Ten Stock-Market Myths That Just Won't Die

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Brett Arends
The Dow Jones Industrial Average last week ended up pretty much where it had been a little more than a week earlier. A rousing 200-point rally on Wednesday mostly made up for the distressing 200-point selloff of the previous Friday.

The Dow plummeted nearly 800 points a few weeks ago — and then just as dramatically rocketed back up again. The widely watched market indicator is down 7% from where it stood in April and up 59% from where it was at its 2009 nadir.

These kinds of stomach-churning swings are testing investors' nerves once again. You may already feel shattered from the events of 2008-2009. Since the Greek debt crisis in the spring, turmoil has been back in the markets.

At times like this, your broker or financial adviser may offer words of wisdom or advice. There are standard calming phrases you will hear over and over again. But how true are they? Here are 10 that need extra scrutiny.

1 "This is a good time to invest in the stock market."

Really? Ask your broker when he warned clients that it was a bad time to invest. October 2007? February 2000? A broken watch tells the right time twice a day, but that's no reason to wear one. Or as someone once said, asking a broker if this is a good time to invest in the stock market is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. "Certainly, sir — step this way!"

2 "Stocks on average make you about 10% a year."

Stop right there. This is based on some past history — stretching back to the 1800s — and it's full of holes.

About three of those percentage points were only from inflation. The other 7% may not be reliable either. The data from the 19th century are suspect; the global picture from the 20th century is complex. Experts suggest 5% may be more typical. And stocks only produce average returns if you buy them at average valuations. If you buy them when they're expensive, you do a lot worse.

3 "Our economists are forecasting..."

Hold it. Ask your broker if the firm's economist predicted the most recent recession — and if so, when.

The record for economic forecasts is not impressive. Even into 2008 many economists were still denying that a recession was on the way. The usual shtick is to predict "a slowdown, but not a recession." That way they have an escape clause, no matter what happens. Warren Buffett once said forecasters made fortune tellers look good.

4 "Investing in the stock market lets you participate in the growth of the economy."

Tell that to the Japanese. Since 1989 their economy has grown by more than a quarter, but the stock market is down more than three quarters. Or tell that to anyone who invested in Wall Street a decade ago. And such instances aren't as rare as you've been told. In 1969, the U.S. gross domestic product was about $1 trillion, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at about 1000. Thirteen years later, the U.S. economy had grown to $3.3 trillion. The Dow? About 1000.

5 "If you want to earn higher returns, you have to take more risk."

This must come as a surprise to Mr. Buffett, who prefers investing in boring companies and boring industries. Over the last quarter century, the FactSet Research utilities index has even outperformed the exciting, "risky" Nasdaq Composite index. The only way to earn higher returns is to buy stocks cheap in relation to their future cash flows. As for "risk," your broker probably thinks that's "volatility," which typically just means price ups and downs. But you and your Aunt Sally know that risk is really the possibility of losing principal.

6 "The market's really cheap right now. The P/E is only about 13."

The widely quoted price/earnings (PE) ratio, which compares share prices to annual after-tax earnings, can be misleading. That's because earnings are so volatile — they're elevated in a boom, and depressed in a bust.

Ask your broker about other valuation metrics, like the dividend yield, which looks at the dividends you get for each dollar of investment; or the cyclically adjusted PE ratio, which compares share prices to earnings over the past 10 years; or "Tobin's q," which compares share prices to the actual replacement cost of company assets. No metric is perfect, but these three have good track records. Right now all three say the stock market's pretty expensive, not cheap.

7 "You can't time the market."

This hoary old chestnut keeps the clients fully invested. Certainly it's a fool's errand to try to catch the market's twists and turns. But that doesn't mean you have to suspend judgment about overall valuations.

If you invest in shares when they're cheap compared to cash flows and assets — typically this happens when everyone else is gloomy — you will usually do very well.

If you invest when shares are very expensive — such as when everyone else is absurdly bullish — you will probably do badly.

8 "We recommend a diversified portfolio of mutual funds."

If your broker means you should diversify across things like cash, bonds, stocks, alternative strategies, commodities and precious metals, then that's good advice.

But too many brokers mean mutual funds with different names and "styles" like large-cap value, small-cap growth, midcap blend, international small-cap value, and so on. These are marketing gimmicks. There is, for example, no such thing as "midcap blend." These funds are typically 100% invested all the time, and all in stocks. In this global economy even "international" offers less diversification than it did, because everything's getting tied together.

9 "This is a stock picker's market."

What? Every market seems to be defined as a "stock picker's market," yet for most people the lion's share of investment returns — for good or ill — has typically come from the asset classes (see No. 8, above) they've chosen rather than the individual investments. And even if this does turn out to be a stock picker's market, what makes you think your broker is the stock picker in question?

10 "Stocks outperform over the long term."

Define the long term? If you can be down for 10 or more years, exactly how much help is that? As John Maynard Keynes, the economist, once said: "In the long run we are all dead."

Write to Brett Arends at brett.arends@wsj.com

Double Dip in Action: -2% U.S. GDP in Q3

seekingalpha.com

Do you hear a grinding sound? Listen a little harder. That sound is the brakes being applied to the U.S. economy.

The current price action in commodities markets (as highlighted in my commentary yesterday, “Commodities Growling Like a Bear”) is very much reflective of this braking process. How do we measure the slowing? Where can we gain evidence? Let’s turn to Rick Davis’ fabulous work at Consumer Metrics Institute.

Recall that Rick has not only been way out in front with his calls on the growth of the U.S. economy, but also very accurate especially given that he is projecting GDP a full 4 months prior to its official release. Rick is already on record with his call of -1.5% GDPfor the 2nd quarter 2010. What does Rick see for the 3rd quarter?

May 30, 2010 – BEA Lowers 1st Quarter GDP Estimate as the Consumer Metrics Institute Previews 3rd Quarter GDP:

On May 27th the BEA released its first revision to its 1st Quarter 2010 GDP growth rate measurement, lowering the number from a 3.2% annualized growth rate to 3.0% annualized growth. One day later the Consumer Metrics Institute’s ‘Daily Growth Index’ was signalling what we should expect the BEA’s measurement of the 3rd Quarter 2010 GDP growth rate to be: contracting at about a 2.0% rate.

The prior BEA estimate of 1st Quarter 2010 GDP growth trailed our ‘Daily Growth Index’ by 127 days, and because of the rapid rate that the economy was cooling when the measurements were being made the newly adjusted estimate is now trailing our ‘Daily Growth Index’ by 125 days. Since the 3rd Quarter of 2010 ends 125 days after May 28th (when our ‘Daily Growth Index’ was recording a ‘growth’ rate of -1.99%), if the BEA estimates continue to trail our ‘Daily Growth Index’ in a consistent manner we should expect that the 3rd Quarter’s GDP ‘growth’ rate will be in the -2.0% neighborhood. (Click to enlarge)

Several things were interesting about the BEA announcement, which seems to have been largely ignored by the equity markets on a day when the Dow Industrials were up over 280 points. Not only was the total growth rate revised downward by .2%, but the impact of inventory building was adjusted upward from 1.57% to 1.64%, meaning that the end growth rate of consumer demand (net of inventory build-ups) was dropped from about 1.63% to something closer to 1.36% — a 17% reduction that was hardly worthy of a 280 point rally in the markets. Perhaps the U.S. equity markets should obsess less about Greece and Spain and pay more attention to what is happening with consumers in their own domestic economy.

Since we first reported that our "trailing quarter" had slipped into contraction on January 15th, we have charted how the current 2010 version of the consumer contraction event compares with prior similar events in 2006 and 2008. The current event is significantly different; while it is not as severe as the 2008 contraction, it has already lasted longer without forming a clearly defined bottom. We know that if the GDP mirrors consumer activities (as at least 70% of it should, net of inventory adjustments), both the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2010 should be contracting at a level of between 1% and 2%. If this isn’t a classic "W" shaped "double dip," it is at least the downward glide of a plane with sputtering engines.

From our perspective the ‘economy’ lives where the consumer spends; everything else is merely the consequence of the downstream flow of commerce from the initial consumer "demand." For this reason the official GDP measurements poorly reflect what is happening in the real-time economy, because they merely capture backward-looking factory production levels far downstream, as augmented by governmental redistribution of earlier tax collections and new public debt. Even John Maynard Keynes would have had to admit that governmental stimulus has to ultimately cause increases in aggregate consumer demand for a real recovery to be happening. We simply aren’t seeing that yet.

What is around the bend as we navigate the economic landscape? A double dip on our economic trail. Thanks to Rick Davis and the Consumer Metrics Institute for his fabulous work.