Having in the past found the comments informative, I would love to be resume reading them, but it currently just isn't worth the trouble. So, back into the shadows.

- Charles

# posted by

Charles T. Wolverton : 1:58 PM

What are you talking about?

I purchased Apple within a couple weeks after Job's January 2007 Macworld Conference unveiling of the iphone. The price was $92 per share.

I did increase my risk by investing all of my protfolio in Apple, but mitigated the risk by setting sell points at between 6-10% below the price of the stock.

There was no trough.

I really don't understand your response here, but what you say now is a bit different than your previous statement:

For example, as soon as I saw Steve Jobs demonstrate the new iphone at Mac World a couple years ago, I shifted nearly all of my money into Apple stock at around $95 a share and sold at around $165.

Curious about your success, I took a glance at the performance of AAPL. When the conference ended, Apple stock reached $97.10 on Jan. 16. Your purchase likely occurred in the next week, as the value began to drop.

It continued to drop until it reached the nadir of its performance in 2007 ($83.27 on Feb. 9, 2007) about a month after Steve Jobs announced the amazing iPhone at Mac World.

The stock did not exceed its early January levels until April 26, when it passed the 98 mark and continued to climb for most of the year.

The nadir between two peaks is known as a trough. So, yes, there was a trough. I believe I even qualified it as a "mini-trough" to distinguish it from something more consequential.

If you bought (as you originally said you did) at $95/share, then you lost around 12% of your value. That would suggest your stop-loss order was set even deeper.

If, however, you bought at $92/share, you indeed only lost 9% of your value in the first couple of weeks. So you likely set your sell points at a nice round 10%, and missed losing a chunk of change by 40 cents in the stock price--an easily accomplished feat, especially in today's market (even in 2007).

So, again, congratulations on an excellent gamble!

# posted by

PMS_CC : 2:06 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:16 PM

but if there are others who don't, it might be worth their voicing that position

No, it's almost certainly not worth it. In any case, thanks for updating us with your status!

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:18 PM

FY2008's deficit was less than $500 billion, even with the giveaways to the banks and the UAW.

I shouldn't have to point out that both the TARP and the UAW situations occurred after October 1, making it technically FY09's deficit.

Apologies to Charles et al.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 2:24 PM

"Bart" DeClueless:

[Arne]: A piker compared to Dubya's $4T hiking of the national debt...

You are comparing 8 years to 1 year.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in Sri Lanka?

FWIW, though, Dubya's early deficits as a percentage of the national debt were quite comparable.

FY2008's deficit was less than $500 billion, even with the giveaways to the banks and the UAW. Mr. Obama plans to quadruple that deficit in 2009. Of course, you knew that already before you made the dishonest comparison.

What a load'o'crap. You're pulling numbers from your a$$.

FY08 ran from Oct. 2007 to Sept. 2008,, at $455B, up from previous estimates.

The bank and auto company bailouts hadn't even been passed/granted then.

The only one being dishonest here is you.

[Arne]: Not to mention, you really need to lay blame for the next year's projected $1+T on Dubya's doorstep.

This is a recession deficit, for which the correct response is to cut spending like nearly every state is compelled to do under their constitutions.

So says Nobel econimics laureate "Bart". Fortunately, real economists think "Bart" is full'o'it (as demonstrated above). He just lies, lies, and lies with his ideologically-motivated lies.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 4:24 PM