Small-caps have been lagging for most of the year with that trend really accelerating in May, posing a major headwind for the broader market. One thing we were looking for before putting cash to work on the long side was a sign(s) of risk appetite for stocks, which we're seeing for the first time in a while. The question now is will it last and how does it affect our portfolios?
Rates are at multi-year highs and bond prices are at multi-year lows. This has been the trend. We've been in the camp that rates would break out above 3% and that 4% was next. This has been logical target for a variety of reasons, but today that is not necessarily the point. I just don't think it will be quite so simple for rates to continue higher, and a break back below 3% would make rates incredibly vulnerable to fall quickly.
I am really enjoying these conversations with Phil Pearlman. This is the 3rd episode we do where we're discussing important topics about our feelings and emotions. Today's topic is Grit, and the advantages that someone with grit has these days over those who don't. Taking a loss and moving on is not just part of investing, it's part of life. In this conversation we discuss the Bond Market and the implications of U.S. 10-year yields losing 3% and why Phil is Bullish Grit going into 2019.
In corrective and bear markets, bounces and false rallies are powerful and swift. They should not be feared, but they should be respected. And the patient among us will use these rallies for better entry points on our short ideas.
Tuesday's stock market bounce affords us a great chance to get a better entry in a name that is high on our list to be short -- Boeing $BA
As you guys know, we've been rooting for a stock market crash for most of October. When we're shorting stocks, we want the market to drop as fast as possible so we can make a profit. You may not like the repercussions of a severe market correction, but since there is nothing we can do to prevent it, all we can do is try and profit from it. Innocent people's portfolios will get slashed under those circumstances, companies will shut down and people will likely lose their jobs. An economic recession may even follow. We have no idea and no say in the matter anyway. So we've had two options in October: Close our eyes and ignore it? Or prepare and profit? We've chosen the latter.
In case you're wondering, we're still rooting for a complete collapse in U.S. Stocks. The only thing that would make us more neutral is the Russell2000 Index Fund $IWM holding above 151. Under those circumstances and more neutral approach towards equities is best. In the meantime, we'll keep pressing shorts and hoping for the worst.
The last two months have not been kind to India's stock market, which is why we've been approaching it from a more neutral perspective for most of that time. Although big selloffs are never fun, the progression of this trend from its start to now has been pretty orderly.
We want to use this post to lay out that progression for educational purposes, as well as update our views on the market now.
Welcome to the new market regime, young lads. Many of us, and many more that are way older than me, have seen plenty of bear markets. At our shop, we rely heavily on global markets to give us information about stocks as an asset class, so we're accustomed to seeing bear markets all the time. It's nothing new to us. But I understand that many of you are new to this whole up AND down thing. It's normal, I promise.
Today I want to stress an important point that I think gets forgotten: The biggest stock market rallies come in bear markets! You don't get 6% rallies in the Dow when we're in healthy uptrends! You need serious volatility to spark something like that, and it only happens when risk is extremely elevated. I'm sure you've noticed that we’re getting much bigger down days AND up days in the market lately. This is not characteristic of the type of environment where stocks are going up. It’s the type of behavior we see, historically, when stocks are going down. This is one of many reasons why we’ve wanted to sell stocks throughout October.
Over the weekend I ran the performance metrics of the Russell 3000's Sectors and Industries to get some perspective on where the leadership is since the S&P 500's high on October 3rd and year-to-date. In this post I just want to share this table and talk about some of the themes I see.
On the blog we've been discussing why a more neutral approach to the market is best, as well as what we're looking for to mark a tradeable bottom. Last week we saw an expansion of new lows and stocks hitting oversold conditions in the Russell 3000, however, we are beginning to see some improvements in its daily momentum readings.
When the stock market is not going up, the blame game gets played. It's a combination of shareholders losing money and media types needing something to say. It's always someone or something's fault and rarely described as a normal occurrence. The truth, however, is that yes, stocks falling in price is part of the regular cycles that we've always seen. In fact, stock markets that don't have periods of falling prices are incredibly abnormal. 2017 for U.S. Stocks was the exception that proves the rule.
The reason I mention this is because we have not been in an environment where we want to be selling strength since early 2016. Many of you have been following my work for many years and remember my gloom & doom days of 2015 and even as far back as 2008. You guys already know that I'll be bullish stocks when appropriate and bearish when necessary as well.
When the weight of the evidence is pointing in one direction as it has been from early 2016 through mid-2018, it makes sense to be aggressive and take advantage of the clear trends while they're intact. However, when conditions change and the evidence becomes mixed, a more neutral approach is appropriate. So what does that look like from a practical sense?
When the weight of the evidence is pointing in one direction as it has been for most of the last two years, it makes sense to be aggressive and take advantage of the clear trends while they're intact. However, when conditions change and the evidence becomes more mixed, a more neutral approach is appropriate. But what does that look like from a practical sense?
