Watch exclusive video below of Dr. A. Gary Shilling, president of A. Gary Shilling & Co., giving his 2011 Outlook for Global Economies and Investment Strategies. This important presentation was filmed at the Strategic Investment Conference 2011 in La Jolla, CA.
9 posts tagged with “Investing Strategies”.
Tonight (Saturday) some 450 people will come together in San Diego to honor Richard Russell, who has been writing the Dow Theory Letter for over 50 years. In that spirit, in today's letter we are going to look deep inside the Dow, back to its very roots. The Dow is a price-weighted index as opposed to a cap-weighted index. Does that make a difference in performance? Specifically, does it affect how the Dow has performed since it was expanded to 30 names in 1928? There are some real surprises we have found, and I think you will find this letter very interesting.
The Dow Industrials was expanded to 30 names from 20 on October 1 of 1928. Today, only nine names of the original 30 remain in the Dow. The committee at Dow Jones has replaced the other names as the companies grew out of favor, were merged into other stocks, were considered too small, or the committee felt that other companies better represented the industrial prowess of the US economy.
For instance, in November of 1999, Goodyear and Chevron were removed in order to allow Microsoft and Intel to join the Dow 30, where the two tech giants proceeded to rise handily the next few quarters. However, it has not been that pretty since the end of 2000, with both stocks down approximately 60% from their entry price, and much further from their peak price. Chevron proceeded to move up some 60% in price after it was removed, at which point Chevron was inserted back into the Dow 30 on February 19, 2008, where it is now down about 15%. Not a good run for the selection committee.
But it is not all bad. If you look at the deletions and additions, you find some interesting timing issues. Some additions were excellent in terms of performance. Some avoided later bankruptcies.
This week Professor Jeremy Siegel (author of Stocks for the Long Run) had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal showing that stocks are now cheap. I was on Tech Ticker, and Henry Blodgett challenged me about my e-letter last week, where I talked about how expensive stocks are. So which is it? We look at Professor Siegel's work -- and I let you decide.
But first, and quickly, I just wanted to take a moment and remind you to sign up for the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner, all set for Saturday, April 4 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego -- if you haven't already. This is sure to be an extraordinary evening honoring a great friend and associate of mine, and yours as well. I do hope that you can join us for a night of memories, laughs, and good fun with fellow admirers and long-time readers of Richard's Dow Theory Letter.
A significant number of my fellow writers and publishers have committed to attend. It is going to be an investment-writer, Richard-reader, star-studded event. If you are a fellow writer, you should make plans to attend or send me a note that I can put in a tribute book we are preparing for Richard. And feel free to mention this event in your letter as well. We want to make this night a special event for Richard and his family of readers and friends. So, if you haven't, go ahead and log on to https://www.johnmauldin.com/russell-tribute.html and sign up today. I wouldn't want any of you to miss out on this tribute. I look forward to sharing the evening with all of you.
There are a lot of new readers to Thoughts from the Frontline, and let me welcome you. For those of you who are not already getting your copy directly, you can get it sent to your email inbox for free, simply by going to www.frontlinethoughts.com and typing in your email address.
This week we are going to do something a little different. I am in Bermuda taking a little weekend R&R after a speech, as well as working on my book. There is not the time for the usual letter this week, but I have asked Barry Ritholtz to write about his new trading program, FusionIQ, for reasons I will talk about below.
But first, and quickly, if you are planning on attending my Strategic Investment Conference this April 2-4 you need to act soon. You can get more details at the end of the letter. And the first of the "Conversations with John Mauldin" is up. We recorded it this week, with Ed Easterling and Dr. Lacy Hunt. I thought it went very well for an inaugural talk. The transcript is there already. For those who have subscribed, you should have received an email and be able to log in and listen or read the transcript. And I welcome feedback as we launch this new service. And I want to thank Tiffani, Ryan, and Anne in my office, who have worked long hours getting this ready. There is a lot of back-room work that has to be done to make something like this available, and I am happy to have their support.
Warning: This e-letter is about a new trading platform that I think is interesting. While not trying to be promotional, it will offer you a product at the end. As I write below, there is reason to think about what tools other are using when you are trading against them; but for those of you who are looking for economic analysis, skip this and wait till next week, when I am back in the office. For the rest of us, let's jump right in.
The Sage of Omaha made a bet that was written up in a recent Fortune magazine article. Basically, Warren Buffett bet that the S&P 500 would outperform a group of funds of hedge funds over the next ten years. A million dollars to someone's favorite charity is on the line. This week we will analyze the bet, using it as a springboard to learn about valuation and value investing. As we will see, there are times that making a bet on the S&P 500 to outperform hedge funds (or bonds or real estate or whatever asset class) makes sense and times when it doesn't.
But first, an apology is in order. I get to travel a lot with my daughter and business partner Tiffani (actually, she runs the business) and meet new people. Over the years, she has become as fascinated as I have with their individual stories. Everyone has a story to be told or a lesson to teach. We have decided to write a book about those stories, looking at the differences in perspective between old and young, retired and working, those who are wealthy and those who aspire to wealth. What are the differences in attitudes, in work habits, in how you manage money, in how you look at the future, and a score of other items? How do all of these things correlate?
We sent an email to some of you a few days ago, asking you to fill out a survey to help us gather data, with the intention of sending it to everyone over time. After you complete this survey, I offer an audio stream of a speech I recently made.
I am in South Africa as this week's letter is being sent out; so it is with some irony that the letter is focused on a topic that generally concerns only US-based investors, although what the SEC does has an effect on regulatory bodies abroad. This is a letter you may want to forward to your friends and associates.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has posted a new proposed rule that would raise the minimum net-worth requirement needed to invest in private funds from $1,000,000 total net worth to $2.5 million liquid net worth. This is a major change, and it means that some 7% of American households will no longer be able to invest in private offerings. In my opinion, it is likely to become law in the not too distant future unless there is significant public comment. This week we look at the proposed rule and some of its consequences, as well as a very interesting proposal by SEC commissioner Roel Campos.
Let's start with some background. The current definition of an accredited investor was adopted in 1982 and was set at $1,000,000 total net worth, including your home and other assets. At the time, according to the SEC, some 1.87% of all US households were qualified to invest in hedge funds and other private equity offerings. Due to inflation and the growth in all sorts of assets, including homes, today about 8.5% of US households are eligible. The original rule was proposed to keep supposedly unsophisticated investors from getting involved in investments like hedge funds, which were considered riskier than mutual funds.
It's a slow Thanksgiving Friday, and I decided I would rather be writing to you than shopping in the malls. In fact, I would pay good money not to go to the malls today. Which my kids think I am because they pointed out on Thanksgiving the amazing values I am missing, particularly on items they think should be on my Christmas shopping list. And I agree, I am surprised by the level of discounting, and believe those prices will be there in a few weeks when I actually get around to shopping. (Parenthetically, if holiday sales are strong but prices are lower [and they do seem to be!], what will that do to profits?) So, rather than participate in a shopping frenzy, let's ponder on the value of all those dollars my fellow citizens are spending today.
At the New Orleans investment conference last week, there were several constant themes. Gold, of course, would continue its rise. And the dollar would fall. The only variants on the latter theme were, by how much and when and against what. And as if on cue, the dollar made a 19-month low today as gold started to once again attempt to assault its recent highs. Today we look at the dollar from a longer-term perspective, see how this relates to global liquidity, and let you in on a running debate I am having with a few colleagues.
But first, a quick note from my partners in London. They (Absolute Return Partners) are looking for a hedge fund research analyst. If you are interested, you can either drop me your resume and I will forward it, or you can reach Nick Rees at www.arpllp.com.
"Our analysis leads us to believe that recovery is only sound if it does come from itself. For any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depression undone and adds, to an undigested remnant of maladjustments, new maladjustments of its own." -- Joseph Schumpeter
How do we interpret the words of Schumpeter? Is the Austrian School of Economics right? Should the Federal Reserve have allowed the US (and thus the world) to go into a deep recession in 2001-02? Did we just postpone a Day of Reckoning only to have one in the future which will be even worse? What about gold? We look at these questions and more as we continue looking at the "debate" between the gentleman from GaveKal and Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin.
What makes one person a pessimist and another an optimist when speculating about the future of the US and the markets? How do we come to our most basic assumptions? This week we look at some insights into human nature I picked up in Tahoe at George Gilder's Telecosm, as optimistic a gathering of bulls I have ever been to. I close with a few quotes from here and there on Fed policy and Muddle Through. I think it will stir your thought processes a little.
Let's set the stage. I am sitting in the back of the rather crowded hall and Rich Karlgaard, the publisher of Forbes asks, "How many people think the market will be up a year from now? How many people think the economy will be better next year?" It was clearly 80-90% in the optimist camp. When asked the opposite question, there were a few lone hands here and there.