This is a long read, but it's worth it. The metric can be calculated in FRED, and as a predictor of future returns, it outperforms all of the most common stock market valuation metrics, including cyclically-adjusted price-earnings (CAPE) ratio. (Basically, the average investor portfolio allocation to equities versus bonds and cash is inversely correlated with future returns over the long-term. This works better than pure valuation models because it accounts for supply and demand dynamics.)
Only trouble is that once people find patterns like this, they have a habit of disappearing. Hopefully this one is based on solid enough fundamental market forces that it persists after its publication. It was published in 2013 so we won't know for sure until after 2023.
TLDR: The correlation did go down a bit since publishing but still seems alright.
It took me a few seconds to figure out that you meant the patterns and not the people as the targets for disappearing.
If you can find any way to predict the future price of things, you can make money by performing arbitrage across time (instead of space, which is how people usually think of arbitrage). This (nominally) describes all types of model-informed time-based investment.
The thing with arbitrage is that there's a finite amount of money you can make. If there's a price difference on some cross-listed stock between HKEx and SZSE, you can make money by buying on the cheap one and selling on the pricier one. But, as a side effect of doing so, the price goes up on the cheap one and goes down on the pricier one. There is only a finite amount of stock you can exchange before the price difference approaches zero and you can't make money. The price information has been communicated, and the market has served its function.
The same is true for arbitrage across time. There's only so much money you can spend before the "prices" (more complicated than spacial price differences, because you have to worry about some more complex utility theory to find the expectation value of something in the future) equilibrate and market information has been propagated "through time".
This is why these things "have a habit of disappearing"; every single way of making money via models corresponds to a market inefficiency. Model-based traders are eliminating market inefficiencies and making a cut off the benefit, just like any other good business. The inefficiencies are just more abstract than usual.
So if a model is good, there's no way for it to persist. If it actually predicts something we didn't expect, that corresponds to some inneficiency in the market that some trader can eliminate in exchange for a nice fee.
Hah! Grammatically, "they" refers to the people (not the pattern).
IMHO, sometimes these details matter, as in:
"Let's eat grandma!" vs "Let's eat, grandma!"
"know your shit" vs "know you're shit"
> "Linguistically, an amphiboly is an ambiguity which results from ambiguous grammar, as opposed to one that results from the ambiguity of words or phrases—that is, Equivocation."
"Fixing" it would probably involve rephrasing to reverse the order of "people" and "pattern" in the sentence or
just put all the emphasis on the pattern:
"... these patterns, when discovered, have a habit of disappearing"
Strict correctness regarding subject:verb agreement can, like other grammatical constructs, lead to non-idiomatic, awkward phrasing. Formal "rules" about prepositions are the first related example I can think of. ("... of which I can think" is awful, right?). My point was just to laugh at the ambiguity. (shrug)
There are also several companies that specialize in providing this exact cash/equity data research to financial firms to help them manage their trading strategies and offering more practical details in their data than FRED data offers. For example TrimTabs  (no affiliation) has been around since 1990 according to their website  trimtabs.com
1. Why 10 years as the forward return period -- would be nice to see the situation for other return periods, even close to 10 years. Granted, it is a round number and doesn't appear to be cherry-picked, but still.
2. Why 1952 as the starting point -- presumably because the data from FRED starts there, but can this not be extended further back?
3. Why an implausibly linear relationship between the equity allocation percentage, which is bounded (0%-100%) vs. the returns, which is unbounded on either side, over such a large range of values? What is the mechanism to explain this? In other words, what is the proposed model that transmits allocation percentage into a return, even if the directionality of correlation is at least likely? What happens around 0% and 100% allocation -- do the extreme cases make sense?
I'd like to run my own data before I believe this.
Discredited the article to me..
Improvements of a market reduce its friction and make it more efficient: transaction costs disappear for instance. Cost and price aren't the same thing. The latter includes the former.
Price can be seen as formed by a supply-demand process. In this process investors and capital seekers are BOTH subject to the cost of an inefficient market. They're not two sides of a coin.
Maybe not so recommended.
Basically you say that the decrease in friction in a market drives the demand up: as markets grow efficient it become easier for buyers to enter. However I see that it become easier for seller to enter as well! So it is not necessarily a driver of demand..
This argument can be correct in an asymmetrical market like the ones for bonds, equities, real estate, commodities but it doesn't hold in FX markets for instance (perhaps the money market as well) or other derivative markets where there is not so much bias in being a buyer rather than a seller.
Although, I might say this argument can be available in a world were investors are in majority of the 'buy and hold' type. Which is the world we live in actually! So I can agree with him that new market opportunities and improvements in market efficiency can be an explanation for the flow of cash, and thus inflated prices... even bubble genesis! The venture capital markets or the crypto-currency ones are perfect examples.
To conclude you made me think twice about that and I kind of agree with him but I still don't think it is a universal argument.
If you are wondering which category you are in, if at any point during your "analysis" you find yourself looking for things with names like "evening star", "bullish engulfing", "head and shoulders", etc.... save yourself some time and money, and go buy that lottery ticket. Day trading is not for you.
If your technical analysis is looking at volume/price/depth-changes, then congratulations, you are on the right track. Next you have to overcome the largest and most devastating hurdle, which is your own psychology.
Reading that and applying it was a huge turning point for me in my trading.
There is no sane way to automate this, since everyone's description of "enough" volume delta is different. Perhaps I open positions at a CD imbalance of 15%, bank of america waits on 19%, and chase at 25%. My actions at 15% further the delta, causing bank of america's 19% threshold to fire, which in turn increases the delta to 25% causing chase's threshold to fire. Until every day trader "gets on the same page" so to speak, this will not be automated. And...if they ever do get on the same page, then it only takes 1 person with decent equity to take the other automated strategies to the cleaners.
tldr; This will be automated away when greed no longer exists, i.e. never.
Anything that can be completely automated will lead to an elimination of excess returns. Having a single parameter that differs between market participants is not enough to stabilize a long-term imbalance.
I'm guessing it is a self-fulfilling prophecy (everybody believes in it, so it becomes true), but perhaps there is a logical explanation that I'm totally missing.
Support and resistance areas form because market participants remember price levels, and they tend to react as a group when a stock returns to those prices. A simple example will make the concept easy to understand. Let's imagine that you and other investors bought a stock at its initial public offering price of $20. People who did not buy the stock at the offering price are interested in buying it at that level, and they buy the stock at $20 or perhaps above $20 as interest in the stock builds. Other buyers come in and the stock trades up to $22.
The stock may trade back and forth between $20 and $22, but let's imagine that at some point the stock slips down to $16. Some traders will hold on to the stock, hoping that its fortunes will reverse and it will trade back above $22. But if the stock remains depressed, owners of the stock who bought it in the $20 to $22 area will begin to think it would be nice just to break even. If the stock does trade back up, the desire to get out at break-even will become even stronger as the stock approaches the $20 to $22 area.
To put this price zone into perspective, the more sideways trading that occurs, the greater the supply of stock will be. There will be more people who want to "get even," and therefore there will be more resistance to the stock's advance.
Support and resistance are not precise concepts. When support develops during a decline at a price short of the exact level, it is usually because traders are anxious. They remember the prior resistance level at $22, but they start buying on the way down at $22.75 and $22.50 because they are anxious or even fearful they will not have the opportunity to buy again at $22.
On a few occasions, eager traders might push a market too quickly through a support level, and support might not develop until just beyond the support area. Whether support is found short of the expected level or just beyond the level will tell you how eager or fearful traders are.
We have seen that when support is broken on the downside, it then becomes resistance. The opposite is also true; resistance, once broken, becomes support. This reversal of roles is due to the memory of traders and investors who want to get out of their losing trades at break-even, and traders who want to increase winning positions by buying more stock at or near support.
The role reversal of support and resistance leads to the formation of trends, because in an uptrend, market pullbacks or reactions will tend to find support at the last resistance level. In a downtrend, reactions or rallies will tend to find resistance at the last support level.
All support and resistance levels are not equal. The strength of a support or resistance level depends on several factors, such as the number of times the level or area was tested, the volume of trades transacted there, how long ago the formation appeared, and whether it was a round number of a "big figure." Even knowing the type of security will help in determining the validity of the support or resistance area.
The more times a level or zone of prices is tested, the more important that level becomes. A level that is tested six times and holds tends to be more important that one that was tested only twice. The more times a support or resistance level is tested, the more traders will remember it and the more traders will be likely to be committed near it.
When a large volume of trading occurs in a support or resistance area, that adds to its validity because a greater number of traders and investors will remember the level, so their commitment to the level will likely be greater.
The further back in time the support or resistance area was formed, the dimmer the memory, and the more likely that people have already acted on new information and may not respond in the same way again. They moved on by liquidating their positions. An area of support or resistance that was formed recently tends to attract a greater number of people who are still committed to the level. Thus, these nearby levels have more validity or potency.
When a support or resistance level forms at a round number or a big figure, such as $100 or $1,000 or DJIA 10,000, many more people will remember the level because it is easy to remember and obvious. In turn, the more people who remember and act at that level, the stronger the support or resistance will be.
I believe that corresponds quite accurately with the assessment we are currently at the early to mid stages of a secular bull market in equities analogous to the runs during the 1950s and 1980s. But as others have pointed out, it doesn't say anything about the possibility of a correction in the near term. Be careful out there!
You mean when everyone sold securities, moved to cash, and bought Treasuries, CDs and bank deposits?
If your money wasn't in the market, you might have been lucky with timing but statistically if you replay that scenario, you're losing out on gains by not just parking your money in the market in the long run.
Your salary, invest you savings in the market.
Given Bitcoin's "capitalisation" failed to hit even $10bn until well after the crisis , it's safe to say that more capital moved, in almost any single U.S. state, from stocks to corporate bonds, than from anything to Bitcoin. Being optimistic about the future of a technology is fine. Being delusional about its history is not.
Regarding Cyprus, wealthy Cypriots--by and large--bought German and Greek government bonds, not Bitcoin.
Bitcoin came into existence in January of 2009. What was it supposed to do? Start stealing its owners' money and go negative?
Also, everything rose in 2009. The S&P 500 was up 23%. Bonds were up, commodities were up...that's what happens after you scrape past a global financial meltdown. Sure, Bitcoin was up like five thousand percent, but that's the difference between a tens of millions and hundreds of billion in market capitalisation, things that are very volatile and things that are not, and venture versus mature.
Those who've hedged with crypto's as a trading vehicle are likely to win again during the next inevitable downturn.
Bitcoin may be an alternative to gold but it is not the same.
1) Gold has intrinsic value.
2) Gold is a tangible asset.
Now, I know that I've committed a straw man argument myself by using a contrived example. To that, I'll say that the only "value" one has by having gold in the real world is that other people will trade you for it. But this is exactly the opposite of intrinsic value. The value of gold being entirely fabricated by people's desire to hold it.
Gold's value comes from its (a) millennia-long history of stably holding value across cultures and technological domains and (b) its tangibility and physically-enforced scarcity. Its intrinsic value is a fraction of its market value, in part because the inflated price deters lots of uses.
a) crypto holders believe that the value will hold because as more individuals use it to store their net worth, the harder it will become to
manipulate. ie. a history of price growth/eventual stabilization will occur in time.
b) its algorithmically-enforced scarcity, which many people believe is as valid as physically-enforced scarcity. So long as hash-based cryptography always works.
There is one feature gold has over Bitcoin that cryptocurrencies cannot replicate: resilience across technological domains. Gold holds value without computers or electricity. Bitcoin does not. Gold, on the other hand, cannot travel at the speed of light. TL; DR each solves different systems of trade-offs.
That's recursive - you're basically saying that gold has value because it has historically being valuable. Which begs the question of why it has been valuable.
I'm not saying that this doesn't add some (most, in fact) value to gold. I'm just saying that this isn't a property that is enabled by anything specific to gold.
With money, you want five things: fungibility, durability, portability, cognizability and stability .
On fungibility, gold is an element. It can only be extracted, not produced in a conventional sense. In fact, before the 1669 discovery of phosphorous, humans had only purified, from oldest to newest, copper, lead, gold, silver, iron, carbon, tin, sulfur, mercury, zinc, arsenic and antimony .
Out of those, lead, gold, silver and mercury are chemically stable, though only gold and silver are also physically durable. Both are easy to recognize, though more metals are "silvery" in color than yellow.
Gold won due to stability, in large part because of a few flukes. For most of human history, growth was flat and gold mining was minimal. When we actually started growing, the major powers were using gold. The rate at which they added to global gold supplies happened to mirror their economic growth; this gave gold a few decades of price stability. That memory, together with the millennia of use, forged a cultural memory in the furnaces of the industrial revolution that remains, vividly, to this day .
> That's recursive
Cultural memories, like trust, are re-enforced by network effects. Your observation is correct. Gold got where it got, in part, due to luck and then just stuck.
Can that be replicated? Perhaps. I personally think our obsession with gold is silly. But engineering that properly means understanding why it happened in the first place. At least amongst Bitcoin enthusiasts, I come across the types of comments you see others making in this thread, as opposed to bona fide introspection and defenses.
Your last point brings up an interesting tangent, if gold wasn't treated as a store of value, what would its price be? Would it be similar to diamonds where synthetic ones are half the price? Are you aware of any sources that try to answer this question?