Hussman Weekly Market Comment: Clarity and Valuation
So overvalued, check. Overbought, check. Overbullish, check. Upward pressure on yields, check. Market internals? – certainly mixed, but not bad – and there's the wild card. Historically, markets featuring a combination of these other risks have been vulnerable even without clear deterioration of internals. What the mixed internals (rather than clearly negative) buy you is variability in the timing of subsequent weakness. Sometimes the market plunges immediately, but often it bounces around for a while and continues to make marginal new highs. More often than not, what the syndrome produces is an abrupt plunge within a window of about 10-12 weeks. Not a forecast, just a regularity. This time might be different, but we wouldn't risk a great deal hoping it will.
It's important to recognize that when I quote probabilities, I am generally using a form of Bayes' Rule. So when I say, for example, that I estimate a probability of about 80% of fresh credit difficulties accompanied by a market plunge over the coming year, that figure is based on various combinations of historical evidence, and what has (and has not) happened afterward, and how often. As a side note, a “market plunge” in this context need not be a “crash.” In the context of a credit-driven crash and rebound (which is what I believe we've observed), a typical post-rebound correction would be about -28%, but even that would take stocks to less than 20% above the March lows.
Probabilities, however, are not certainties. If the probability of a given event is “p”, then the probability of “not that event” is (1-p). This, in my view, is what makes probabilities and average outcomes different from forecasts. When people forecast, they say “this or that is going to happen,” and very often they establish investment positions that will do them a great deal of harm if they are incorrect. What we try to do is say, “on average, these conditions have been associated with this typical outcome, as well as a range of other possible outcomes (risk) that is this wide.” The larger the typical outcome is, compared with the possible range of outcomes, the larger a commitment we are willing to make. But if the average outcome is weak, and the range of outcomes is wide, we'll defend against the risk.
- Links
60 Minutes: Segments with President Obama and Jack Ma (LINK) Michael Lewis thinks the secret recordings of conversations between the Fed and Goldman are a big deal (LINK) Jason Zweig: Should Investors Chase After Bill Gross Again? (LINK) Cook & Bynum...
- Hussman Weekly Market Comment: Rock, Paper, Scissors
It will come as no surprise that market conditions remain of great concern here. As always, but particularly now, it’s important to stress that our defensiveness is a reflection of prevailing, observable evidence and the alignment of our investment...
- Hussman Weekly Market Comment: An Angry Army Of Aunt Minnies
As of Friday, the S&P 500 was within 1% of its upper Bollinger band at virtually every horizon, including daily, weekly and monthly bands. The last time the S&P 500 reached a similar extreme was Friday April 29, 2011, when I titled the following...
- Hussman Weekly Market Comment: Unusual Drawdown Risk
Of course, our present concerns are based on a smaller and more negative subset of conditions that we've seen even less frequently - presently featuring not just "overvalued" and "overbought" conditions, but adding overbullish sentiment, modest but...
- Hussman Weekly Market Comment: Don't Mess With Aunt Minnie
Over the years, I've noted that certain subsets of market conditions - occurring together - are associated with very specific outcomes, such as oncoming recessions, abrupt market weakness, strength in precious metals, and so forth. Such indicator...