SUMMARY - "PIG":
The Contrarian's View is published 11 times per year on a mostly-irregular schedule, and the views expressed are those of the author and editor, Nick Chase. Because nobody can predict the future, results of past suggestions or recommendations are no guarantee of future results. Material in this publication may be freely quoted provided proper attribution is given to its source. Subscription rate: Free on the Internet through the World-Wide Web service at Assumption College. Using your favorite Web-browsing program, Open URL http://nick.assumption.edu. Mailed paper subscriptions, one year for $39 to The Contrarian's View, 132 Moreland Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. There is a limit of 50 paid subscribers at one time; please check for availability before sending any money. Sorry, Visa and Mastercard are not available. Overseas subscription rate, U.S. $54. Unsolicited material sent to us by UPS or by courier other than the postal service is refused and returned to sender! ISSN 1536-4429 Phone: (508) 757-2881
Certainly the advent of war on September 11, on the heels of what must certainly have been a pretty dismal year of performance (or perhaps I should say, nonperformance) for most retirement-plan participants, would be enough to give most people saving for the future the willies. So, no surprise, earlier this month a MetLife rep showed up to "discuss" the future of the market.
Now, normally I would care less about MetLife and its reps, because I would have no interest in trading in one insurance-company plan with very low fees for another insurance-company plan with quite high fees. (The reps gotta make their money, after all.)
But Assumption College has an unusually rigid TIAA-CREF retirement-annuity plan (in contrast to the supplemental-retirement-annuity plan, which is entirely my own contributions and earnings and which resembles an IRA). It's impossible to get the cash out.... upon retirement, one must (eventually) annuitize the entire amount, that is, take monthly payments as determined by TIAA-CREF's life-expectancy tables.
The reason for this restriction is to protect one's retirement in case of bankruptcy. But that doesn't work for my wife and me. She will be retiring in June 2002 (not very far away, now) and her state teachers' pension plan is so screwy that it makes sense for her to take "Option A", which means, if she croaks first, her pension goes poof! (72% of teacher retirees take Option A, which tells you the state has really messed up in not providing viable alternatives for beneficiaries.)
Thus, when I eventually retire, to compensate for the loss of income if she dies before me, we need to draw upon only one of my retirement vehicles for income, while allowing the other to continue to build up. Because my supplemental retirement annuity (SRA) is about two-thirds my own money, and because prior to 1998 money I put into the SRA was post-tax for state income tax purposes (before a change in the state income-tax laws), it makes sense to "use up" the SRA first, then the retirement annuity (RA). My wife will pay no state income tax on her teacher's pension (by state law), and less than half of my SRA, and none of my Social Security, will be taxable by the state. With our allowable deductions, it's entirely possible we will be paying no state income tax at all. (Now that's a really appealing thought: Live in Taxachusetts and not have to pay any state income tax. Call it the "revenge of the retirees".) Later on, when we need to draw upon the funds in the RA, and the state income tax returns to bite us, we can decide whether to continue to live in Massachusetts or move to Florida.
But financial planners will tell you it's better to "use up" the money that won't survive your death before drawing upon funds that will..... if you plan to leave anything for your beneficiaries, that is. And for me the thought of reaching, say, age 75 or 80 before having to annuitize the RA, an age when I could suddenly keel over from heart failure without warning and the insurance company gets to keep all of the money and my estate gets nothing, is not particularly appealing.
Assumption College does offer one "out" for people for whom forced-annuitizing doesn't work: You can switch to the alternate plan offered - MetLife, with its high fees - and in the switch, convert the TIAA-CREF RA to the MetLife annuity plan - and these funds can then be rolled over into a traditional IRA at retirement. So, sometime in the not-too-distant future, I expect to be switching from TIAA-CREF to MetLife. (And just how my pension-plan returns will be presented in each issue of The Contrarian's View, well, I'll face that problem when it arrives.)
Thus my interest in MetLife, which is to gain more flexible access to my own money. So I decided to go hear the rep's presentation. It was about what one would expect - stocks always go up over the long term, crises come and go but the market always recovers (complete with charts of stocks after Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the Gulf war, etc.), blah, blah, blah.... peppered with "analyses" from the brokerage's shills. (Great stuff for the circular file.) Of course, implicit in all of this marketing hype is the assumption that the Federal Reserve will never lose control, as happened during the Great Depression (and in Japan).
At the end of the rep's presentation, he invited questions. Now, you know me.... troublemaker, even though I agree with the rep's outlook for stocks for the short term. I don't recall the exact wording of my question, but the gist of it was: Stocks peaked at 80% of GDP in 1929, and at about 165% of GDP in March 2000, and they are still valued at about 135% of GDP. Historically, they have traded around a mean of 48% of GDP. You're trying to tell me that stocks are a bargain when they're valued at 135% of GDP, and that I should be buying stocks when they're more overpriced than in 1929?
Well, he said, he'd never thought of stock market valuation in those terms. But he did surmise that, today, businesses are more heavily capitalized (that is, more companies have floated stock rather than issuing bonds or borrowing from banks), so that one would expect the stock market to reflect a higher percentage of GDP. (OK, Nick, flashback to Econ 101, supply/demand curve: The supply of stocks increases, and prices go.... up?!?) Then, he said, there is also the demographic push.... baby-boomers (trying to) set aside money for retirement.
On this second point we both agreed, and we also agreed that around the year 2010, when the
boomers start drawing on their retirement funds for living expenses, stock prices are likely to
shift into reverse, and be more likely to go down than up.
The Conference Board announced a greater than expected drop in Consumer Confidence today [November 27], surprising economists and causing negative repercussions on Wall Street. We're not concerned, however, as all of the decline came in the Present Situation Component. More important is the healthy improvement in future expectations... which could be a 3-6 month precursor to an economic upturn. This is very encouraging, because it confirms that the Federal Reserve has not lost control. - Jim Stack
I've noticed a few brave souls have made a comparison to what happened to Japan after their bubble burst in the early 1990s. With the Fed Funds rate down to 2% some folks are starting to wonder if the Fed's Magic Liquidity wand has lost some of its magic. Of course the majority of analysts are confident that we are not headed towards a Japan-style period of malaise. But keep in mind that these same analysts were insisting that we were in a New Economy only a year and a half ago. - Marc Sexton
I don't believe we're looking at just another cyclical downturn this time. We could be - but I don't think so. The meltdown of the bubble economy; the dissipation of perhaps trillions in the busted tech boom; the negative wealth effect from the collapse of stocks; now real estate, and next the dollar; the huge buildup of capacity which will go idle; the historic debt burden; and now a war that could go on for many years add up to a truly deadly combination. - Doug Casey
My, how our heroes have changed.... For five years in America, it was all dot-com, all the time. And now it's all gone. No more post-adolescent overnight millionaires in their Ferrari Testarossas and Porsche 996 Carreras. No more cabdrivers making $50,000 per week trading stocks on their laptops at every red light...It's all so sad. - Christopher Byron
I was a little disappointed when President Bush suggested the most patriotic thing Americans could do in these trying times was shop. - Joseph Farah
Consider the doleful tale of hot-shot mutual fund manager James D. McCall. About two years ago, Merrill Lynch wooed Mr. McCall away from Pilgrim Baxter. Merrill actually fought Pilgrim Baxter in court for the right to get this guy. (Talk about a Pyrrhic victory!) Merrill wasted no time raising $1 billion dollars for their new wunderkind to manage, and McCall wasted no time losing 80% of the money in his "Focus Twenty Fund." So will McCall now focus on the 20% that remains? Nah...he quit. And he took a fat severance package with him. Too bad his investors can't quit and take a plump severance package. - Eric Fry
Over long periods of time, stock prices are a function of two things: (1) corporate earnings,
and (2) the price/earnings (P/E) multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings.
That's it ...pure and simple folks. All you ever really needed to know about the stock market. -
Bill Gross
When will we see new highs in the Dow? Perhaps as early as the spring of 2002. And when the Dow pushes above 10,000 again, and stays above 10,000, we'll see many more people switching to the bullish camp instead of focusing on the dreadful recession headlines. (And those people who bought all of that telecom and dot-com garbage? They'll be asking themselves, "What new bull market?", for their stuff will never come back. Jerks.)
Though we haven't yet seen that spectacular "buying panic"-type rally that I am expecting, I expect we will see one in the early or middle stages of this bull, that is, sometime in 2002.
War caveat: War is unpredictable, and it's possible that we could again be blindsided by
another terrorist attack which would puncture consumer confidence. But as time passes and
bin Laden's days increasingly appear to be numbered, the odds of such a repeat rapidly
shrink.
Original cost (adjusted): $ 4,998.21
Present value: $ 4,101.37
Increase: $ -896.94 [-17.94%]
The performance of this portfolio and its predecessors ("Hedger's Delight", "Present and Future Income", "Crapshooter's Folly") from January 1987 to the present is -6.95%, for a compound annual rate of return of -0.47%. COMMENT on "Phoenix": There is no change from the last issue (cash balance is not up to date).
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG":
Original cost: $ 9,024.00
Present value: $15,230.75
Increase: $ 6,206.75 [+68.78%]
COMMENT on "PIG": At their mid-November meeting, the PIGs decided to do a little near-the-end-of-the-year housecleaning. On my suggestion, because I feel we are (at least for the
time being) in a new bull market, they voted to sell the remaining Prudent Bear shares. They
also directed me to sell Isis, whose stock price (they feel) now fully reflects the potential the
group saw back in the mid-1990s. And on the recommendation of the PIG who had originally
suggested we buy Genzyme, and who now says there is no product in the company's pipeline
to pop the price back up above where we bought it, the group decided to take the loss. The
PIGs also decided to buy 50 shares of Applied Materials (the company that makes the
machines that make the chips) and, at my suggestion, 500 shares of Palm at $2 or less. I'm
still waiting for good entry points to buy both stocks.
C. Roth rollover IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $10,092.80
Increase: $ 1,766.61 [+21.22%]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors)
from January 1, 1987 to the present is -7.97%, for a compound
annual rate of return of -0.54%.
D. CREF Pension plan; I switch between indexed stock/bond/money funds:
Date Sold Bought
13Mar1992 stock @ 56.65 MM @ 13.41
29Apr1992 MM @ 13.48 bond @ 31.19
19Jun1992 bond @ 32.14 MM @ 13.55
29Jun1992 MM @ 13.57 stock @ 56.74
24Jul1992 stock @ 56.76 MM @ 13.61
29Oct1992 MM @ 13.72 stock @ 58.61
23Dec1992 stock @ 61.48 MM @ 13.78
16Jan1995 MM @ 14.83 equity-index @ 26.44
20Jan1995 eq-index @ 26.19 MM @ 14.84
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 bond@47.56 (27.17%)
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 i-i bond@26.12 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 bond@ 48.84 MM@17.52 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 I-I bond@ 26.23 MM@17.52(27.17%)
16Jun1998 MM@ 17.84 TIAA Traditional (45.87%)
23Sep1999 MM@18.99 I-I bond@27.56 (53.32%)
17-18May2000 rate adjustment to 7.25% in SRA
12-13Jul2000 rate adjustment to 7.5% in SRA
8Jan2001 TIAA Traditional bond@58.62 [22.77%]
8Jan2001 TIAA Traditional eq-idx@75.79 [4.56%]
1Feb2001 i-i bond@31.78 eq-idx@80.84 [26.76%]
20Sep2001 bond@61.99 eq-idx@58.42 [2.44%]
21Nov2001 i-i bond@33.80 eq-idx@67.52 [4.35%]
Values, 30Nov2001: stock, 160.41; equity-index, 67.23; MM, 21.29; bond, 62.99; inflation-indexed
bond, 33.86; TIAA current yield in SRA, 7.5% (new money at 6.0% through February 28, 2002)
Gain, 1988: 18.91%; 1989: 14.48%; 1990: 8.28%; 1991: 27.93%; 1992: 10.20%; 1993: 3.08%; 1994: 4.07%; 1995: 4.80%; 1996: 5.28%; 1997: 5.38%; 1998: 5.72%; 1999: 5.12%; 2000: 9.99%
Gain, January 1 through September 30, 2001: -1.84%
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (13.75 years): 210.98%
Compound annual rate of return: 8.60% (My long-term target: in excess of 10%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained
369.02%, for a compound annual rate of return of 11.90%.
As I indicated I might do in the October issue, on November 21.... taking advantage of a
small pre-holiday selloff in stocks.... I switched about 15.01% of the funds in inflation-indexed bonds (representing about 4.35% of the overall TIAA-CREF retirement portfolio)
into the CREF Equity Index fund. I decided to lighten up on the inflation-indexed bonds
rather than the corporates because, with the recession ending and the recovery underway, the
"flight to safety" which favored the treasury issues is likely over, and corporate bonds
currently are a better value. Though interest rates have recently "backed up", that's being
overdone, just as the panic buying of bonds early in the month was overdone. The outlook for
bonds is still bullish, though not as wildly bullish as last year at this time. And the outlook for
stocks brightens every day, so in 2002 stocks may well outperform bonds.... though I expect
to remain diversified. After the switch, my TIAA-CREF retirement funds were 34.06% in the
equity-index fund, 21.99% in (corporate) bonds, 24.63% in inflation-indexed bonds, and
19.32% in TIAA yielding about 7.5%.
COMMENT on NYSE "Timer's Trend":
The BUY on November 1 remains in effect. Looks
like "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town".
____________________________ NYSE TIMER'S TREND _______________________________
Wed 1 Aug 01 . | .# |10510.01 | . + *
Thu 2 Aug 01 . | .# |10551.18 | . + *
Fri 3 Aug 01 . | # |10512.78 | . + *
Mon 6 Aug 01 . |# . |10401.31 | .+ *
Tue 7 Aug 01 . | .# |10458.74 | .+ *
Wed 8 Aug 01 . # . |10293.50 | + *
Thu 9 Aug 01 . | #. |10298.56 | + *
Fri 10 Aug 01 . | .# |10416.25 | + *
Mon 13 Aug 01 . | # |10415.91 | + *
Tue 14 Aug 01 . | .# |10412.17 | + *
Wed 15 Aug 01 . | # |10345.95 | .+ *
Thu 16 Aug 01 . |# . |10392.52 | .+ *
Fri 17 Aug 01 . #| . |10240.78 | + *
Mon 20 Aug 01 . | # |10320.07 | + *
Tue 21 Aug 01 . | #. |10174.14 |+. *
Wed 22 Aug 01 . | .# |10276.90 |+. *
Thu 23 Aug 01 . | #. |10229.15 | + *
Fri 24 Aug 01 . | . # |10423.17 | .+ *
Mon 27 Aug 01 . | #. |10382.35 | .+ *
Tue 28 Aug 01 . # . |10222.03 | + *
Wed 29 Aug 01 . # . |10090.90 |+. *
Thu 30 Aug 01 # I . | 9919.58 +~.~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 31 Aug 01 . I # | 9949.75 + . *
Tue 4 Sep 01 . I #. | 9997.49 + . *
Wed 5 Sep 01 # I . {|10033.27 |-. *
Thu 6 Sep 01 # . I . | 9840.84 | - *
Fri 7 Sep 01 # . I . | 9605.85 | - *
Mon 10 Sep 01 # I . | 9605.51 | .- *
Mon 17 Sep 01 # . I . * | 8920.70 |~.~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 18 Sep 01 # . I . | 8903.40 @| . - *
Wed 19 Sep 01 # . I . | 8759.13 @| . - *
Thu 20 Sep 01 # . I . | 8376.21 @|~.~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 21 Sep 01 # . I . | 8235.81 @| . - *
Mon 24 Sep 01 . & . | 8603.86 @| . - *
Tue 25 Sep 01 # I . | 8659.97 | . - *
Wed 26 Sep 01 # . I . | 8567.39 | . - *
Thu 27 Sep 01 # I . | 8681.42 | . - *
Fri 28 Sep 01 . I #. | 8847.56 | - *
Mon 1 Oct 01 #. I . | 8836.83 | .- *
Tue 2 Oct 01 . I# . | 8950.59 | - *
Wed 3 Oct 01 . | # | 9123.78 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 4 Oct 01 . |# . | 9060.88 + . *
Fri 5 Oct 01 . #| . | 9119.77 + . *
Mon 8 Oct 01 . #| . | 9067.94 + . *
Tue 9 Oct 01 . #I . | 9052.44 + . *
Wed 10 Oct 01 . | .# | 9240.86 + . *
Thu 11 Oct 01 . | . # }| 9410.45 |+. *
Fri 12 Oct 01 . #| . [| 9344.16 |+. *
Mon 15 Oct 01 . # . | 9347.62 |+. *
Tue 16 Oct 01 . | # ]| 9384.23 | + *
Wed 17 Oct 01 .# | . [| 9232.97 |+. *
Thu 18 Oct 01 # I . {| 9163.22 |-. *
Fri 19 Oct 01 . # . | 9204.11 |-. *
Mon 22 Oct 01 . | #. | 9377.03 + . *
Tue 23 Oct 01 . # . | 9340.08 |-. *
Wed 24 Oct 01 . #| . | 9345.62 |-. *
Thu 25 Oct 01 . | #. }| 9462.90 + . *
Fri 26 Oct 01 . | #. | 9545.17 |+. *
Mon 29 Oct 01 #. | . [| 9269.50 |-. *
Tue 30 Oct 01 # . I . {| 9121.98 | - *
Wed 31 Oct 01 . #I . | 9075.14 | - *
Thu 1 Nov 01 . | #. }| 9263.90 | - *
Fri 2 Nov 01 . | #. | 9323.54 | - *
Mon 5 Nov 01 . | .# | 9441.03 + . *
Tue 6 Nov 01 . | .# | 9591.12 | + *
Wed 7 Nov 01 . | #. | 9554.37 | + *
Thu 8 Nov 01 . | # | 9587.52 | .+ *
Fri 9 Nov 01 . | #. | 9608.00 | .+ *
Mon 12 Nov 01 . | #. | 9554.37 | + *
Tue 13 Nov 01 . | . # | 9750.95 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 14 Nov 01 . | . # | 9823.61 | .+ *
Thu 15 Nov 01 . | #. | 9872.39 | .+ *
Fri 16 Nov 01 . | # | 9866.99 | .+ *
Mon 19 Nov 01 . | . # | 9976.46 | . + *
Tue 20 Nov 01 . |# . | 9901.38 | .+ *
Wed 21 Nov 01 . # . | 9834.68 | + *
Fri 23 Nov 01 . | . # | 9959.71 | .+ *
Mon 26 Nov 01 . | .# | 9982.75 | .+ *
Tue 27 Nov 01 . | #. | 9872.60 | + *
Wed 28 Nov 01 # | . | 9711.86 | + *
Thu 29 Nov 01 . |# . | 9829.42 | + *
Fri 30 Nov 01 . | #. | 9851.56 |+. *
========================================================================
COMMENT on NASDAQ "Timer's Trend": We have a new BUY signal on November 6,
which is still in effect. The NASDAQ must reawaken as part and parcel of the Fed's bubble
reinflating.... Looks like both the NYSE and NASDAQ are now in gear in this still-early new
bull market.
____________________________ NASDAQ TIMER'S TREND ____________________________ Wed 1 Aug 01 . I .# | 2068.38 | + * Thu 2 Aug 01 . | #. | 2087.38 |+. * Fri 3 Aug 01 . & . | 2066.33 |+. * Mon 6 Aug 01 . & . | 2034.26 |+. * Tue 7 Aug 01 . & . | 2027.79 |+. * Wed 8 Aug 01 # I . | 1966.36 |-. * Thu 9 Aug 01 .# I . | 1963.32 |-. * Fri 10 Aug 01 .# I . | 1956.47 | - * Mon 13 Aug 01 . I # | 1982.25 |-. * Tue 14 Aug 01 . #I . | 1964.53 |-. * Wed 15 Aug 01 # I . | 1918.89 |-. * Thu 16 Aug 01 .# I . | 1930.32 |-. * Fri 17 Aug 01 #. I . | 1867.01 | - * Mon 20 Aug 01 . & . | 1881.35 | - * Tue 21 Aug 01 #. I . | 1831.30 |~.-~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wed 22 Aug 01 . & . | 1860.01 | - * Thu 23 Aug 01 .# I . | 1842.97 | - * Fri 24 Aug 01 . I # | 1916.80 |-. * Mon 27 Aug 01 . #I . | 1912.41 |-. * Tue 28 Aug 01 #. I . | 1864.98 |-. * Wed 29 Aug 01 #. I . | 1841.17 | - * Thu 30 Aug 01 # . I . | 1791.68 | .- * Fri 31 Aug 01 . #I . | 1805.43 | . - * Tue 4 Sep 01 # . I . | 1770.78 | . - * Wed 5 Sep 01 # . I . | 1759.01 | . - * Fri 7 Sep 01 # . I . | 1687.70 | . - * Mon 10 Sep 01 #. I . | 1695.38 | . - * Mon 17 Sep 01 # . I . | 1579.55 @|*.~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tue 18 Sep 01 # . I . | 1555.08 @| . - * Wed 19 Sep 01 # . I . | 1527.80 @| . - * Thu 20 Sep 01 # . I . | 1470.93 @| . - * Fri 21 Sep 01 # . I . | 1423.19 @| . * - Mon 24 Sep 01 . & . | 1499.40 @| . - * Tue 25 Sep 01 #. I . | 1501.64 @| . - * Wed 26 Sep 01 # . I . | 1464.04 @| . - * Thu 27 Sep 01 # . I . | 1460.71 @| . - * Fri 28 Sep 01 . & . | 1498.80 | . - * Mon 1 Oct 01 # . I . | 1480.46 | . - * Tue 2 Oct 01 # I . | 1492.33 | . - * Wed 3 Oct 01 . I# . | 1580.81 | .- * Thu 4 Oct 01 . I# . | 1597.31 | - * Fri 5 Oct 01 . #I . | 1605.30 | - * Mon 8 Oct 01 . & . | 1605.95 |-. * Tue 9 Oct 01 #. I . | 1570.19 |-. * Wed 10 Oct 01 . I #. | 1626.26 |-. * Thu 11 Oct 01 . | .# | 1701.47 + . * Fri 12 Oct 01 . |# . | 1703.40 + . * Mon 15 Oct 01 . #| . | 1696.31 + . * Tue 16 Oct 01 . | # | 1722.07 |+. * Wed 17 Oct 01 # | . | 1646.34 + . * Thu 18 Oct 01 . #I . | 1652.72 |-. * Fri 19 Oct 01 . #I . | 1671.31 |-. * Mon 22 Oct 01 . | #. | 1708.08 + . * Tue 23 Oct 01 . # . | 1704.44 |-. * Wed 24 Oct 01 . | #. | 1731.54 + . * Thu 25 Oct 01 . | .# | 1775.47 |+. * Fri 26 Oct 01 . |# . | 1768.96 |+. * Mon 29 Oct 01 .# | . | 1699.52 |+. * Tue 30 Oct 01 #. | . | 1667.41 + . * Wed 31 Oct 01 . | #. | 1690.20 + . * Thu 1 Nov 01 . | # | 1746.30 + . * Fri 2 Nov 01 . #| . | 1745.73 |-. * Mon 5 Nov 01 . | .# | 1793.65 + . * Tue 6 Nov 01 . | .# }| 1835.08 | + * Wed 7 Nov 01 . | # [| 1837.53 | + * Thu 8 Nov 01 . |# . | 1827.77 | + * Fri 9 Nov 01 . |# . | 1828.48 | + * Mon 12 Nov 01 . |# . | 1840.13 | + * Tue 13 Nov 01 . | . # ]| 1892.11 | + * Wed 14 Nov 01 . | # | 1903.19 | + * Thu 15 Nov 01 . | #. | 1900.57 | + * Fri 16 Nov 01 . | #. | 1898.58 | + * Mon 19 Nov 01 . | . # | 1934.42 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Tue 20 Nov 01 . #| . | 1880.51 | + * Wed 21 Nov 01 . | #. | 1875.05 | + * Fri 23 Nov 01 . | . # | 1903.20 | .+ * Mon 26 Nov 01 . | . # | 1941.23 | . + * Tue 27 Nov 01 . | # | 1935.97 | .+ * Wed 28 Nov 01 . #| . | 1887.97 | .+ * Thu 29 Nov 01 . | .# | 1933.26 | . + * Fri 30 Nov 01 . |# . | 1930.58 | + * ========================================================================"Timer's Trend" is based on 4% and 10% exponential moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ advance/decline lines (that is, the ratio of advancing to declining stocks). There are many symbols shown above, but the ones that count are the braces:
NEXT ISSUE - will appear in late December. /Nick Chase