Here’s Why Nobody Understands the Markets

By Jared Dillian

I used to be a big astronomy nerd when I was a kid, locked up in my room, reading space books. I actually was once interested in planetary science. Now I study finance. How depraved. Nassim Taleb is right—finance actually is depraved. If you study finance, you study money, of course. But why is money interesting?  Because it doesn’t sit around in static piles that you shuffle and count. It can grow asymptotically, or else simply disappear.

This is true not just of stocks and bonds, but also of currencies, which are supposed to be worth something, and even commodities, which are really supposed to be worth something. Then you have gold, which is totally useless from a practical standpoint and whose value fluctuates dramatically.

Funny thing about money exploding or disappearing is that it’s so hard to understand that we hire physicists to figure it out.  And then they come up with these really mundane solutions, like an options pricing model that doesn’t work, or a way to forecast future volatility (that also doesn’t work).  None of this ever comes close to figuring out why money explodes or disappears.

Human Behavior is Unquantifiable

The reason we aren’t any closer to the answer is because we keep using the wrong methods.  You can get the math geeks to come up with equations to describe human behavior, but then human behavior changes or does something new, and you are back to square one. The study of money is the study of people, and people behave in sometimes predictable, but often unpredictable ways. Just when you think you have a rubric (like Nate Silver with elections, a related field), along comes a Trump who blows apart the whole model.

I’ve always felt that finance is a very qualitative discipline. You are no worse off hiring English or history majors. It’s no accident that all the heavy hitters in this business are also really great writers. The quants are starting to catch on, and a lot of the algorithmic traders are writing programs to mimic and predict human behavior… though it’s really just technical analysis and trend following in a computer program. Technical analysis has an uneven reputation, but when you can quantify and backtest it and it works, the reputation gets markedly better.

Hard to argue nowadays that even weak-form EMH holds when you have a cottage industry of very profitable systematic strategies. Of course, there is a lot of math behind the quant stuff, and the guys doing it are mathematical geniuses, but the best of them are also very sharp market folks with a nose for when trades start to get crowded.  The quant blowup of 2007 happened because all the smart quants were in all the same ideas. So even in the world of high level mathematics, you still have to deal with unquantifiable stuff: human behavior.

When someone like hedge fund manager Bill Ackman sees his portfolio get slaughtered by about 20% in 2015 and then double digits in the first month of 2016, that’s not just bad stock picking. This is what happens when crowded trades become un-crowded. Computers may be computers, but the people who program the computers are just human and utterly fallible.

Why I Believe in Behavioral Finance 

When I taught my college finance class last semester, I’d say the most consensus long among the students was Disney (DIS) because of Star Wars.

Of course, I had been doing a bunch of work on the short side for months.

Disney has some serious problems like declines in sports viewing and superhero movies and cable industry trends—secular stuff that’s completely out of their control.  Suffice it to say that by the time the MBA students in South Carolina get bulled up on a stock, it is probably pretty close to the end.

That’s behavioral finance in a nutshell.

This is what I do for a living. I watch the market, not the stocks, if that makes any sense. I am always collecting data. Every person I talk to on the phone, every chart I look at, every tweet or article I read, it all goes into the soup, and from that soup, I am trying to gauge sentiment. Sentiment tells you everything. Cheap things get cheap, and expensive things get more expensive. Markets are alternately rational and irrational because people are alternately rational and irrational. Seems like a crazy way to allocate resources, but it works better than all the alternatives. If you want to read more about my investment process, you can choose between the monthly version or the daily.

Subscribe to The 10th Man
A master in behavioral economics, Jared probes the mind of today’s market to gauge the trends of tomorrow. Following his intellectual adventures is a true thrill ride for every investor. Sign up for his weekly missive, and don’t miss another one of his captivating conclusions.

The article Here’s Why Nobody Understands the Markets was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Jared Dillian is Pulling Out All the Stops

By Jared Dillian

When I was a teenager, I had a different sort of part-time job. I was a church organist. Actually, it was the best job ever because I was something of a piano prodigy as a child. Around age 12, my parents and I had to make a conscious decision about whether I was going to pursue a career in music. I decided not to, which has greatly reduced the amount of Ramen noodles I have eaten over the years.At age  13, I decided I wanted to play the organ. I took lessons from the organist in the big Catholic church downtown. What an incredible instrument!

Playing the organ is a lot harder than it looks. In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a whole keyboard at your feet—yes, you play with both your hands and your feet. And since you can’t possibly learn all the hymns, you have to be really good at sight-reading three lines of music at once. It takes a great deal of coordination. Plus, you have two or more “manuals” (keyboards) and dozens of stops, which activate the different sounds in the organ. This is where the phrase “pulling out all the stops” comes from.

So I got a job as the organist at the Unitarian church down the street. For the first and only time of my life, I was a member of a union—the American Guild of Organists. I received my union-protected minimum wage of $50 per service, which is a great deal of money if you’re 16 years old in 1990. $50 a week definitely put gas in my car. And there was a girl in the congregation that I dated a couple of times.

I felt sorry for my poor schlep classmates who were bagging groceries for $4/hour. They had to work 12 hours to make what I made in one. I felt pretty smug.  The high point was when I transcribed the theme from “A Clockwork Orange” and played it as the prelude for one of the church services. You can see where the subversive streak comes from.

I Got Skills

So why did I make more than 12 times what my high school classmates made? Because my skills were worth 12 times as much. Bagging groceries is kind of the definition of unskilled labor. Literally anyone can bag groceries. The supply of labor that has those skills is limitless.

Church organists are in slightly higher demand. But not by much! I think a church organist these days—if you are hired by the church to play every week, plus run all the choir and music programs, probably pays about $35,000 to $50,000 a year, depending on the church. So not a lot!

It’s a decent living if you like playing the organ, but you also have to deal with church politics. The wages of an organist not only depend on the supply of labor but the demand for labor as well. And church construction has gone way down in recent years. Not to mention the fact that the latest fad in religious services is “contemporary music.”

However, the fact that church organists make more money than grocery baggers does reflect the level of skill the occupation requires. Before I became a church organist, I had been playing either the piano or organ for six years. Six years of practicing 30 minutes to an hour a day, every day.

Nobody practices bagging groceries for 30 minutes a day, every day.

I don’t particularly like manual labor (though I have done it on occasion). That’s why I do my best to acquire skills that are rare and marketable so I don’t have to do things like chip paint. In this country (and others), we have this unhealthy obsession with manual labor. Politicians talk about “working Americans” all the time. We say things like “putting in a hard day’s work.” The most popular car is the Ford F-150. Who wants to put in a hard day’s work? Not me! Instead, I will put in a hard day’s thinking.

Hate and Discontent

A lot of people spend too much time thinking about what other people make. It’s unproductive. Everyone thinks Wall Street guys are overpaid, for example. Okay, so let’s take your average ETF option trader at a bank. Say he makes $500,000 a year (which might even be generous these days). Let’s examine one trade of many that he is confronted with on a daily basis. A sales trader stands up and yells to him, “20,000 XLE Jan 75 calls, how?”

What’s happening here is that a client is asking for a two-sided market on the January 75 call options in XLE, which is the Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF, 20,000 times, which means options on 2,000,000 shares, or about $140,000,000. It’s a big trade, definitely, but there are bigger ones. So let’s think of all the things the option trader needs to know. He needs to know what an option is, starting from scratch.

He needs to know what XLE is, that it’s an energy ETF, and he should have a good idea of what stocks are in the portfolio. He might have a cursory knowledge about factors affecting supply and demand for crude oil. In order to come up with a price for these options, he has to have an idea of what implied volatility should be and what realized volatility might be going forward.

This requires a knowledge of an option pricing model like Black-Scholes and many, many years of college mathematics, including probability theory and differential equations. He needs to know how he is going to hedge this option. Will he hedge the delta all in the stock? Will he hedge with other options? How will he dynamically hedge the trade until maturity? Will he lay off some of the risk in other strikes? Will he buy single stock options on some of the names in the index, like XOM, CVX, or COP, to effect a dispersion trade?

This means he has to know what a dispersion trade is. More math. He also needs to understand liquidity. What will be his execution impact by trying to sell 800,000 shares of XLE? This affects how wide he makes his market. And best of all, he needs to think about all of these things in a split-second, without hesitation. If he is off by even a penny—he loses money on the trade. I would characterize that as “skilled labor.” And we haven’t even talked about the emotional fortitude it takes to take that kind of risk. $500,000 a year seems low.

CEOs

People get the most upset about executive pay. Here you have some dillweed CEO who is the direct beneficiary of the agency problem. If company XYZ does well, he gets paid millions. If it does poorly, he gets fired and loses nothing, personally. We say that he has no skin in the game.

Well, do you have what it takes to run one of the 500 largest companies in the world?

Pretend we’re talking about McDonald’s. Many people think McDonald’s is doing a terrible job. There’s a lot of evidence that they are. They’re losing market share to Chipotle and lots of other “fast casual” restaurants.

But running a company is hard enough. You have 50,000 odd restaurants, you have to manage supply and distribution for this massive network, you have to do all the managerial science behind what is on the menu and how much it costs, you have to directly negotiate, and I mean meet with leaders of foreign governments, you need to go on CNBC from time to time and not be a mutant, and above all, you need to lead inspirationally.

Not many people can do all that. I can’t. Maybe I’m smart enough, but I don’t have the emotional maturity or even the desire for that kind of responsibility. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody really wants to be the boss. If you think you are underpaid—maybe you are. The labor market is not perfectly efficient. Anomalies can persist.

Take a look at people who you think are overpaid. What are they doing that you aren’t? Maybe you just aren’t willing to do those things (like kiss lots of ass). The responsibility is yours and yours alone. And that, my friends, is something nobody wants to hear.

Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. 

The article The 10th Man: Pulling Out All the Stops was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Trading 201: Position Sizing

By Jared Dillian 

This is going to be the last of the trading lessons for a while. I don’t want to turn this into a trading blog, and there are important macro things to talk about (especially next week). Here’s an imaginary scenario: someone tips you that an acquisition is going to happen. Of course, that would be insider trading, which is illegal—but let’s pretend for the purpose of this exercise that insider trading were legal.

So someone tells you that Company A is going to buy Company B and is going to pay a 100% premium.

Question: how much of your money do you put in Company B? If the answer is anything less than “All of it,” then you are an idiot.

We are talking about a 100% return in one day. Can you do better than that? No. Also, assume that the guy who told you this is 100% reliable. The information is legit. There is no chance that it’s wrong. Rationally, you should put every penny of your money into Company B stock. If you put in any less than 100%, you are behaving irrationally.....Got it?

Scenario 2: you have a vague idea that GE is going to go up. Just a hunch. How much GE should you buy?

Answer: not very much. Maybe it should be the smallest position in your portfolio. At this point in the story, think about your portfolio, or maybe even log into it. My guess is you have some very high-conviction ideas alongside some very low-conviction ideas, and that everything is just about weighted equally.

People do this all the time. They have $100,000 in 10 stocks—$10,000 a stock—regardless of conviction level. This is going to be hard for novice traders to understand. Novice traders pick stocks like I bet on baseball. I might bet against the Royals because Edinson Volquez wears his hat sideways, or I might bet on the Nationals because I am a huge Bryce Harper fan, or I might bet against the Red Sox just because.

Novice traders find it hard to believe that someone can be that sure about a stock. But I meet professional gamblers who are “that sure” about baseball games. I don’t understand how they do it, but they do it. Soros and Druckenmiller were pretty gosh darn sure when they bet against the British pound. Imagine if they had been wrong! But they knew they wouldn’t be.

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner

Let’s go back to about 10 years ago when Ben Mezrich wrote Bringing Down The House: The Inside Story of Six MIT Students Who Took Vegas for Millions. That was when the general public got to learn about advantage play in blackjack, that is, counting cards.

How does it work?
In one paragraph, you count cards so you can keep track of face cards (which are good) and low cards (which are bad), so if you know there’s a concentration of face cards left in the shoe, you will have a temporary statistical advantage over the dealer.

And how do you take advantage of that statistical advantage?
Duh, you bet more!

That’s what the card counters in the book did. When the count was high, they were putting in 10, 20, or even 50 times their normal bet. In fact, that’s how most casinos know they’re dealing with a card counter. Average players don’t vary their bet size. They bet the same size all the time. Average traders do too.

If you want to read more on this concept (and I highly recommend that you do), read David Sklansky’s Getting the Best of It.  It’s a gambling book, but most people I know on Wall Street have read it.

Oink

So I’m going to preach what I practice. My highest conviction position is about 80% of my portfolio (using leverage). Now, that’s varying your bet size. Most of my ideas are actually bad. Seriously. I knew a guy at Lehman who said he was wrong 80% of the time. I figured he was lying. The guy made a ton of dough. How could that be true?

If you bet the farm on the 20% of the time you are right, you can do very well. This, I think, is one of the limitations of an investment newsletter. You have these ideas, and they are in a portfolio, but they are not weighted. Some are clearly better than others. And there they all are, line items in the portfolio update, and the good ones look the same as the bad ones.

A word of caution. Novice traders should not, absolutely not, make one position 80% of their portfolio. I do it because I have 16 years of experience. You should not do this any more than you would bet 80% of your money on a baseball game (unless you know a lot about baseball). Novice traders can’t vary their bet size because they don’t know enough to tell which ideas are bad and which ones are a “sure thing.”

It’s a good way to blow yourself up.

But at some point in your investing career, you are going to come across one of those really great ideas, and you will be tempted to weight it as 10% of your portfolio, along with everything else.

Diversification! Screw diversification.

How do billionaires get to be billionaires? Funny, if you look at a list of billionaires, there’s not too many money managers in there. Some. Like Dalio, Tepper, Soros, Jones. But not many. Most billionaires got to be billionaires by starting companies and growing them. In other words, they had 100% of their portfolio in one stock. Their own.

You don’t get to be a billionaire by putting $10,000 in 10 stocks. We all can’t be billionaires. But you don’t have to be a piker.

Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com.

The article The 10th Man: Trading 201: Position Sizing was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

A Correction Fireside Chat with the "10th Man"

By Jared Dillian 

I don’t really enjoy these things like I used to. Keep in mind, I’ve traded through a lot of blowups, going back to 1997...1998...2001...2002-2003...2007-2009...2011...Today. They all kind of feel the same after a while.

Nobody wins from corrections except for the traders, which today mostly means computers. I forget who said this: “In bear markets, bulls lose money and bears lose money. Everyone loses money. The purpose of a bear market is to destroy capital.”....And that’s what is going on today.

For starters, long-term investors inevitably get sucked into the media MARKET TURMOIL spin cycle and puke their well-researched, treasured positions at the worst possible time. But I’m not trying to minimize the significance of a correction, because some corrections turn into bona fide bear markets. And if you are in a bear market, you should get out. If it is only a correction, you probably want to add to your holdings.

How can you tell the difference?

My Opinion: This Is a Correction

So what were the two big bear markets in the last 20 years? The dot com bust, and the global financial crisis. Two generational bear markets in a 10 year span. Hopefully something we’ll never see again. In one case, we had the biggest stock market bubble ever and in the other, the biggest housing/debt crisis ever.

Both good reasons for a bear market.

What are we selling off for again? Something wrong with China?

Again, not to minimize what is going on in China, because it is now the world’s second-largest economy. Forget the GDP statistics. After a decade of ridiculous overinvestment, it is possible that they’re on the cusp of a very serious recession, whether they admit it or not. But the good news is that the yuan is strong and can weaken a lot, and interest rates are high and can come down a lot. China has a lot of policy tools it can use (unlike the United States).

Let’s think about these “minor” corrections over the last 20 years.....
1997: Asian Financial Crisis
1998: Russia/Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM)
2001: 9/11
2011: Greece

All of these were VIX 40+ events.

In retrospect, these “crises” look kind of silly, even junior varsity. The Thai baht broke—big deal.

Russia’s debt default was only a problem because it was a surprise. And the amount of money LTCM was down—about $7 billion—is peanuts by today’s standards. After 9/11, stocks were down 20% in a week. The ultimate buying opportunity.

And in hindsight, we can see that the market greatly underestimated the ECB’s commitment to the euro.
So what are we going to say when we look back at this correction in 10-20 years? What will we name it? Will we call it the China crisis? I mean, if it’s a VIX 40 event, it needs a name.

I try to have what I call forward hindsight. Like, I pretend it’s the future and I’m looking back at the present as if it were the past. My guess is that we will think this was pretty stupid.

What to Buy

I saw a sell-side research note yesterday suggesting that this crisis is marking the capitulation bottom in emerging markets. I haven’t fully evaluated that statement, but I have a hunch that it is correct. China is cheap, by the way. But if China is too scary, they are just giving away India. I literally cannot buy enough. And I have a hunch that Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, is going to be impeached and the situation in Brazil is going to improve relatively soon.

Think about it. The most contrarian trade on the board. Long the big, old, bloated, corrupt, ugly, bear market BRICs. Also the scariest trade. But the scary trades are often the good trades. There’s more. If you think we’re in the midst of a generational health care/biotech bull market, prices are a lot more attractive today than they were a few weeks ago. I also like gold here because central banks are no longer omnipotent.

That reminds me—there was something I wanted to say on China. The reason everyone hates China isn’t because of the economic situation. It’s because they made complete fools of themselves trying to prop up the stock market. So virtually overnight, we went from “China can do anything” to “China is full of incompetent idiots.” Zero confidence in the authorities.

You want to know when this crisis is going to end? When China manages to restore confidence. When they have that “whatever it takes” moment, like Draghi. If they keep easing monetary policy, sooner or later there will be an effect.

I Am Bored

I used to get all revved up about this stuff. That’s when I made my living timing tops and bottoms. I don’t do that anymore. I do fundamental work, and I go to the gym and play racquetball. The mark-to-market is a nuisance. Also, if you can’t get excited about a VIX 50 event, you have probably been trading for too long.
There is a silver lining. The disaster scenario, where the credit markets collapse due to lack of liquidity, isn’t happening. Everyone is hiding and too scared to trade.

Honestly, high-grade credit isn’t acting all that bad. And it shouldn’t. I don’t see any big changes in the default rate. Anyway, if you want to go be a hero and bid with both hands, be my guest. It’s best to be careful and average into stuff. These prices will look pretty good a couple of months from now, I think.


Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. Follow Jared on Twitter @dailydirtnap

The article The 10th Man: A Correction Fireside Chat was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Distressed Investing

By Jared Dillian 

When most people think of distressed investing, they think of buying CCC-rated bonds at 20 or 30 cents on the dollar, then maybe sitting in bankruptcy court to divvy up the capital structure, making healthy risk-adjusted returns in the end. You just need to hire a few lawyers.

Distressed investors are a different breed of cat. It’s one of those countercyclical businesses, like repo men, who do well when everyone else is getting hammered.

I remember distressed guys killing it in 2002. Most people remember the dot-com bust, but there was a nasty credit crunch that went along with it. Nasty. High yield/distressed investments had some amazing years in 2003 and 2004. Convertible bonds in particular.

Funny thing about distressed investors is that they like to stay within their comfort zone. In my experience, they’re not keen on commodities. Like coal mining, which this week saw one bankruptcy filing and another one in the works. Distressed guys hate commodities because they are just timing the earnings cycle – which is the same as market timing.  Distressed guys want less volatile earnings so their projections aren’t totally dependent on commodity prices rising.

Coal is distressed, all right. But you don’t see the distressed guys getting involved. Even they are too scared!

Here’s a somewhat controversial statement: I think most commodities are distressed. Coal is definitely distressed. So is iron ore. Copper, too. And yes, even gold. Corn and beans have had a nice little run, but metals and energy in particular have been a complete horrorshow.

So I think it’s time to start looking at commodities as a distressed asset class. The assumption is that fair value of these commodities/producers is well above current market prices, and current market prices are wrong because of, well, a lot of things. In particular, a self-reinforcing process where selling begets more selling.

If you’re a distressed investor and you’re buying something at a deep discount, if you have a long enough time horizon, you’ll be vindicated eventually. Sometimes, it takes a long time. Sometimes, not very long at all. It’s pretty great when it works.

I have never had much aptitude for it. But I am trying it now.

Gold: A Special Case

Gold is a little different.

How do you value gold? It has no cash flows. An industrial commodity like copper is pretty easy to value. With gold, you’re trying to gauge investment demand (at the retail or sovereign level), which is hard, against mining production, which is a little easier.

But what an ounce of gold is worth is entirely subjective. More subjective than copper or cocoa or coffee. For example, if everyone started using bitcoin, there would be little to no demand for gold. (For the record, I think cryptocurrencies indeed have had an impact on gold demand.)

Basically, people want gold when they think their government no longer cares about the purchasing power of their currency. In our case, that was when the Fed was conducting quantitative easing, known colloquially as printing money.

But that’s not really what people were nervous about. Think about it. The Fed was printing money for monetary policy reasons. They were trying to effect monetary policy with interest rates at the zero bound. That’s different from printing money to buy government bonds because nobody else wants to. That’s called debt monetization.

When budget deficits get sufficiently large, people worry about things like failed bond auctions, that the Fed will have to step in and be the buyer of last resort. This is the nightmare scenario described in Greenspan’s Gold and Economic Freedom essay.

We had $1.8 trillion deficits not that long ago. The bond auctions were a little scary. I thought debt monetization was a possibility.

The deficit is lower today, mostly because of higher taxes, more aggressive revenue collection, and economic growth. As you can see, the price of gold has corresponded almost perfectly with the budget deficit.

With a small deficit today, nobody cares about gold.

Is the deficit going higher or lower in the future? Higher. Ding-ding-ding, we have a winner. One of the reasons I’m happy owning gold as a part of my portfolio.

Paper vs. Things

Asset allocation gets a lot easier when you figure out that the financial markets are a tug-of-war between paper and things. Sometimes, like now, financial assets (stocks and bonds) outperform. Stocks are overpriced, and bonds are way overpriced. Other times, like 10 years ago, commodities outperformed.

It has to do with the degree of confidence people have in… other people. A bond is a promise to repay. A stock is a promise to pay dividends, or that there will be something left over at the end. A dollar is a promise that it’s worth something, namely, a divisible part of the sum total of the productive abilities of all the people in the country.

These are pieces of paper. Paper promises. When confidence in promises is high, nobody needs gold, coal, or copper. When confidence in promises is low, time to build that underground bunker in the backyard. Confidence in promises is currently at all-time highs. Without making a positive statement either way, I’d say that only in the year 2000 were commodities more undervalued than they are right now.

Sidebar: it is tempting to treat commodities as an asset class, but you should try not to. They are idiosyncratic, and for most commodities, the cost of carry is high enough that it’s impractical to hold them for long periods of time.

Commodity related equities are a different story.

Disclaimer

I’m kind of biased on this, and I always think commodities are undervalued because I’m a deeply suspicious person and I don’t believe promises. I’ve owned gold and silver for years (plus GLD and SLV, and GDX and SIL), and if prices get low enough, I will add to those positions.

Keep in mind that I worked for the government under the Clinton administration. Clinton’s mantra to government employees was, “Do more with less.” The man did a lot to restrain the growth of government—and he was a Democrat!

People resented him for it. They wanted their fancy toys and their boondoggles. Public servants have been much happier under Bush and Obama. Not coincidentally, gold bottomed in 2000, at the end of Clinton’s presidency, and has basically been going up since.

So here is the secret sauce: You want to know when commodities are going up?
Watch the deficit. If someone dreams up free college for everyone, buy commodities with veins popping out of your neck.

Jared Dillian

If you enjoyed Jared's article, you can sign up for The 10th Man, a free weekly letter, at mauldineconomics.com. Follow Jared on Twitter @dailydirtnap

The article The 10th Man: Distressed Investing was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

The Biggest Trade Ever....No Exaggeration

By Jared Dillian

I won’t keep you in suspense. The biggest trade ever is in demographics. In particular, our rapidly increasing life expectancy.

Quick story. My Coast Guard friends are retiring now. You get to retire after 20 years of service, but some of them have been taking advantage of early retirement and are leaving the service as young as age 40.
Oh my God, what a deal: At age 40, you can bring home about $50K a year and then start a whole new career on the side!

In the old days, you could offer that deal because military folks would die at 47. Now they will live to 100.
Paying out benefits for 60 years to retired military personnel doesn’t sound like a great deal for the taxpayer.
Of course, the military pensions are just the tip of the iceberg. To receive Social Security, you can retire at age 62 (or 67 for full benefits). Again, that’s fine when most people die before 62. The blended life expectancy (for both men and women) is almost 79 years and trending higher.

Or my favorite chart on life expectancy ever, also a rebuttal to those who don’t like capitalism.

If you pay attention to Silicon Valley stuff, you know that Google and Ray Kurzweil and some other folks are working on projects that will allow us to live to 150 or even beyond. That would involve doing a couple of things, first

1. Curing cancer
2. Curing heart disease
3. Curing Alzheimer’s disease

You do these three things, it increases life expectancy by another 10 years or more. And we are actually doing those things!

Once you have a cure for all known diseases (attainable in my lifetime), then you have a different problem. Cells get old and die. The Silicon Valley folks are working on that too. Funny, if you don’t smoke, eat right, and get a little exercise, you will pretty much live to 80, no matter what. What happens beyond that is up to genetics, which we will solve one day. So what will the world look like if people live to 100, 150, or more?

It Looks Like Greece

Greece’s retirement age (to receive benefits) used to be 55 years. Again: retiring at 55, what a deal! I would only have 14 more years to go. People are pretty healthy at 55 (though maybe not the Greeks—they have the highest rate of tobacco use in the developed world).

So if people live way longer than the retirement age, the Social Security system goes kablooey. It just does. And yet people resist all attempts to reform it. We know Social Security is in trouble. George W. Bush tried to tackle it. For all his faults, it was the right thing to do. But he got laughed at.

The first thing we will do is to means-test the benefits, which will just make it more progressive but won’t solve the actual problem. You need to push back the retirement age, like, to 80.

But wait a minute. There aren’t even enough jobs for people to work until age 80.

I know…..

The World Was a Lot Simpler When People Just Died When They Were Supposed To

We’re going to look back at the 1940s-2000s as an exceptional period in economic history—with high, virtually straight line, uninterrupted economic growth. We had debt problems before, but biology has made them intractable.

In fact, the whole profession of economics is based on the very idea that there is population growth and inflation. What happens if birth rates decline? They are. Population growth rates will peak very soon. (By the way, the old Malthusian idea of overpopulation is being discredited.) What does the profession of economics look like with declining populations, people living longer, a dearth of unskilled jobs?

Is it nonstop deflation?

Many economists predict years of global deflation based on this premise. They say that you should buy bonds at any price. It’s a compelling argument. I think we’re going to learn a lot of really interesting things about money velocity in the coming years.

The Trade

Like tech in the ‘90s and energy in the 2000s, health care has been and will be the trade of the 2010s. You have the happy accident of huge technological advances and a government that seems willing, for the time being, to pay for it all. You hear some squawking about the cost of some treatments, but seriously, if you can cure cancer for $250,000, who is going to say no? Especially when that person’s chemotherapy, radiation, and hospital bills could easily exceed $2,000,000.

Lots of folks thought that Obamacare would tomahawk the health care sector. In classic market fashion, it has done the exact opposite. The insurers in particular have been the biggest beneficiary. You probably saw the recent Aetna/Humana merger.

People have tried for years to short biotech. Hasn’t been fun for them.

People have funny attitudes about death, you know. You ask someone if they’d like to live to 100, 120. “Noooooo,” they say. “I wouldn’t want to just sit in a chair.” Me, personally, I’d be okay with sitting in a chair. But the point of these treatments is that you can be active into your 100s. What then?

“I don’t know…” they say.

Are you kidding me? Forever young, my man. I’m 41, and I look a lot younger than my parents at the same age (sorry, Mom and Dad). I’m still DJing parties, for crying out loud.
Still don’t get the point of Snapchat, though.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: The Biggest Trade Ever (No Exaggeration) was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Start Identifying Patterns in the Markets Today"....Just Click Here!

It Could Never Happen Here

By Jared Dillian

I was watching the 6 o’clock news and saw images of closed banks in Greece and people lined up at ATMs. I’m sure you did, too.

This must seem surreal to most people because it seems so remote. But put yourself in these people’s shoes for a second. You have money in the bank. Suddenly you can’t get to it. After standing in long lines, you can only get 60 euros at a time, which isn’t going to last you very long.

What if you didn’t plan adequately and haven’t stashed away any cash? The banks will be closed for a while. What happens?

How do you pay for rent? Or food?
How does your employer pay you?
Do you go homeless? Or hungry?
Do you get really angry, take to the streets, blame someone or something (probably the wrong thing), break stuff, set things on fire?
Will Greece descend into anarchy?
It might.

Doomsday Preppers

Of course, not everyone in Greece is hurting. Many people saw this coming and took action. They took all their money out of the banks, put it under the mattress, or maybe stored it in a safe. Maybe they bought gold, or diamonds, or something else. These people aren’t standing in lines at ATMs. They aren’t going to go homeless or hungry.

But these people get a pretty bad rap—at least here in the US, where we call them “doomsday preppers.” Or “bunker monkeys.” Or “conspiracy theorists.” Or “gold bugs.” They take a beating. Jim Rickards tweeted the other day, “I’ll bet there a lot of Greeks saying, ‘I wish I had bought some gold.’" Truer words have never been spoken.

This week’s issue of The 10^th Man is not a gold promotion, but rather a broader discussion about how you can prepare for financial catastrophe. People keep fire extinguishers and first aid kits in their cars. They test their smoke alarms twice a year. They purchase flood insurance or, in my neighborhood, hurricane shutters.
Why would you do all these things but just leave your money in the bank and hope for the best?

I have studied all kinds of financial crises in all parts of the world, from depressions to hyperinflations. The thing they all have in common is that people who do not prepare get crushed. People who are not appropriately paranoid get crushed.

There is such a thing as being too paranoid (if everything you own is in gold and hard assets, you can miss out on some meaty returns in financial assets), but a little paranoia is healthy. For a few years, I had a pretty concrete escape plan, with assets, just in case.

In case of what?.....In case of anything.

No Sympathy Whatsoever

I don’t feel sorry for Greece. I don’t feel sorry for the people in the ATM lines. They have had years to prepare for this day. Most people in similar situations don’t have so much time. I’m shocked that the banks had any deposits left at all.

Probably what will happen is that the banks will require a Cyprus-like bail-in and the depositors will take a massive haircut, getting only a fraction of what they once owned. There are no wealthy Russians to go after. The burden will fall on ordinary Greeks.

It’s also hard to feel badly for a nation of people who have chosen to pursue this ruinous political path—people who cast 52% of their votes for communists or neo Nazis, and who have proven completely unable to take any responsibility for what has transpired.

Greece will probably respond to the failure of extreme left Syriza by electing even more extreme politicians. It seems likely that they will choose a strongman to “get things done.” I think people fail to understand how totalitarianism can happen in the 21^st century. Think of this as a YouTube tutorial video on the subject.

Full Faith and Credit

A financial crisis of similar magnitude will happen in the US someday. The only question is whether it will happen in 20 years or 50 or 100 or 200. But it is a virtual certainty. My only hope is that I won’t live long enough to see it.

Still, I know how to prepare for it. You know, in the old days before deposit insurance, people used to keep their money in five to ten different banks to diversify their counterparty risk. If a bank was perceived to be less creditworthy, the banknotes would trade at a discount.

I think that in the days of FDIC and various investor protections, we are lulled to sleep, believing that things really are safe when in reality, they are not. We were hours away from a complete and total financial collapse when the Reserve Primary fund broke the buck and there was a run on the money market mutual funds. We were that close.

After those dark days in 2008, I vowed that I’d never be in that position again.

You do sacrifice investment returns when you do this kind of stuff. Cash or gold or diamonds doesn’t yield anything. But then again, nowadays, neither do bonds. Don’t let the financial media shame you into thinking that taking basic emergency precautions to protect yourself financially is somehow “crazy.”

You can overdo it, though. You don’t need that many cans of pork and beans.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: “It Could Never Happen Here” was originally published at mauldineconomics.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

The Crazy Man’s Guide to the Bond Market

By John Mauldin

I invite you to inspect the following chart of 10 year interest rates in the US. If you don’t have a lot of experience with these things, let me clue you in: This is a very scary looking chart. It’s a classic head and shoulders bottom in yields.

If you’re one of those people who’s scornful of technical analysis, don’t be. Now, I don’t pay much attention to complicated stuff like Elliott Wave or Gann Angles, but there are some very basic technical formations that work reliably most of the time.

I had the good fortune of taking out a mortgage when 10-year rates were at 1.9%, which goes to show that the only time you get to top-tick stuff is by accident.

Now, this is actually not the low in yields. 10 year yields got to 1.4% a few years ago.

Of course, interest rates are even lower in Europe. Take Germany, for example:

I think that these interest rates (which are at 700 year lows in Europe) signify a bubble. Other people don’t, though—they point to x, y, and z as signs of deflation.

I’m very weary of the inflation/deflation argument. A lot of people lost a lot of money betting on inflation when there were obvious signs of inflation (QE). And I fear that a lot of people will lose a lot of money betting on deflation when there are obvious signs of deflation.

I’m a trader at heart, and I try not to get too attached to my views. I pay attention to price. And right now, the price action is telling me that the bond market might be in trouble.

Central Banks Buy High and Sell Low

The first thing you need to know about central banks is that they are the worst traders in the world. The worst. Probably the most famous example in the modern era was the Bank of England under Gordon Brown’s leadership puking its gold holdings—on the absolute lows, between 1999 and 2002. The idea was they had this gold sitting there not generating any yield, so why not sell the gold and buy paper that would generate some yield?

Whoops…..

A less famous example of bad trading by public officials would be the US Treasury’s decision to issue floating rate debt. Now, if the government has floating-rate liabilities, it should want interest rates to stay low, right?.......Whoops!

The all-time lows in rates. To the exact day.

So with all this in mind, don’t you think it’s interesting that the ECB is going to buy European debt—at 700-year low yields? At negative yields, in some cases? Central banks do not buy things on the lows. They buy things on the highs.

Of course, the ECB is not trying to make money on these transactions. Which is the whole point!

The Worst Investors in US History Strike Again

Betting on the end of what is a 30 year interest rate cycle is not a productive use of our time. This bond market has claimed the careers of many investors. It reportedly hastened the retirement of Stan Druckenmiller, arguably the greatest investor of all time, who bet against bonds heavily, thinking yields could not go any lower. They did.

Let me impart some wisdom here: The first rule of finance is that there are no rules in finance. Nothing works all the time. My favorite dumb rule of finance is the one that says your percentage allocation in bonds should be equal to your age. So if you are 60, you should be 60% in bonds.

My guess is that if interest rates rise 2%-3%, people won’t be saying that anymore.

You know what I worry about? I worry about the baby boomers. I worry about this generation, the worst investors in US history, who got carried out in the tech bear market in 2000 and got caned in the financial crisis of 2008, and after having been hammered twice in the span of 10 years in the stock market, went all-in on bonds.

Why? Bonds are safe. Everyone knows stocks are not safe.

Now, in retirement, none of these people expect their bond mutual funds to get cut in half, which would happen if interest rates went up about 3% - 5%.

Imagine if they did!

The disclaimer to all of this is that I’ve been a bond bear for many years, and I’ve been wrong. But for the first time, I think we have something approaching consensus that yields will stay low forever. People who think interest rates are going up are starting to sound crazy. I am starting to sound crazy. That probably means I’m close to being right.

If 10 year rates get above 3%, the previous high, we will know for sure. If that happens, pick up the Batphone, call the White House, sell everything. Why?

If you are still ignoring charts when they are making higher lows and higher highs, God help you.


Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: The Crazy Man’s Guide to the Bond Market was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get out latest FREE eBooK "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Socialism Is Like a Nude Beach - Sounds Like a Great Idea Until You Get There

By Jared Dillian

I’ve been following the activities of Syriza for a long time. They started putting up big numbers in the polls in Greece three or four years ago. Syriza has a message that’s very popular with Greeks: Screw Germany. The word they use to describe what’s happened to Greece during the period of time since the debt crisis is “humiliation.”

To be fair, if you owe a lot of money to someone, it can be tempting to give them the finger. When Greece’s debt was restructured, it was done in such a fashion that none of the debt was really forgiven, but the maturities were extended far out in the future. Since Greece doesn’t grow (for structural, demographic, and cultural reasons), this is known as extend and pretend. Everyone knew, even back then, that the only hope Greece would have to avoid default would be whatever ability they had to refinance.

Make sure to watch our FREE Options Trading Video Series.....Just Click Here

Greece has been struggling under the yoke of this debt over the last few years, and the Greeks are sick of being serfs. So Europe gets the bird, although deep down, Greece doesn’t really want to drop out of the euro. They get a lot of benefits from being part of the Eurozone, namely purchasing power and low interest rates.

So naturally, having and eating their cake simultaneously is the goal.

But Alexis Tsipras (the head of Syriza) will threaten to not pay to get what he wants, and it will be interesting to see if Germany will call his bluff. The German people have a pretty low opinion of Greece these days, so if it’s politically palatable to eject Greece from the euro, Merkel might do it.

But Tsipras at least has a credible bargaining chip: He says he can deliver higher tax revenues through better enforcement, as Greeks are notorious tax cheats. If he can pull it off, then Greece may not default. That’s all a very nice story, but I don’t believe it for a second. There will be no increased tax revenue. It’s all talk.

I want to talk a little about Syriza and who they are, because the mainstream press likes to frame them as an “anti austerity” party. But they are much more than that. In reality, they are just one step away from full communism.

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Syriza Wikipedia page. SYRIZA, which is an acronym of the Greek words for Coalition of the Radical Left, until recently, wasn’t really a party at all—just a collection of parties cobbled together under the auspices of screwing creditors.

Here’s a list of the parties that coalesced under the umbrella of Syriza:

• Active Citizens
   
• Anticapitalist Political Group
   
• Citizens’ Association of Riga
   
• Communist Organization of Greece (KOE):
   
• Communist Platform of Syriza: Greek section of the International Marxist Tendency
   
• Democratic Social Movement (DIKKI)
   
• Ecosocialists of Greece
   
• Internationalist Workers’ Left (DEA)
   
• Movement for the United in Action Left (KEDA)
   
• New Fighter
   
• Radical Left Group Roza
   
• Radicals
   
• Red
   
• Renewing Communist Ecological Left (AKOA)
   
• Synaspismós
   
• Union of the Democratic Centre
   
• Unitary Movement
   
• And a number of independent leftist activists

Sounds like some nice folks you’d have over for dinner and a game of Trivial Pursuit.

In addition to debt forgiveness, Syriza wants a bunch of other stuff, including forgiveness of bank debt for people who are unable to meet their obligations. It’s no coincidence that the Greek stock market was down 13% when the snap election was announced, led by the banks.

In the entire post-World War II period, you’d be hard pressed to find a farther-left national government in Europe than what Greece has now.

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it’s important to point out that I’m a very free-market kind of guy, and if something is bad for markets, I oppose it. I think the Greek Syriza experiment will turn out very badly, and the Greeks will end up with a sharply lower standard of living, however that comes about.

If it comes about by exiting the euro, an immediate consequence will be that they can count on a very weak drachma and high interest rates, possibly followed by high inflation. There will be food and energy shortages. There will be pretty much everything you had in Cuba and Venezuela, just in a less extreme form. Economic misery will abound. And just as a reminder, it is very hard for such places to be governed democratically.

Every once in a while finance gives us these gifts—little controlled experiments where you can watch how two competing economic philosophies play out. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. Even among the 50 US states. As you go around the world, you can see what works and what doesn’t.

Many people think the Scandinavian countries are socialist, but they aren’t—they are very capitalist economies with high levels of redistribution. Sweden was socialist from 1968-1993, but not today. Don’t confuse that with what is going on in Greece. Greece’s economy already is dysfunctional, and it’s going to get worse. We are going to see what happens to this little Marxist archipelago, formerly a member in good standing of the European Economic Community.

But I am getting ahead of myself. As of today, they’re still a member.

The trades here are very easy. It’s hard to have a stock market in a country where property rights barely exist. It’s hard to have bank loans or bonds where debt can be arbitrarily forgiven by the government. The nonexistence of capital markets is bad, contrary to what some folks think.

I don’t usually say things like this, but any Greek stock above zero is a potential short. Politics, like stocks, has a habit of trending—for a very long time.

P.S. Thanks to David Burge (@iowahawkblog) for the inspiration for this week’s title.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: Socialism Is Like a Nude Beach—Sounds Like a Great Idea Until You Get There was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

EFPs and The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action

By Jared Dillian

Pretend you are a corn trader. As such, you have two choices: have a position in corn futures or own physical corn. It may seem silly to even consider owning physical corn, because corn futures are easy to trade—just click a button on your screen. But assume you have a grain elevator, and whether you own futures or physical corn is all the same to you. How do you decide which you prefer?

If one is mispriced relative to the other.

If you consider owning physical corn, you have to take into account the cost of storage and any transportation costs you may incur getting the corn to the delivery point. You also have to think of the cost of carrying that physical corn position, or the opportunity loss you incur by not investing the money in the risk-free alternative.

The thing is, there’s nothing keeping the spot and futures markets on parallel tracks, aside from the basis traders who spend their time watching when the futures get out of whack from the physical. That basis exists in just about every futures market, even in financial futures that are cash settled. In fact, that was pretty much my life when I was doing index arbitrage—trading S&P 500 futures against the underlying stocks. I was basically a fancy version of the basis trader in corn.

With stock index futures (like the S&P 500, or the NDX, or the Dow), the basis is slightly more complicated. Not only do you have to calculate the cost of carry—which is usually determined by risk free interest rates and the stock loan market for the underlying securities—but you also have to take into account the dividends that the underlying stocks pay out. Remember, futures don’t pay dividends, but stocks do. At Lehman Brothers, we had a guy whose sole job was to construct and maintain a dividend prediction model for the S&P 500.

So far, so good. However, one of the first things I learned about on the index arbitrage desk was EFP, which stands for Exchange for Physical—a corner of the market almost nobody knows about.

Basically, we could take a futures position and exchange it for a stock position at an agreed-upon basis with another bank or broker. Interdealer brokers helped arrange these EFP trades. The reason so few people know about them is probably because, historically, the EFP market has been very sleepy. The most it would usually move in a day was 15 or 20 cents in the index, or in interest rate terms, a few basis points.

Now it is moving several dollars at a time.

A Basis Gone Berserk

Back when I was doing this about ten-plus years ago, we had a balance sheet of about $8 billion, which is to say that we carried a hedged position of stocks versus S&P 500 futures (also Russell 2000 futures, NASDAQ futures, etc.).

We did this for a few reasons. One, it was profitable to do so—the basis often traded rich so that by selling futures and buying stock and holding the position until expiration, we would make money. Also, by carrying this long stock inventory, we were able to offset short positions elsewhere in the firm and reduce the firm’s cost of funds. At Lehman and most other Wall Street firms, index arbitrage was a joint venture with equity finance.

During the tech bubble in 1999, the basis got very, very rich because money was plowing into mutual funds and managers were being forced to hold futures for a period of time until they were able to pick individual stocks.

During the bear market in 2008, the basis traded very cheap, up until very recently, because inflows into equity mutual funds were weak, and index arbitrage desks were willing to accept less profit on their balance sheet positions.

But now, the basis has gone nuts.

It always goes a little nuts toward year-end because banks try to take down positions to improve the optics of their accounting ratios. If you have fewer assets, your return on assets looks better. So when banks try to get rid of stock inventory into year-end, they buy futures and sell stock, pushing up the basis.

But now it has skyrocketed, and the cause seems to be the effects of regulation.

We’ve talked about this before, in reference to corporate bonds. Banks aren’t keeping a lot of inventory anymore, because there’s no money in it. The culprits here are a combination of Dodd-Frank and Basel III. There are all kinds of unintended consequences, and the EFP market going nuts is probably the least of it.

But even that is a big one. Basically, it has introduced significant costs (about 1.5% annually) to the holder of a long futures position, which includes everyone from indexers all the way down to retail investors. These are the sorts of things that don’t get talked about in congressional hearings. Did XYZ law work? Sure it worked. But now it costs you 1.5% a year to hold S&P 500 futures and roll them, and you can’t get a bid for more than $2 million in a liquid corporate bond issue.

It’s All About Liquidity

The liquidity issue is the biggest one, and the one I harp on all the time. Pre Dodd-Frank, the major investment banks were giant pools of liquidity. You wanted to do a block trade of 20 million shares? No problem. You wanted to trade $250 million of double-old tens? It could be done.

Not anymore. Liquidity has diminished in just about every asset class, from FX to equities to rates to corporates, because compliance costs have gone up and it’s expensive to hold more capital against these positions. Someday, someone might take up the slack, like second-tier brokers or even hedge funds.
But here’s the biggest consequence of the equity finance market blowing up: High-frequency trading (HFT) firms that aren’t self-clearing now find it difficult to trade profitably and stay in business. With fewer of them around, we will finally get an answer to the question whether they add to liquidity or not.

So if you talk to an index arbitrage trader about what is going on with the EFP market, he can tell you precisely why it is screwed up. It’s an open secret on Wall Street. Introduce a regulation over here, an unintended consequence pops up over there. Then there are more regulations to deal with the unintended consequences. Regulations have added 100 times the volatility to one of the most liquid and ordinary derivatives in the world—the plain vanilla EFP.

Less liquidity, more volatility—welcome to 2015.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: EFPs and The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

The 10th Man....What a Correction Feels Like

By Jared Dillian

Back in the summer of 2007, when I was working for Lehman Brothers, I had a vacation to the Bahamas planned. This was unusual for me. Up until that point, in six years of working for Lehman, I had taken about five vacation days—total. But my wife and I were going to a semi primitive resort on Cat Island, the most desolate island in the Bahamas. Interesting place for a vacation. Suffice to say that it’s plenty hot in the Bahamas in August.

The market had been acting funny for a while, and I had a hunch that there was going to be trouble while I was gone, so I bought the 30 strike calls in the CBOE Market Volatility Index (VIX). I was betting that volatility was going to go up a lot in a short period of time. In fact, these options—which I spent a little over $100,000 on—would be worthless unless there was outright panic. I gave instructions to my colleagues to sell the call options if the VIX went over 35. (Note: my memory on the details of the trade, like the strike of the options and the level of the VIX, is a little hazy. The specifics might have been different, but you get the general idea.)

So there I was, sunning myself at this primitive resort on Cat Island and the world was melting down, and I was completely oblivious to what was going on back on Wall Street. Coincidentally, the local Bahamas newspaper had a picture of black swans on the cover one day. I staged a photo of me in a hammock reading the newspaper with the black swans on it. I still have that photo.

I got back to civilization and checked the markets. I saw the chart of the VIX. I could hardly contain myself. If my colleagues had executed the trades properly, I would have had a profit of over $800,000. But when I got back to work and opened my spreadsheet, I found that I’d made less than $100,000. What I had failed to consider was that if the world actually was blowing up, the guys would have been too busy to execute my trade.

So there is this whole idea of state dependence that we have to consider when we’re talking about the market. Like, you might have a plan to buy stocks when the index gets below a certain level, but when the market gets to that point, you: a) may not have the capital; and b) might be panicking into your shorts. It’s nice to have a plan, but, paraphrasing Mike Tyson, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

I remember reading Russell Napier’s book about bear markets, called Anatomy of the Bear. It talked about all the big bear markets in the US, including the granddaddy of them all, the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. One of the things that I learned from this book was that if you can time the bottom exactly right, you can make a hell of a lot of money in very short order. For example, if you had bought the lows in 1932, you could have doubled your money in a matter of months.

I wanted to do that. I prayed for a bear market, so I would get my chance.

Little did I know that I would get my chance just two years later—and blow it.

When the market is down 60%, it’s scary as hell to buy stocks. Hindsight being 20/20, you can say, “What, did you think it was going to zero?” Actually, yes—in March of 2009, people thought it was going to zero.
But for those people who: a) had capital; and b) weren’t terrified, it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

A Thousand Days with No Correction

So let’s talk about a). Does everybody have capital? Remember, the hard part of this is not picking bottoms. Many people can do this quite capably. Panic/liquidation is very easy to spot. But few people have the ability to take advantage of it, because they’re fully invested.

As for b), you tend not to be terrified if you have capital.

Everyone knows by now that the stock market is correcting. The price action is pretty terrible. Will it get worse? I think so. We’re seeing excesses (corporate credit, growth stocks, IPOs) that we haven’t seen in many, many years. It’s been over 1,000 days since we’ve had a correction of any magnitude. With the market down about 5%, nobody is particularly worried, because every other time the market was down 5%, it ended up going higher.

Back to state dependence. What is it going to feel like if the market goes down further? How will people behave if the S&P 500 gets to, say, 1,700?

I can tell you what it will be like if the S&P gets to 1,700. It’s going to be like it was in August of 2007 when my coworkers forgot to sell my VIX calls because they were buried under an avalanche of panicked sell orders from institutional money managers. Pre-algorithmic trading, the trading floor used to get pretty noisy. I used to be able to tell you what the market was doing just from listening to the floor. At SPX 1,700, trading floors will be very noisy.

It’s been so long since we’ve had a correction, I’m guessing that most people have forgotten what a correction feels like. When you go that long in between corrections, people are sitting on a mountain of capital gains. And unless the capital gains really start to disappear, there is little pressure to sell. But if you’re the owner of, say, airline stocks, and you’ve watched them evaporate to the tune of 30%, that tends to focus the mind a little bit.

As with any steep correction, there will be fantastic opportunities, but they will only be available to those who have capital. Remember, bear markets don’t just destroy the bulls’ capital, they destroy the bears’ capital, too.

Bear markets destroy everyone’s capital.

Jared Dillian

The article The 10th Man: What a Correction Feels Like was originally published at mauldin economics

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!