|
The economy created 215,000 new jobs in November. A paltry 11,000 were manufacturing.
Is that good enough? In previous recoveries we would have been seeing jobs
created at a much higher level. But that number is not quite the story. Actually,
we saw 4,586,000 new hires in November. That is not a typo. The reality of
employment in the US is quite a bit different than the employment numbers often
suggest. We look at a relatively new database that sheds some very interesting
light on how amazingly dynamic the job market in the US is.
I write this week's letter as I fly from Toronto to Miami. It will be a little
shorter than a regular letter, but I also include a chapter from Just One Thing.
It is Dennis Gartman's Rules of Trading. I saw Dennis briefly last night, as
we were both speaking at an RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) conference, and was
reminded after a few of his great stories of just what a really smart trader
he is. For those new to this letter, Just One Thing is my latest book which
features the writing of 11 of my friends and your humble analyst writing about
the one thing we find most important that we have learned in our careers. You
won't find stock tips or the latest how-to-turn a thousand into a million in
five easy lessons, but you will get solid philosophical grounding on the basic
principles of economics and investing from a group of really smart, successful
guys (and then my musings as well). You can get your copy at your local bookstore
or go to Amazon at www.amazon.com/justonething.
JOLTS
The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor conducts a
monthly survey called Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). The program
involves the collection and publishing of job openings and labor turnover data.
The data, collected from sampled establishments on a voluntary basis, include
employment, job openings, hires, quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations.
The number of unfilled jobs--used to calculate the job openings rate--is an
important measure of the unmet demand for labor. With that statistic, it is
possible to paint a more complete picture of the U.S. labor market than by
looking solely at the unemployment rate, a measure of the excess supply of
labor.
I ran across this database recently, and must admit I was fascinated, but
then again, I am easily amused. They only began collecting this data in December
of 2002, so we have very little basis on which to make historical comparisons,
but what we do have is still eye-opening. Let's look at some of the data points.
You can go to the source yourself at http://www.stats.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf.
First, on the last business day of November 2005 (the most recent data), there
were 3.9 million job openings in the United States, and the job openings rate
was 2.8%. The job openings rate did not change significantly in November, but
has generally trended upward since September 2003 from below 2%. The job openings
rate is the number of job openings on the last business day of the month as
a percent of total employment plus job openings. So, by this measure, the job
market is 40% better than it was two years ago. Of course, we do not known
how good the market was in 1999, so this may be misleading. But the recent
trend is a good thing.
As noted above, 4,586,000 people found a new job in November. But 4,337,000
needed to find new jobs, as they left their old jobs for one reason or another.
Let's data mine a little for some interesting items. There were 349,000 manufacturing
job openings. Sounds like a lot, but there were 516,000 jobs available at leisure
and hospitality firms. There were 713,000 job openings for professional and
business service firms. Education and health (not sure why they are lumped
together) offers 594,000 opportunities. It is easier to find a job in the South,
and even easier in the West.
2,612,000 people said "take this job and shove it" or at least left for presumably
greener pastures. 1,498,000 people heard Donald Trump's famous line, "you're
fired" or were simply laid off. Between quits and layoffs, roughly 1.1% of
the country lost a job they presumably wanted to keep in just one month! That
easily translates into over 10% of American employees in any one year losing
a job.
249,000 more people were hired than fired when you cross those numbers, but
an amazing (to me) 3.4% of the country found new jobs in just one month! That
means almost 40% of employees this year will change jobs. Now, this is not
getting promoted to a better position or moving from one position in a company
to another, but changing the actual firm for which you work.
Of course, a lot of the job fluidity can be explained by younger people changing
jobs, temporary seasonal help and so on. I have six kids now in the work force,
with five in school either full-time or part time. Between them they worked
for 11 different employers last year. Only two had the same employer at the
end of the year as at the beginning, and one of them works for me and she is
not allowed to leave under any circumstances as my business would collapse,
or at least I would.
On the margin, we need to create a net new 150,000 jobs a month or so to keep
the unemployment rate from rising, due to growth of population, etc. But that
aside, the data points to a remarkably dynamic and fluid job market in the
US. It also means that we are creating a lot more than 150,000 jobs a month.
More like a few million, but we are losing a few hundred thousand less than
that few million. For a lot of America, employment is not a certain prospect.
This suggests one of the reasons we know that the consumer sentiment numbers
are closely related to how one feels about keeping his job. When things get
dicey at work, employees can sense it and get nervous.
Is this an investable idea? No, but it is something to be aware of when we
look at the state of the economy.
Now, let's turn to Dennis Gartman's Rules of Trading.
The "Not-So-Simple" (But Really Utterly So) Rules of Trading
The world of investing/treading, even at the very highest levels, where we
are supposed to believe that wisdom prevails and profits abound, is littered
with the wreckage of wealth that has hit the various myriad rocks that exist
just beneath the tranquil surface of the global economy. It matters not what
level of supposed wisdom, or education, that the money managers or individuals
in question have. We can make a list of wondrously large financial failures
that have come to flounder upon these rocks for the very same reasons. Let
us, for a bit, have a moment of collective silence for Long Term Capital Management;
for Baring's Brothers; for Sumitomo Copper... and for the tens of thousands
of individuals each year who follow their lead into financial oblivion.
I've been in the business of trading since the early 1970s as a bank trader,
as a member of the Chicago Board of Trade, as a private investor, and as the
writer of The Gartman Letter, a daily newsletter I've been producing
for primarily institutional clientele since the middle 1980s. I've survived,
but often just barely. I've made preposterous errors of judgment. I've made
wondrously insightful "plays." I've understood, from time to time, basis economic
fundamentals that should drive prices--and then don't. I've misunderstood other
economic fundamentals that, in retrospect, were 180 degrees out of logic and
yet prevailed profitably. I've prospered; I've almost failed utterly. I've
won, I've lost, and I've broken even.
As I get older, and in my mid-50s, having seen so much of the game--for a
game it is, with bad players who get lucky; great players who get unlucky;
mediocre players who find their slot in the lineup and produce nice, steady
results over long periods of time; "streak-y" players who score big for a while
and lose big at other times--I have distilled what it is that we do to survive
into a series of "Not-So-Simple" Rules of Trading that I try my best to live
by every day ... every week ... every month. When I do stand by my rules, I
prosper; when I don't, I don't. I am convinced that had Long Term Capital Management
not listened to its myriad Nobel Laureates in Economics and had instead followed
these rules, it would not only still be extant, it would be enormously larger,
preposterously profitable and an example to everyone. I am convinced that had
Nick Leeson and Barings Brothers adhered to these rules, Barings too would
be alive and functioning. Perhaps the same might even be said for Mr. Hamanaka
and Sumitomo Copper.
Now, onto the Rules:
NEVER ADD TO A LOSING POSITION
R U L E # 1
Never, ever, under any circumstance, should one add to a losing position
... not EVER!
Averaging down into a losing trade is the only thing that will assuredly take
you out of the investment business. This is what took LTCM out. This is what
took Barings Brothers out; this is what took Sumitomo Copper out, and this
is what takes most losing investors out. The only thing that can happen to
you when you average down into a long position (or up into a short position)
is that your net worth must decline. Oh, it may turn around eventually and
your decision to average down may be proven fortuitous, but for every example
of fortune shining we can give an example of fortune turning bleak and deadly.
By contrast, if you buy a stock or a commodity or a currency at progressively
higher prices, the only thing that can happen to your net worth is that it
shall rise. Eventually, all prices tumble. Eventually, the last position you
buy, at progressively higher prices, shall prove to be a loser, and it is at
that point that you will have to exit your position. However, as long as you
buy at higher prices, the market is telling you that you are correct in your
analysis and you should continue to trade accordingly.
R U L E # 2
Never, ever, under any circumstance, should one add to a losing position
... not EVER!
We trust our point is made. If "location, location, location" are the first
three rules of investing in real estate, then the first two rules of trading
equities, debt, commodities, currencies, and so on are these: never add to
a losing position.
INVEST ON THE SIDE THAT IS WINNING
R U L E # 3
Learn to trade like a mercenary guerrilla.
The great Jesse Livermore once said that it is not our duty to trade upon
the bullish side, nor the bearish side, but upon the winning side. This is
brilliance of the first order. We must indeed learn to fight/invest on the
winning side, and we must be willing to change sides immediately when one side
has gained the upper hand.
Once, when Lord Keynes was appearing at a conference he had spoken to the
year previous, at which he had suggested an investment in a particular stock
that he was now suggesting should be shorted, a gentleman in the audience took
him to task for having changed his view. This gentleman wondered how it was
possible that Lord Keynes could shift in this manner and thought that Keynes
was a charlatan for having changed his opinion. Lord Keynes responded in a
wonderfully prescient manner when he said, "Sir, the facts have changed
regarding this company, and when the facts change, I change. What do you do,
Sir?" Lord Keynes understood the rationality of trading as a mercenary
guerrilla, choosing to invest/fight upon the winning side. When the facts change,
we must change. It is illogical to do otherwise.
DON'T HOLD ON TO LOSING POSITIONS
R U L E # 4
Capital is in two varieties: Mental and Real, and, of the two, the mental
capital is the most important.
Holding on to losing positions costs real capital as one's account
balance is depleted, but it can exhaust one's mental capital even more seriously
as one holds to the losing trade, becoming more and more fearful with each
passing minute, day and week, avoiding potentially profitable trades while
one nurtures the losing position.
GO WHERE THE STRENGTH IS
R U L E # 5
The objective of what we are after is not to buy low and to sell high, but
to buy high and to sell higher, or to sell short low and to buy lower.
We can never know what price is really "low," nor what price is really "high." We
can, however, have a modest chance at knowing what the trend is and acting
on that trend. We can buy higher and we can sell higher still if the trend
is up. Conversely, we can sell short at low prices and we can cover at lower
prices if the trend is still down. However, we've no idea how high high is,
nor how low low is.
Nortel went from approximately the split-adjusted price of $1 share back in
the early 1980s, to just under $90/share in early 2000 and back to near $1
share by 2002 (where it has hovered ever since). On the way up, it looked expensive
at $20, at $30, at $70, and at $85, and on the way down it may have looked
inexpensive at $70, and $30, and $20--and even at $10 and $5. The lesson here
is that we really cannot tell what is high and/or what is low, but when the
trend becomes established, it can run far farther than the most optimistic
or most pessimistic among us can foresee.
R U L E # 6
Sell markets that show the greatest weakness; buy markets that show the
greatest strength.
Metaphorically, when bearish we need to throw our rocks into the wettest paper
sack for it will break the most readily, while in bull markets we need to ride
the strongest wind for it shall carry us farther than others.
Those in the women's apparel business understand this rule better than others,
for when they carry an inventory of various dresses and designers they watch
which designer's work moves off the shelf most readily and which do not. They
instinctively mark down the work of those designers who sell poorly, recovering
what capital then can as swiftly as they can, and use that capital to buy more
works by the successful designer. To do otherwise is counterintuitive. They
instinctively buy the "strongest" designers and sell the "weakest." Investors
in stocks all too often and by contrast, watch their portfolio shift over time
and sell out the best stocks, often deploying this capital into the shares
that have lagged. They are, in essence, selling the best designers while buying
more of the worst. A clothing shop owner would never do this; stock investors
do it all the time and think they are wise for doing so!
MAKING "LOGICAL" PLAYS IS COSTLY
R U L E # 7
In a Bull Market we can only be long or neutral; in a bear market we can
only be bearish or neutral.
Rule 6 addresses what might seem like a logical play: selling out of a long
position after a sharp rush higher or covering a short position after a sharp
break lower--and then trying to play the market from the other direction, hoping
to profit from the supposedly inevitable correction, only to see the market
continue on in the original direction that we had gotten ourselves exposed
to. At this point, we are not only losing real capital, we are losing mental
capital at an explosive rate, and we are bound to make more and more errors
of judgment along the way.
Actually, in a bull market we can be neutral, modestly long, or aggressively
long--getting into the last position after a protracted bull run into which
we've added to our winning position all along the way. Conversely, in a bear
market we can be neutral, modestly short, or aggressively short, but never,
ever can we--or should we--be the opposite way even so slightly.
Many years ago I was standing on the top step of the CBOT bond-trading pit
with an old friend Bradley Rotter, looking down into the tumult below in awe.
When asked what he thought, Brad replied, "I'm flat ... and I'm nervous." That,
we think, says it all...that the markets are often so terrifying that no position
is a position of consequence.
R U L E # 8
"Markets can remain illogical far longer than you or I can remain solvent."
I understand that it was Lord Keynes who said this first, but the first time
I heard it was one morning many years ago when talking with a very good friend,
and mentor, Dr. A. Gary Shilling, as he worried over a position in U.S. debt
that was going against him and seemed to go against the most obvious economic
fundamentals at the time. Worried about his losing position and obviously dismayed
by it, Gary said over the phone, "Dennis, the markets are illogical at times,
and they can remain illogical far longer than you or I can remain solvent." The
University of Chicago "boys" have argued for decades that the markets are rational,
but we in the markets every day know otherwise. We must learn to accept that
irrationality, deal with it, and move on. There is not much else one can say.
(Dr. Shilling's position shortly thereafter proved to have been wise and profitable,
but not before further "mental" capital was expended.)
R U L E # 9
Trading runs in cycles; some are good, some are bad, and there is nothing
we can do about that other than accept it and act accordingly.
The academics will never understand this, but those of us who trade for a
living know that there are times when every trade we make (even the errors)
is profitable and there is nothing we can do to change that. Conversely, there
are times that no matter what we do--no matter how wise and considered are
our insights; no matter how sophisticated our analysis--our trades will surrender
nothing other than losses. Thus, when things are going well, trade often, trade
large, and try to maximize the good fortune that is being bestowed upon you.
However, when trading poorly, trade infrequently, trade very small, and continue
to get steadily smaller until the winds have changed and the trading "gods" have
chosen to smile upon you once again. The latter usually happens when we begin
following the rules of trading again. Funny how that happens!
THINK LIKE A FUNDAMENTALIST;
TRADE LIKE A TECHNICIAN
R U L E # 10
To trade/invest successfully, think like a fundamentalist; trade like a
technician.
It is obviously imperative that we understand the economic fundamentals that
will drive a market higher or lower, but we must understand the technicals as
well. When we do, then and only then can we, or should we, trade. If the market
fundamentals as we understand them are bullish and the trend is down, it is
illogical to buy; conversely, if the fundamentals as we understand them are
bearish but the market's trend is up, it is illogical to sell that market short.
Ah, but if we understand the market's fundamentals to be bullish and if the
trend is up, it is even more illogical not to trade bullishly.
R U L E # 11
Keep your technical systems simple.
Over the years we have listened to inordinately bright young men and women
explain the most complicated and clearly sophisticated trading systems. These
are systems that they have labored over; nurtured; expended huge sums of money
and time upon, but our history has shown that they rarely make money for those
employing them. Complexity breeds confusion; simplicity breeds an ability to
make decisions swiftly, and to admit error when wrong. Simplicity breeds elegance.
The greatest traders/investors we've had the honor to know over the years
continue to employ the simplest trading schemes. They draw simple trend lines,
they see and act on simple technical signals, they react swiftly, and they
attribute it to their knowledge gained over the years that complexity is the
home of the young and untested.
UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENT
R U L E # 12
In trading/investing, an understanding of mass psychology is often more
important than an understanding of economics.
Markets are, as we like to say, the sum total of the wisdom and stupidity
of all who trade in them, and they are collectively given over to the most
basic components of the collective psychology. The dot-com bubble was indeed
a bubble, but it grew from a small group to a larger group to the largest group,
collectively fed by mass mania, until it ended. The economists among us missed
the bull-run entirely, but that proves only that markets can indeed remain
irrational, and that economic fundamentals may eventually hold the day but
in the interim, psychology holds the moment.
And finally the most important rule of all:
THE RULE THAT SUMS UP THE REST
R U L E # 13
Do more of that which is working and do less of that which is not.
This is a simple rule in writing; this is a difficult rule to act upon. However,
it synthesizes all the modest wisdom we've accumulated over thirty years of
watching and trading in markets. Adding to a winning trade while cutting back
on losing trades is the one true rule that holds--and it holds in life as well
as in trading/investing.
If you would go to the golf course to play a tournament and find at the practice
tee that you are hitting the ball with a slight "left-to-right" tendency that
day, it would be best to take that notion out to the course rather than attempt
to re-work your swing. Doing more of what is working works on the golf course,
and it works in investing.
If you find that writing thank you notes, following the niceties of life that
are extended to you, gets you more niceties in the future, you should write
more thank you notes. If you find that being pleasant to those around you elicits
more pleasantness, then be more pleasant.
And if you find that cutting losses while letting profits run--or even more
directly, that cutting losses and adding to winning trades works best of all--then
that is the course of action you must take when trading/investing. Here in
our offices, as we trade for our own account, we constantly ask each other, "What's
working today, and what's not?" Then we try to the very best of our ability "to
do more of that which is working and less of that which is not." We've no set
rule on how much more or how much less we are to do, we know only that we are
to do "some" more of the former and "some" less of the latter. If our long
positions are up, we look at which of those long positions is doing us the
most good and we do more of that. If short positions are also up, we cut back
on that which is doing us the most ill. Our process is simple.
We are certain that great--even vast--holes can and will be proven in our
rules by doctoral candidates in business and economics, but we care not a whit,
for they work. They've proven so through time and under pressure. We try our
best to adhere to them.
This is what I have learned about the world of investing over three decades.
I try each day to stand by my rules. I fail miserably at times, for I break
them often, and when I do I lose money and mental capital, until such time
as I return to my rules and try my very best to hold strongly to them. The
losses incurred are the inevitable tithe I must make to the markets to atone
for my trading sins. I accept them, and I move on, but only after vowing that "I'll
never do that again."
Investing in Gold and Currencies
Speaking of trading, my good friend Chuck Butler at Everbank has a new CD
(Certificate of Deposit) whose rate is tied to the increase in the price of
gold over five years. It is also 100% principal protected. So if gold for some
odd reason goes down, you still get your money back. You get all of the upside
and none of the downside and no storage fees or commissions. An FDIC insured
way to invest in gold. What will they think of next? You can also invest in
dozens of different foreign currencies and earn the interest in the currency
as well as the potential gain or loss on the actual currency itself. If you
want to diversify your portfolio out of the dollar, Everbank is an easy way
to do it. You can get Chuck directly at 800-926-4922. He also writes a free
fun daily letter which hits your email box every morning giving you updates
on currency movements. (Note: Everbank is a sponsor of my publisher.)
New York and London
Next week, I speak at the "Hedge Fund Incubation and Seeding Conference" on
January 30-31 in New York put on by Financial Research Associates. You can
get more info at www.frallc.com. I will
be in London February 12-16 and then will be back home for over two months
before the next planned trips, hoping to get a real jump on writing my next
book. Although I know there will be the usual last minute flights here and
there. I do need to get to Memphis soon.
Toronto was almost balmy and Miami is very warm and humid. I was quite pleased
with the progress we are making in being able to work in Canada. I now have
what is known as a Limited Market Dealer in Toronto, which essentially allows
my broker dealer to work there. In conjunction with my partners at Pro-Hedge,
we are making very good progress in being able to offer the hedge funds and
private offerings we work with to Canada. I am meeting in Miami with my new
partners EFG and a number of the international team. We will soon be able to
work with accredited investors in Latin America, the Mid-East and most of Asia.
It is an exciting time and very busy.
If you would like to know more about these services, and of course if you
are in the US (where I work with my partners Altegris Investments), you can
go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and
see how we help investors. (In this regard, I am president and a registered
representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member NASD.)
It is getting time to go to my next speech. Have a great week!
Your really liking Miami analyst,
|