Re: commentary on indicators


Apr 8, 2012

 


----------------------------

#20094 Apr 8, 2012

Fellow Board Members,



Consumer installment credit for February (not seasonally adjusted)

increased 4% year-over-year, which continues to show an improving

economy. The current correction in stocks appears to be routine, in my

opinion.



Most television commentators now advise investing in US stocks rather

than bonds. In addition, Barron's recently ran a cover story, something

to the effect of Dow 15,000 in the future. I interpret both of these to

mean that the easy money has been made in the US stock market. The Fed

has become less accommodative over the last month in that no new actions

have been taken to boost the economy. However, the Fed is hardly trying

to put the brakes on the economy either.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#22665 Sep 15, 2012

Fellow Board Members,



As you might have noticed, I have reduced the frequency of reporting the

stock indicator produced by the model that I monitor. It is a variation

on the Zweig model with what I consider to be a broader Fed indicator

and a longer term and vastly superior trend indicator.



Here is the latest reading: Gangbusters!



The performance of the stock market in the short term is highly

vulnerable to event risk (e.g., the looming fiscal cliff and most

importantly, the anxiety produced by the manner of reporting on it by

the new media). For the risk averse, perhaps the way to read my

indicator is that a severe swoon due to a negative event or the

culmination of high anxiety might produce a good buying opportunity.

Perhaps waiting for such a negative event before allocating to stocks is

the best strategy for those who are risk averse.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#22666 Sep 15, 2012

In other words, Marty says "Don't Fight the Fed!"



("Don't fight the Fed" was Martin Zweig's famous stock

market adage. Successful investors pay a lot of attention to it. It

means that when the central bank is easy, it's bullish for stocks.

And when the bank turns tight, it's bearish for stocks. Obviously,

the Bernanke Fed has recently increased its easy money policy.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

> As you might have noticed, I have reduced the frequency of reporting

the

> stock indicator produced by the model that I monitor. It is a

variation

> on the Zweig model with what I consider to be a broader Fed indicator

> and a longer term and vastly superior trend indicator.

>

> Here is the latest reading: Gangbusters!

>

> The performance of the stock market in the short term is highly

> vulnerable to event risk (e.g., the looming fiscal cliff and most

> importantly, the anxiety produced by the manner of reporting on it by

> the new media). For the risk averse, perhaps the way to read my

> indicator is that a severe swoon due to a negative event or the

> culmination of high anxiety might produce a good buying opportunity.

> Perhaps waiting for such a negative event before allocating to stocks

is

> the best strategy for those who are risk averse.

>

> Good luck,

> Tex

>



----------------------------

#22670 Sep 15, 2012

Looks like all the smart money is flowing into the S and C funds!!

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

> As you might have noticed, I have reduced the frequency of reporting the

> stock indicator produced by the model that I monitor. It is a variation

> on the Zweig model with what I consider to be a broader Fed indicator

> and a longer term and vastly superior trend indicator.

>

> Here is the latest reading: Gangbusters!

>

> The performance of the stock market in the short term is highly

> vulnerable to event risk (e.g., the looming fiscal cliff and most

> importantly, the anxiety produced by the manner of reporting on it by

> the new media). For the risk averse, perhaps the way to read my

> indicator is that a severe swoon due to a negative event or the

> culmination of high anxiety might produce a good buying opportunity.

> Perhaps waiting for such a negative event before allocating to stocks is

> the best strategy for those who are risk averse.

>

> Good luck,

> Tex

>



----------------------------

#23489 Nov 11, 2012

Fellow Board Members,



So far a routine correction, although my trend indicator is perilously

close to negative. A couple of items worthy of note:



(1) The Dow Jones Utility Index took a dive, of all things, hitting a

10-month low for COB Friday readings. I need to think about that one;

right off the bat, I find it unusual. One could guess that the

coal-fired plants will need to meet stricter standards under Obama. If

that is what caused this drop, then this statistic would say little

about the direction of stocks or bonds.



(2) The September Consumer Credit is up around 5% year-over-year. This

implies continued strength in the economy, but not overheating by any

means. So that is a good thing for the future.



One could also guess that investors are worried about the fiscal cliff

now that Obama has won, given that he wants to deal with the problem now

while Romney wanted to kick the can down the road, at least a few

months. So be it. One reason that I never worried about the long-term

(say 5-years or more) effects of the European "crisis" is that the most

basic goal of a government is to survive. So the European leaders will

never actually do something that will jeopardize that survival.



Let us now apply that "principle" to the fiscal cliff. Our government,

including its officials, also wishes to survive and so will not do

anything that will obviously threaten its survival. One can counter that

governments make mistakes and fail to foresee drastic consequences of

their respective actions. This is true. However, note that no one can

tell the future. Hence all of the dire predictions of severe inflation

(resulting from stimulative actions to avoid a depression or financial

collapse) have been dead wrong. Just compare an actual severe inflation,

e.g., the period of 1972-80. One thing at a time, please. We must have

some growth or an actual calamity before we have a massive inflation or

some similar drastic consequence of the Fed's actions or stimulus

programs.



So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over a

fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media

manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might very

well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.



Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.



Good luck,

Tex







----------------------------

#23491 Nov 11, 2012

I have to say I have no special knowledge or expertise, but common sense would seem to agree more towards Tex and indicate the immediate effects would be more related to media induced hysteria of a pending immediate disaster while the actual impact would be more long term in presenting itself. Say starting in a few weeks to a few months and building from there.While some, especially media types who have a need to keep the hysteria going, will say it's not a "fiscal slope" but��definitely��a "cliff", it seems to me as one who is decidedly an outsider that the scenario of "the world as we know it coming to an end" is overkill since, as we all know, the wheels of government move slowly (some would say "thank God!") and any changes as a result of no agreement by Jan 2 would take time to actually impact main street. ��

Of course the IRS could manage to get the new tax tables out to business and business could manage to get it implemented in a relatively short time. But remember, this is the first of the year and with tax season kicking in publishing and implementing new tax tables is not the only task at hand.

I don't see a shut down benefiting either side of the negotiating table and I know of nothing, maybe you do Sarah, in the Budget Control Act of 2011 that would precipitate that except in narrow areas as��delineated and specified��by the Act.

I would have to say one scenario��postulated��seems credible, that Republicans would withhold any agreement until after Jan 2 when a compromise could be reached allowing tax rates for those under the arbitrary $250K (is that gross or��taxable��income) to be reinstated and the rate for those above that negotiated to something between the current rates and the higher AFC (After Fiscal Cliff) rates. This allows Republicans to save "face" by not voting for a tax increase and gives the Democrats their tax increase on the so called wealthy.

Looked at rationally, if Republicans agree now to the gauntlet thrown down by the President, from the standpoint of a negotiator they lose their strength. They have nothing to gain and the President/Democrats gain a huge��negotiating��strength��by an agreement on just the "middle class tax".��

All that's not to say the markets wouldn't react, markedly, to the lack of agreement. But as we know, markets tend to begin pricing in these events early and historically we've all seen that when the event actually takes place, the market has already priced it in and on that day the market is less reactive than it was assumed. That is unless a sudden "agreement" changes things and the "priced in" market value is suddenly over/under the prognosticated value.

So my humble and uninformed (some might say very much so) assessment is that the market will, between now and January, continue price in the potential effects of a failed negotiation, it seems to be doing so even now, and (here's where I agree with Sarah) when, not if but when, an agreement is reached we'll see a "pop". The $64 (or is it now $64,000) question then is, how can we anticipate when that day will be and ITF accordingly beforehand? ��

Just food for thought.Steve



--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...> wrote:>> The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying> opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.> > IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think> would be viewed as bullish.> > I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will end up> much like Clinton's fight with the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s,> when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a> deal on the budget was worked out.> > I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are> going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal will> be worked out.> > After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.> > Let's see if I'm right. [;)]> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:> > > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over> a> > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media> > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might> very> > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.> >> > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.> >> > Good luck,> > Tex> >>



----------------------------

#23492 Nov 11, 2012

I also think we will be going over the cliff - but for a limited reason; repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Obama will consider it his right and the voter preference to raise those rates on the wealthy; and if the only way he can accomplish that is by "going over the cliff" while simultaneaously offering to roll it back on all except those over $250k he will do it.



And the republican house will have to consider whether it subsequently wants to lower the rates on most of population or just remaining obstinate the job creators

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...> wrote:

>

> The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying

> opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.

>

> IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think

> would be viewed as bullish.

>

> I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will end up

> much like Clinton's fight with the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s,

> when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a

> deal on the budget was worked out.

>

> I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are

> going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal will

> be worked out.

>

> After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.

>

> Let's see if I'm right. [;)]

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@> wrote:

>

> > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over

> a

> > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media

> > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might

> very

> > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.

> >

> > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.

> >

> > Good luck,

> > Tex

> >

>







----------------------------

#23493 Nov 11, 2012

The fiscal cliff doesn't benefit anyone.��

The question is, which side feels more pressure now,and which would feel more pressure if we go over the cliff.

IMHO, both sides currently feel equal pressure.�� Which means, I believe, stasis.

However, if the required cuts kick in, I believe that the Republicans willfeel more pressure to move based upon the hugely unacceptably military cuts,in addition to hearing from their constituents regarding tax increases and entitlements.

Again, I could be wrong.�� We'll see.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "stephenom@..." somont@...> wrote:>> I don't see a shut down benefiting either side of the negotiating table> and I know of nothing, maybe you do Sarah, in the Budget Control Act of> 2011 that would precipitate that except in narrow areas as delineated> and specified by the Act.> > > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@ wrote:> >> > The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying> > opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.> >> > IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think> > would be viewed as bullish.> >> > I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will end up> > much like Clinton's fight with the Republicans in Congress in the> 1990s,> > when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a> > deal on the budget was worked out.> >> > I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are> > going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal> will> > be worked out.> >> > After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.> >> > Let's see if I'm right. [;)]> >> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:> >> > > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going> over> > a> > > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media> > > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might> > very> > > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.> > >> > > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.> > >> > > Good luck,> > > Tex> > >> >>



----------------------------

#23494 Nov 11, 2012

I agree.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "rarch71" rarch71@...> wrote:

>

> I also think we will be going over the cliff - but for a limited

reason; repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Obama will consider

it his right and the voter preference to raise those rates on the

wealthy; and if the only way he can accomplish that is by "going over

the cliff" while simultaneaously offering to roll it back on all except

those over $250k he will do it.

>

> And the republican house will have to consider whether it subsequently

wants to lower the rates on most of population or just remaining

obstinate the job creators

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@ wrote:

> >

> > The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying

> > opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.

> >

> > IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't

think

> > would be viewed as bullish.

> >

> > I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will end up

> > much like Clinton's fight with the Republicans in Congress in the

1990s,

> > when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before

a

> > deal on the budget was worked out.

> >

> > I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are

> > going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal

will

> > be worked out.

> >

> > After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.

> >

> > Let's see if I'm right. [;)]

> >

> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@> wrote:

> >

> > > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going

over

> > a

> > > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media

> > > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect

might

> > very

> > > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.

> > >

> > > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.

> > >

> > > Good luck,

> > > Tex

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#23497 Nov 12, 2012

Sarah,

Note that I said "the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over a fiscal cliff..." Sorry for the awkward wording. What I meant was just the effect of the worry over the deadline. I believe that the government will not allow us to go over the cliff for reasons that I gave in the post. So, in my opinion, the only effect that the deadline and the media hype could�� have would be to cause a sell off by those wishing to avoid any risk whatsoever -- hence a buying opportunity.

So let me be clear. My strongest expectation is that we will not go over the cliff and therefore that this situation at most could provide a buying opportunity due to pre-deadline panic.

As I indicated in the previous post, my expectations are not fact. Each person should assess his or her own level of risk aversion and form his or her own strategy for dealing with the "fiscal cliff" deadline.

Just giving my opinion.

Regards,Tex

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...> wrote:>> The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying> opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.> > IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think> would be viewed as bullish.> > I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will end up> much like Clinton's fight with the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s,> when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a> deal on the budget was worked out.> > I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are> going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal will> be worked out.> > After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.> > Let's see if I'm right. [;)]> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:> > > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over> a> > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media> > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might> very> > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.> >> > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.> >> > Good luck,> > Tex> >>







----------------------------

#23498 Nov 12, 2012

I know very little about the markets, butit seems to me that the only way our government can ���survive��� thepending crisis is for Obama to let us go over the so-called ���cliff���.Thanks to Grover Norquist and his pledge, the Republicans cannot vote to raisetaxes. They have shown repeatedly that they will not compromise, so the onlyhammer the President has is the cliff. Bush era tax cuts end, revenues are increasedand realistic cuts in entitlements and defense spending can be implemented. Ijust don���t see any other way. ��The inconvenient thing is that we hit thecliff about two weeks after Congress adjourns and 3 weeks before the newCongress starts. ��Michael ��

From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com[mailto:TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com] OnBehalf Of Tex

Sent: Monday, November 12, 20128:56 AM

To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [TSP_Strategy] Re:commentary on indicators

���� Sarah,



Note that I said "the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over a fiscalcliff..." Sorry for the awkward wording. What I meant was just the effectof the worry over the deadline. I believe that the government will not allow usto go over the cliff for reasons that I gave in the post. So, in my opinion,the only effect that the deadline and the media hype could�� have would beto cause a sell off by those wishing to avoid any risk whatsoever -- hence abuying opportunity.



So let me be clear. My strongest expectation is that we will not go over thecliff and therefore that this situation at most could provide a buyingopportunity due to pre-deadline panic.



As I indicated in the previous post, my expectations are not fact. Each personshould assess his or her own level of risk aversion and form his or her ownstrategy for dealing with the "fiscal cliff" deadline.



Just giving my opinion.



Regards,

Tex



--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...>wrote:

>

> The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying

> opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.

>

> IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think

> would be viewed as bullish.

>

> I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario will

end up > much like Clinton 's

fight with the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s, > when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a

> deal on the budget was worked out.

>

> I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are

> going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal will

> be worked out.

>

> After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.

>

> Let's see if I'm right. [;)]

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "

w:st="onTex " mrweyl@ wrote: >

> > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going

over > a

> > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media

> > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might

> very

> > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.

> >

> > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.

> >

> > Good luck,

> > Tex

> >

>



----------------------------

#23522 Nov 13, 2012

My personal opinion is that President Obama blinked when he signed the bill to extend tax cuts in 2010. That allowed us to get to the point that we are at now. If he had allowed the tax increases at that time, the Republicans would have had to compromise for a new budget.

Allen

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Michael Smart msmart@...> wrote:

.I know very little about the markets, butit seems to me that the only way our government can .survive. thepending crisis is for Obama to let us go over the so-called .cliff..Thanks to Grover Norquist and his pledge, the Republicans cannot vote to raisetaxes. They have shown repeatedly that they will not compromise, so the onlyhammer the President has is the cliff. Bush era tax cuts end, revenues are increasedand realistic cuts in entitlements and defense spending can be implemented. Ijust don.t see any other way..The inconvenient thing is that we hit thecliff about two weeks after Congress adjourns and 3 weeks before the newCongress starts. .Michael.

From: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com[mailto:TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com] OnBehalf Of Tex

Sent: Monday, November 12, 20128:56 AM

To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [TSP_Strategy] Re:commentary on indicators

.. Sarah,



Note that I said "the most extreme effect of the possibility of our going over a fiscalcliff..." Sorry for the awkward wording. What I meant was just the effectof the worry over the deadline. I believe that the government will not allow usto go over the cliff for reasons that I gave in the post. So, in my opinion,the only effect that the deadline and the media hype could. have would beto cause a sell off by those wishing to avoid any risk whatsoever -- hence abuying opportunity.



So let me be clear. My strongest expectation is that we will not go over thecliff and therefore that this situation at most could provide a buyingopportunity due to pre-deadline panic.



As I indicated in the previous post, my expectations are not fact. Each personshould assess his or her own level of risk aversion and form his or her ownstrategy for dealing with the "fiscal cliff" deadline.



Just giving my opinion.



Regards,

Tex



--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...>wrote:

>

> The most extreme negative of going over the cliff is a buying

> opportunity caused by a media manufactured panic? I don't agree.

>

> IMHO, it would dramatically increase unemployment, which I don't think

> would be viewed as bullish.

>

> I'm beginning to think that this "fiscal cliff" scenario willend up

> much like Clinton'sfight with the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s,

> when the government apparently had to go through a shut down before a

> deal on the budget was worked out.

>

> I believe that the most likely scenario at this point is that we are

> going over the cliff, but shortly thereafter (a day or tw0), a deal will

> be worked out.

>

> After the deal is worked out, the markets will rally.

>

> Let's see if I'm right. [;)]

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:

>

> > So to me, the most extreme effect of the possibility of our goingover

> a

> > fiscal cliff seems to be a buying opportunity caused by a media

> > manufactured panic. On the other hand, the most likely effect might

> very

> > well be a week or two of negative stock market performance.

> >

> > Just my opinion. I am often wrong and always too slow to act.

> >

> > Good luck,

> > Tex

> >

>







----------------------------

#23611 Nov 17, 2012

Fellow Board Members,



For Friday COB prices, new lows (at least 6 months): Dow Transportation

Index, Dow Utility Index, and the three-month treasury bill (!). My

several-month and several-week trend indicators are bearish and the

2-week advance decline is 1/2.6 (strongly downward). My inflation

indicator was updated and still reads as low.



Clearly this has been a rapid downturn reminiscent of August 2011 (debt

ceiling negotiations). For this reason, I am still reading this as a

garden variety downturn. Who knows?



As I have said several times, our slow-growing economy would be severely

impeded by an attempt to balance the budget over a year or two. That

would take significant money out of the economy at the very worst time.

The thing to remember is that the economy is not an oscillating system;

instead it is nonlinear. Such systems can "break." A broken economy in

the face of future deterioration of the weather would be disastrous. The

attempt to balance the budget quickly in 1937 caused a resumption of the

depression. As you may remember a disastrous drought also took place in

the 1930s.



I believe that Congress knows this and that our politicians want to be

re-elected. If those assumptions are correct, a deal on the

sequestration should be structured to phase in gradually and especially

not to deflate the money supply in 2013. We shall see.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#23616 Nov 18, 2012

IMHO, we should have 1-2 more down weeks before moving back up.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "scsi_guru" scsi_guru@...> wrote:

>

> Tex,

>

> Thanks for the updated commentary! However, this sounds like we might

be facing a downward trend for quite a while. Are you considering

moving to safer ground?

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:

> >

> > Fellow Board Members,

> >

> > For Friday COB prices, new lows (at least 6 months): Dow

Transportation

> > Index, Dow Utility Index, and the three-month treasury bill (!). My

> > several-month and several-week trend indicators are bearish and the

> > 2-week advance decline is 1/2.6 (strongly downward). My inflation

> > indicator was updated and still reads as low.

> >

> > Clearly this has been a rapid downturn reminiscent of August 2011

(debt

> > ceiling negotiations). For this reason, I am still reading this as a

> > garden variety downturn. Who knows?

> >

> > As I have said several times, our slow-growing economy would be

severely

> > impeded by an attempt to balance the budget over a year or two.

That

> > would take significant money out of the economy at the very worst

time.

> > The thing to remember is that the economy is not an oscillating

system;

> > instead it is nonlinear. Such systems can "break." A broken economy

in

> > the face of future deterioration of the weather would be disastrous.

The

> > attempt to balance the budget quickly in 1937 caused a resumption of

the

> > depression. As you may remember a disastrous drought also took place

in

> > the 1930s.

> >

> > I believe that Congress knows this and that our politicians want to

be

> > re-elected. If those assumptions are correct, a deal on the

> > sequestration should be structured to phase in gradually and

especially

> > not to deflate the money supply in 2013. We shall see.

> >

> > Good luck,

> > Tex

> >

>



----------------------------

#23617 Nov 18, 2012

There were also two very devastating floods in the Northeast in the 1930s.�� 1. FLOOD OF MARCH 1936

2. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938CAT 3 - September 21, 1938



��

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

>The attempt to balance the budget quickly in 1937 caused a resumption of the

> depression. As you may remember a disastrous drought also took place in

> the 1930s.

>

> Tex

>



----------------------------

#23728 Nov 25, 2012

Fellow Board Members,



Just a couple of items: The Dow Jones Utility Index continued to another

6-month low for COB Friday prices and my momentum indicators were very

strongly positive. I don't know if this change will carry through to the

new trading week. Gold is not far from 6-month highs and copper is doing

somewhat better.



I am curious as to why the Utility index has continued downward;

however, I have not given this any thought. Any ideas would be welcome.



I continue to see the recent decline in stocks as a garden variety

correction in a strengthening bull market. My guess prior to the

election was that the economy is about to pop upward big time and that

the winner of the election would be the beneficiary. A government

failure to avert the fiscal cliff would certainly change my positive

expectation.



Good luck.

Tex



----------------------------

#23729 Nov 25, 2012

I agree that the bull market continues long term, but for the US stock

market only.



I don't see the I fund moving significantly higher, largely due to a

strengthening USD.



The strengthening of the USD should increase after the fiscal cliff

issues are resolved.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

> Just a couple of items: The Dow Jones Utility Index continued to

another

> 6-month low for COB Friday prices and my momentum indicators were very

> strongly positive. I don't know if this change will carry through to

the

> new trading week. Gold is not far from 6-month highs and copper is

doing

> somewhat better.

>

> I am curious as to why the Utility index has continued downward;

> however, I have not given this any thought. Any ideas would be

welcome.

>

> I continue to see the recent decline in stocks as a garden variety

> correction in a strengthening bull market. My guess prior to the

> election was that the economy is about to pop upward big time and that

> the winner of the election would be the beneficiary. A government

> failure to avert the fiscal cliff would certainly change my positive

> expectation.

>

> Good luck.

> Tex

>







----------------------------

#23730 Nov 25, 2012

Hi TexI can't resist guessing.One would think that utilities should be bullish with all the optimism surrounding future US oil supply?..Cheaper fuels, more consumption, higher profits for utilities.

Perhaps the worries about continued conflagration in Gaza? Doubt .about the resolution/effects of the fiscal cliff? New environmental legislation on carbon emissions? .Higher taxes on Big Oil (who will pass the costs to utilities) as part of a budget deal?

Maybe utilities had all their PAC money on red, and they are anticipating less than sympathetic pricing regulation policies?

maybe just a funky contrarian head fake? (explains the inexplicable)

Thanks for making me think :)



----------------------------

#24866 Jan 20, 2013

Just a note. By my accounting, using COB Friday prices, the Dow Theory

flashed a buy signal on January 18. In addition my several-month stock

trend indicator is strongly upward as is the several-week indicator..

Last week the 2-week advance/decline indicator showed strong upward

momentum.



Regards,

Tex



which is not as painstaking nor precise as devout followers of the Dow

Theory,



----------------------------

#24870 Jan 20, 2013

Thank you kindly TexI'll have to consider giving my equity % a modest upward tweak :)

Sara



----------------------------

#25235 Feb 2, 2013

Nothing new here. The stock investment model that I follow is extremely

bullish. However, I do not expect it to flash a sell at the ultimate top

of the market. That is, by design, it speaks to prices around 6. - 18

months out relative to current prices. Sorry if this seems confusing.



Personally I find multiyear highs to be a very good time to take some

money off of the table. I have not done that yet.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#25830 Feb 23, 2013

Fellow Board Members,



Of some interest: for the past 6 months for COB Friday prices: 3-month

Tbill yields hit a high, Gold hit a low, and the dollar hit a high.

Momentum has been flat but my several week and several month trend

indicators are still positive.



For December, the unadjusted consumer debt level increased 6% year over

year.



One last thing. The passing of Martin Zweig was a very sad event for me.

Even though various articles indicated that he had stopped his

newsletter because technology had passed him by, the greatest values of

his work, in my opinion, were as follows:



(1) He gives the amateur investor a rationale for managing the

allocation to stocks and for staying with the market over time periods

of six months or longer, when conditions are well behaved. In other

words, he gave us the ability to ignore the daily noise and to interpret

the mountain of data now produced.



(2) He gives signals for getting out of the market when the situation is

becoming dangerous or unstable. His signals have been around for a few

decades now, so that many market operators do not know or understand

them and many will spend a lot of time rationalizing them away. They

still work in my opinion. These signals by nature only occur every few

years and are therefore easily forgotten and require a great deal of

discipline on the part of the person monitoring them.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#25832 Feb 23, 2013

Tex�������������� Sorry for your loss.�� All we have to do is watch you, to know what Marty would do.



To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.comFrom: mrweyl@...Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:20:02 +0000Subject: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

��Fellow Board Members,



Of some interest: for the past 6 months for COB Friday prices: 3-month

Tbill yields hit a high, Gold hit a low, and the dollar hit a high.

Momentum has been flat but my several week and several month trend

indicators are still positive.



For December, the unadjusted consumer debt level increased 6% year over

year.



One last thing. The passing of Martin Zweig was a very sad event for me.

Even though various articles indicated that he had stopped his

newsletter because technology had passed him by, the greatest values of

his work, in my opinion, were as follows:



(1) He gives the amateur investor a rationale for managing the

allocation to stocks and for staying with the market over time periods

of six months or longer, when conditions are well behaved. In other

words, he gave us the ability to ignore the daily noise and to interpret

the mountain of data now produced.



(2) He gives signals for getting out of the market when the situation is

becoming dangerous or unstable. His signals have been around for a few

decades now, so that many market operators do not know or understand

them and many will spend a lot of time rationalizing them away. They

still work in my opinion. These signals by nature only occur every few

years and are therefore easily forgotten and require a great deal of

discipline on the part of the person monitoring them.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#25833 Feb 23, 2013

No. Tex isn't Marty. You should read Winning on Wall Street to

understand Marty.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Krejmas pocono13@...> wrote:

>

> Tex

> Sorry for your loss. All we have to do is watch you, to know

what Marty would do.

>

>

> To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com

> From: mrweyl@...

> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:20:02 +0000

> Subject: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

>

>

> Of some interest: for the past 6 months for COB Friday prices: 3-month

>

> Tbill yields hit a high, Gold hit a low, and the dollar hit a high.

>

> Momentum has been flat but my several week and several month trend

>

> indicators are still positive.

>

>

>

> For December, the unadjusted consumer debt level increased 6% year

over

>

> year.

>

>

>

> One last thing. The passing of Martin Zweig was a very sad event for

me.

>

> Even though various articles indicated that he had stopped his

>

> newsletter because technology had passed him by, the greatest values

of

>

> his work, in my opinion, were as follows:

>

>

>

> (1) He gives the amateur investor a rationale for managing the

>

> allocation to stocks and for staying with the market over time periods

>

> of six months or longer, when conditions are well behaved. In other

>

> words, he gave us the ability to ignore the daily noise and to

interpret

>

> the mountain of data now produced.

>

>

>

> (2) He gives signals for getting out of the market when the situation

is

>

> becoming dangerous or unstable. His signals have been around for a few

>

> decades now, so that many market operators do not know or understand

>

> them and many will spend a lot of time rationalizing them away. They

>

> still work in my opinion. These signals by nature only occur every few

>

> years and are therefore easily forgotten and require a great deal of

>

> discipline on the part of the person monitoring them.

>

>

>

> Good luck,

>

> Tex

>







----------------------------

#25834 Feb 23, 2013

Tex isn't Marty and he is glad that he is not dead!!!�� However, he uses a modified Marty system.



To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.comFrom: sarah_oz@...Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:55:29 +0000Subject: [TSP_Strategy] Re: commentary on indicators

��No. Tex isn't Marty. You should read Winning on Wall Street to

understand Marty.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Krejmas wrote:

>

> Tex

> Sorry for your loss. All we have to do is watch you, to know

what Marty would do.

>

>

> To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com

> From: mrweyl@...

> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 20:20:02 +0000

> Subject: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

>

>

> Of some interest: for the past 6 months for COB Friday prices: 3-month

>

> Tbill yields hit a high, Gold hit a low, and the dollar hit a high.

>

> Momentum has been flat but my several week and several month trend

>

> indicators are still positive.

>

>

>

> For December, the unadjusted consumer debt level increased 6% year

over

>

> year.

>

>

>

> One last thing. The passing of Martin Zweig was a very sad event for

me.

>

> Even though various articles indicated that he had stopped his

>

> newsletter because technology had passed him by, the greatest values

of

>

> his work, in my opinion, were as follows:

>

>

>

> (1) He gives the amateur investor a rationale for managing the

>

> allocation to stocks and for staying with the market over time periods

>

> of six months or longer, when conditions are well behaved. In other

>

> words, he gave us the ability to ignore the daily noise and to

interpret

>

> the mountain of data now produced.

>

>

>

> (2) He gives signals for getting out of the market when the situation

is

>

> becoming dangerous or unstable. His signals have been around for a few

>

> decades now, so that many market operators do not know or understand

>

> them and many will spend a lot of time rationalizing them away. They

>

> still work in my opinion. These signals by nature only occur every few

>

> years and are therefore easily forgotten and require a great deal of

>

> discipline on the part of the person monitoring them.

>

>

>

> Good luck,

>

> Tex

>



----------------------------

#26160 Mar 3 2:34 PM

Regarding my stock indicators, I see no change although the trend

indicators are moderately upward rather than strongly so. Gold hit

another 6-month low, but I would hardly call this a bear market. The

dollar has hit another 6-month high.



Government bond yields continue to be historically low. Without a

crisis, I continue to expect bond yields to move upward and prices to

move downward. The media have now recognized that stocks have been in a

bull market for four years. In this climate the best way to mitigate

risk in the TSP appears to be holding some cash (i.e., G fund). I

currently hold very little cash in my overall portfolio and none in the

TSP. I believe that this is a bad idea for a risk averse investor and

probably for any investor.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#26162 Mar 3 3:13 PM

Tex���������� So, its hard to understand why your situation does not make you a little more risk averse yourself.



To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.comFrom: mrweyl@...Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 22:34:13 +0000Subject: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

��Regarding my stock indicators, I see no change although the trend

indicators are moderately upward rather than strongly so. Gold hit

another 6-month low, but I would hardly call this a bear market. The

dollar has hit another 6-month high.



Government bond yields continue to be historically low. Without a

crisis, I continue to expect bond yields to move upward and prices to

move downward. The media have now recognized that stocks have been in a

bull market for four years. In this climate the best way to mitigate

risk in the TSP appears to be holding some cash (i.e., G fund). I

currently hold very little cash in my overall portfolio and none in the

TSP. I believe that this is a bad idea for a risk averse investor and

probably for any investor.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#26166 Mar 3 10:57 PM

Tex, my reserves are in VFSTX and I am not really worried about the tax implications with that. My thoughts are that this won't be very rate sensitive with higher interest rates in the future. Am I right to assume that?AllenOn Mar 4, 2013 8:13 AM, "Bruce Krejmas" pocono13@...> wrote:

.Tex..... So, its hard to understand why your situation does not make you a little more risk averse yourself.



To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com

From: mrweyl@...Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 22:34:13 +0000Subject: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

.Regarding my stock indicators, I see no change although the trend

indicators are moderately upward rather than strongly so. Gold hit

another 6-month low, but I would hardly call this a bear market. The

dollar has hit another 6-month high.



Government bond yields continue to be historically low. Without a

crisis, I continue to expect bond yields to move upward and prices to

move downward. The media have now recognized that stocks have been in a

bull market for four years. In this climate the best way to mitigate

risk in the TSP appears to be holding some cash (i.e., G fund). I

currently hold very little cash in my overall portfolio and none in the

TSP. I believe that this is a bad idea for a risk averse investor and

probably for any investor.



Good luck,

Tex







----------------------------

#26468 Mar 10 5:12 PM

Fellow Board Members,



For what it is worth, my stock indicators are simultaneously at their

strongest levels, for the first time in over thirty years that I have

been paying attention. I have no time for further comment, which is

good, because I have no coherent thoughts about this at the moment.



A transition from fear to greed is probably underway. Caveat emptor, as

some people say.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#26469 Mar 11 5:02 AM

Would you like to expound a little more on such a broad statement?

ThxJB

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2013, at 8:12 PM, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:



��Fellow Board Members,



For what it is worth, my stock indicators are simultaneously at their

strongest levels, for the first time in over thirty years that I have

been paying attention. I have no time for further comment, which is

good, because I have no coherent thoughts about this at the moment.



A transition from fear to greed is probably underway. Caveat emptor, as

some people say.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#26473 Mar 11 6:58 AM

Thanks for the info Tex. It all helps calm the butterflies as one tries to get in and out of the markets at the best time.



Di

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Fellow Board Members,

>

> For what it is worth, my stock indicators are simultaneously at their

> strongest levels, for the first time in over thirty years that I have

> been paying attention. I have no time for further comment, which is

> good, because I have no coherent thoughts about this at the moment.

>

> A transition from fear to greed is probably underway. Caveat emptor, as

> some people say.

>

> Good luck,

> Tex

>



----------------------------

#26493 Mar 11 6:44 PM

I run a personally modified version of the Zweig stock investment model. The original version is described in Martin Zweig's book, Winning on Wall Street, written about 20 years ago.�� You can find it at the library. Right now, everything in the model is at an extreme positive level.�� The Fed indicator might move lower in the near future, but will still be very positive.

My contrarian view is that extreme readings mark turning points. However, this is directly opposite to Zweig's philosophy, which does not identify turning points precisely.

Hope that this helps.Tex

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, JB Dial jbdial1515@...> wrote:>> Would you like to expound a little more on such a broad statement?> > Thx> JB> > Sent from my iPhone> > On Mar 10, 2013, at 8:12 PM, "Tex" mrweyl@... wrote:> > > Fellow Board Members,> > > > For what it is worth, my stock indicators are simultaneously at their> > strongest levels, for the first time in over thirty years that I have> > been paying attention. I have no time for further comment, which is> > good, because I have no coherent thoughts about this at the moment.> > > > A transition from fear to greed is probably underway. Caveat emptor, as> > some people say.> > > > Good luck,> > Tex> > > >>



----------------------------

#27118 Apr 6, 2013

Fellow Board Members,



Regarding my stock investment model, not much has changed. The trend

indicators have deteriorated in line with the small decline in major

indexes. The 10-year treasury rate decreased significantly, which I

would attribute to the Cyprus situation and the disappointing jobs

report on Friday. However, this presently appears to be an overreaction.

I have detected no remarkable news on which to base a change in asset

allocation, at least for my own portfolio.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#28483 Jun 2, 2013

Fellow Board Members,



The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the 10-year

treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last 6

months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a several-month

time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around 2.40%. If

we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative way

for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).



Meanwhile, good luck.

Tex



----------------------------

#28484 Jun 2, 2013

TexIt sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting soon. That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about 6.5%. The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury yield resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement)..

Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts, tuned for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue for at least that long.Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based factor analytic model? .Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on leading economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?.



Thanks for sharing,

Sara



----------------------------

#28485 Jun 2, 2013

Is Sara speaking English?�� Now I need to print out and do some internet research.�� :-)�� I am slowly learning!�� Thanks guys!

��Gayle����



----------------------------

#28500 Jun 3, 2013

my interpretation of tex's analysis... as the yields on 10yr treasury moves above inflation rate (CPI) and continues to rise, money will first begin to flow out of bonds then

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android







From:

Gayle Taylor dollhousefreak@...>;

To:

TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>;

Subject:

Re: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

Sent:

Sun, Jun 2, 2013 9:18:17 PM



��Is Sara speaking English?�� Now I need to print out and do some internet research.�� :-)�� I am slowly learning!�� Thanks guys!

��Gayle����







----------------------------

#28509 Jun 3, 2013

Thanks Andrew!�� :-)��Gayle����



----------------------------

#28510 Jun 3, 2013

This has been on-going...money flowing out of bonds....

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Gayle Taylor dollhousefreak@...> wrote:

>

> Thanks Andrew!.. :-)

>

>

> Gayle

>

> ..

>

>

---------------

> From: Andrew Rodney andrew_g_rodney@...>

> To: "TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com" TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>; "dollhousefreak@..." dollhousefreak@...>

> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 11:37 AM

> Subject: Re: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

>

>

> ..

>

> my interpretation of tex's analysis... as the yields on 10yr treasury moves above inflation rate (CPI) and continues to rise, money will first begin to flow out of bonds then

>

> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

>

>

---------------

> From: Gayle Taylor dollhousefreak@...>; To: TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>; Subject: Re: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators Sent: Sun, Jun 2, 2013 9:18:17 PM

> ..

> Is Sara speaking English?.. Now I need to print out and do some internet research... :-).. I am slowly learning!.. Thanks guys!

>

>

> Gayle

>

> ..

>

---------------

> From: Sara Wetherbee sara.saracuda@...>

> To: TSP_Strategy TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:43 PM

> Subject: Re: [TSP_Strategy] commentary on indicators

>

> ..

> Tex

> It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting soon. That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about 6.5%. The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury yield resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement)...

> Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts, tuned for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue for at least that long.

> Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based factor analytic model? ..Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on leading economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?..

> Thanks for sharing,

> Sara

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> >..

> >Fellow Board Members,The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the 10-yeartreasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last 6months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a several-monthtime scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around 2.40%. Ifwe exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative wayfor bonds and eventually negative for stocks).Meanwhile, good luck.Tex

>



----------------------------

#28512 Jun 3, 2013

Sara,



My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond yields

is based entirely on a five-year chart.



My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he described

in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator with

one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar several-week

trend indicator for my own entertainment.



I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

factor in what the Fed actually does.



Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have been

working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future ozone

levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure statisticians

are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in tightly

defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with time,

as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few weeks or

longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable applications,

especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed, fundamentally

speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

economic systems.



Hope that this helps.

Tex

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

>

> Tex

> It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

soon.

> That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core

> inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about

6.5%.

> The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

yield

> resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

>

> In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

>

> Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts,

tuned

> for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue

for

> at least that long.

> Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based

factor

> analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

leading

> economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

>

> Thanks for sharing,

>

> Sara

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@... wrote:

>

> > **

> >

> >

> > Fellow Board Members,

> >

> > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

10-year

> > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last

6

> > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

several-month

> > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

2.40%. If

> > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative

way

> > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> >

> > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > Tex

> >

> >

> >

>







----------------------------

#28524 Jun 4, 2013

How could something positive be made out of that prediction? Purchase an ETF that shorts treasuries (PST) ? If so, would you purchase it now, maybe get out as it nears 2.4%, or get in if it breaks 2.4%?



Trying to figure out what to do with some non-TSP cash...

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:

>

> Sara,

>

> My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond yields

> is based entirely on a five-year chart.

>

> My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he described

> in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator with

> one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

> addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar several-week

> trend indicator for my own entertainment.

>

> I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

> better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

> factor in what the Fed actually does.

>

> Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have been

> working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future ozone

> levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure statisticians

> are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in tightly

> defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with time,

> as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few weeks or

> longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable applications,

> especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed, fundamentally

> speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

> economic systems.

>

> Hope that this helps.

> Tex

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

> >

> > Tex

> > It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

> soon.

> > That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core

> > inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about

> 6.5%.

> > The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

> yield

> > resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> >

> > In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

> >

> > Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts,

> tuned

> > for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue

> for

> > at least that long.

> > Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based

> factor

> > analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

> leading

> > economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

> >

> > Thanks for sharing,

> >

> > Sara

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@ wrote:

> >

> > > **

> > >

> > >

> > > Fellow Board Members,

> > >

> > > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

> 10-year

> > > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last

> 6

> > > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

> several-month

> > > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

> 2.40%. If

> > > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative

> way

> > > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> > >

> > > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > > Tex

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#28526 Jun 4, 2013

Interesting question with a complex answer.



I did not actually make a prediction. However, a longer term view held

by such people as Warren Buffett is that bonds have an awful prognosis

long-term (years). People have been thinking that for a few years and so

far it has not panned out.



My point was more about stocks. High interest rates have been a negative

for stocks and low rates like those that we have had for several years

have obviously been very good for stocks.



My other point is that one might consider moving out of bond funds

(e.g., the F Fund) and staying out for several years, instead holding

the fixed income allocation in the G fund. This would seem especially

appropriate for the risk averse passive investor.



I have considered buying an ETF whose price moves opposite to prices on

long term bonds (or moves in the same direction as yields). However,

those instruments are usually more appropriate for short-term trading

and can produce asymmetrical results for up and down moves over the long

term. One could short a long-term bond ETF as a multiyear trade, but

maintaining the short for a long time could be difficult, either

psychologically or mechanically.



Short-term trading requires a more precise idea of when or how

particular events will take place. The strategy you suggest seems

appropriate for shorter-term traders, which I am not. In fact I have

never owned a short position. Properly executed, either alternative that

you mention seems reasonable.



Hope that this helps.

Tex

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" wrote:

>

> How could something positive be made out of that prediction? Purchase

an ETF that shorts treasuries (PST) ? If so, would you purchase it now,

maybe get out as it nears 2.4%, or get in if it breaks 2.4%?

>

> Trying to figure out what to do with some non-TSP cash...

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:

> >

> > Sara,

> >

> > My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond

yields

> > is based entirely on a five-year chart.

> >

> > My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he

described

> > in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator

with

> > one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

> > addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar

several-week

> > trend indicator for my own entertainment.

> >

> > I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

> > better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

> > factor in what the Fed actually does.

> >

> > Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have

been

> > working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future

ozone

> > levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure

statisticians

> > are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in

tightly

> > defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with

time,

> > as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few

weeks or

> > longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable

applications,

> > especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed,

fundamentally

> > speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

> > economic systems.

> >

> > Hope that this helps.

> > Tex

> >

> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

> > >

> > > Tex

> > > It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

> > soon.

> > > That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI

core

> > > inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above

about

> > 6.5%.

> > > The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

> > yield

> > > resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> > >

> > > In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

> > >

> > > Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous

posts,

> > tuned

> > > for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will

continue

> > for

> > > at least that long.

> > > Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly

based

> > factor

> > > analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

> > leading

> > > economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

> > >

> > > Thanks for sharing,

> > >

> > > Sara

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@ wrote:

> > >

> > > > **

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Fellow Board Members,

> > > >

> > > > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

> > 10-year

> > > > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the

last

> > 6

> > > > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

> > several-month

> > > > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

> > 2.40%. If

> > > > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a

negative

> > way

> > > > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> > > >

> > > > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > > > Tex

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







----------------------------

#28528 Jun 4, 2013

There are leveraged ETFs that short treasuries also.



Personally, I don't think that they offer that much.

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" rcstonermdaf@...> wrote:

>

> How could something positive be made out of that prediction? Purchase an ETF that shorts treasuries (PST) ? If so, would you purchase it now, maybe get out as it nears 2.4%, or get in if it breaks 2.4%?

>

> Trying to figure out what to do with some non-TSP cash...

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@> wrote:

> >

> > Sara,

> >

> > My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond yields

> > is based entirely on a five-year chart.

> >

> > My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he described

> > in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator with

> > one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

> > addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar several-week

> > trend indicator for my own entertainment.

> >

> > I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

> > better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

> > factor in what the Fed actually does.

> >

> > Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have been

> > working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future ozone

> > levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure statisticians

> > are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in tightly

> > defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with time,

> > as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few weeks or

> > longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable applications,

> > especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed, fundamentally

> > speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

> > economic systems.

> >

> > Hope that this helps.

> > Tex

> >

> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

> > >

> > > Tex

> > > It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

> > soon.

> > > That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core

> > > inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about

> > 6.5%.

> > > The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

> > yield

> > > resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> > >

> > > In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

> > >

> > > Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts,

> > tuned

> > > for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue

> > for

> > > at least that long.

> > > Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based

> > factor

> > > analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

> > leading

> > > economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

> > >

> > > Thanks for sharing,

> > >

> > > Sara

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@ wrote:

> > >

> > > > **

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Fellow Board Members,

> > > >

> > > > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

> > 10-year

> > > > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last

> > 6

> > > > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

> > several-month

> > > > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

> > 2.40%. If

> > > > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative

> > way

> > > > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> > > >

> > > > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > > > Tex

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#28529 Jun 4, 2013

R we ready to switch to G fund or wait upto the end of the week?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 4, 2013, at 11:23, "Tex" mrweyl@...> wrote:



��Interesting question with a complex answer.



I did not actually make a prediction. However, a longer term view held

by such people as Warren Buffett is that bonds have an awful prognosis

long-term (years). People have been thinking that for a few years and so

far it has not panned out.



My point was more about stocks. High interest rates have been a negative

for stocks and low rates like those that we have had for several years

have obviously been very good for stocks.



My other point is that one might consider moving out of bond funds

(e.g., the F Fund) and staying out for several years, instead holding

the fixed income allocation in the G fund. This would seem especially

appropriate for the risk averse passive investor.



I have considered buying an ETF whose price moves opposite to prices on

long term bonds (or moves in the same direction as yields). However,

those instruments are usually more appropriate for short-term trading

and can produce asymmetrical results for up and down moves over the long

term. One could short a long-term bond ETF as a multiyear trade, but

maintaining the short for a long time could be difficult, either

psychologically or mechanically.



Short-term trading requires a more precise idea of when or how

particular events will take place. The strategy you suggest seems

appropriate for shorter-term traders, which I am not. In fact I have

never owned a short position. Properly executed, either alternative that

you mention seems reasonable.



Hope that this helps.

Tex



--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" wrote:

>

> How could something positive be made out of that prediction? Purchase

an ETF that shorts treasuries (PST) ? If so, would you purchase it now,

maybe get out as it nears 2.4%, or get in if it breaks 2.4%?

>

> Trying to figure out what to do with some non-TSP cash...

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@ wrote:

> >

> > Sara,

> >

> > My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond

yields

> > is based entirely on a five-year chart.

> >

> > My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he

described

> > in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator

with

> > one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

> > addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar

several-week

> > trend indicator for my own entertainment.

> >

> > I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

> > better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

> > factor in what the Fed actually does.

> >

> > Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have

been

> > working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future

ozone

> > levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure

statisticians

> > are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in

tightly

> > defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with

time,

> > as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few

weeks or

> > longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable

applications,

> > especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed,

fundamentally

> > speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

> > economic systems.

> >

> > Hope that this helps.

> > Tex

> >

> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

> > >

> > > Tex

> > > It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

> > soon.

> > > That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI

core

> > > inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above

about

> > 6.5%.

> > > The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

> > yield

> > > resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> > >

> > > In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

> > >

> > > Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous

posts,

> > tuned

> > > for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will

continue

> > for

> > > at least that long.

> > > Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly

based

> > factor

> > > analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

> > leading

> > > economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

> > >

> > > Thanks for sharing,

> > >

> > > Sara

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@ wrote:

> > >

> > > > **

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Fellow Board Members,

> > > >

> > > > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

> > 10-year

> > > > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the

last

> > 6

> > > > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

> > several-month

> > > > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

> > 2.40%. If

> > > > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a

negative

> > way

> > > > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> > > >

> > > > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > > > Tex

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>







----------------------------

#28675 Jun 8, 2013

That's the PST I mentioned

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...> wrote:

>

> There are leveraged ETFs that short treasuries also.

>

> Personally, I don't think that they offer that much.

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" rcstonermdaf@> wrote:

> >

> > How could something positive be made out of that prediction? Purchase an ETF that shorts treasuries (PST) ? If so, would you purchase it now, maybe get out as it nears 2.4%, or get in if it breaks 2.4%?

> >

> > Trying to figure out what to do with some non-TSP cash...

> >

> > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Tex" mrweyl@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sara,

> > >

> > > My observation of 2.4% as resistance level to rising 10-year bond yields

> > > is based entirely on a five-year chart.

> > >

> > > My stock investment model is a modified Zweig model, which he described

> > > in his relatively famous book. I have replaced his trend indicator with

> > > one that I developed over decades of recording market data and which

> > > addresses a several-month trend. I also record a similar several-week

> > > trend indicator for my own entertainment.

> > >

> > > I do not attempt to predict what the Fed will do. Zweig found that a

> > > better approach for predicting several-month stock performance is to

> > > factor in what the Fed actually does.

> > >

> > > Your reference to regression-based forecasting is timely, as I have been

> > > working with some colleagues on long-term forecasting of future ozone

> > > levels in the atmosphere. What I have found is that pure statisticians

> > > are very skeptical of regression-based forecasting, except in tightly

> > > defined situations. The uncertainty of the forecast expands with time,

> > > as you might expect. Long-term stock market forecasting (a few weeks or

> > > longer) most likely falls outside the bounds of reasonable applications,

> > > especially compared to the atmosphere, which is governed, fundamentally

> > > speaking, by well-known equations. No similar equations exist for

> > > economic systems.

> > >

> > > Hope that this helps.

> > > Tex

> > >

> > > --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Sara Wetherbee wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Tex

> > > > It sounds like the Fed is planning to gradually reduce QE starting

> > > soon.

> > > > That process could take a couple of years or more, provided CPI core

> > > > inflation stays below about 2.5% and unemployment stays above about

> > > 6.5%.

> > > > The Fed inflation threshold is very close to the 10-year Treasury

> > > yield

> > > > resistance threshold you mentioned (2.4%).

> > > >

> > > > In the meantime, volatility should increase (negative excitement).

> > > >

> > > > Since your model is still bullish and, based on your previous posts,

> > > tuned

> > > > for 18 months or so, I assume you believe meaningful QE will continue

> > > for

> > > > at least that long.

> > > > Is your macro model a weighted regression model or a similarly based

> > > factor

> > > > analytic model? Do you adjust the weights dynamically based on

> > > leading

> > > > economic indicator data such as unemployment and inflation?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks for sharing,

> > > >

> > > > Sara

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Tex mrweyl@ wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > **

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Fellow Board Members,

> > > > >

> > > > > The most interesting event this week (to me) was the jump in the

> > > 10-year

> > > > > treasury bond yield (decrease in price) to a high (low) for the last

> > > 6

> > > > > months. Based on charts, this is a continuing trend on a

> > > several-month

> > > > > time scale. The critical resistance level appears to be around

> > > 2.40%. If

> > > > > we exceed that, the markets should be very exciting (in a negative

> > > way

> > > > > for bonds and eventually negative for stocks).

> > > > >

> > > > > Meanwhile, good luck.

> > > > > Tex

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>



----------------------------

#28677 Jun 8, 2013

Fellow Board Members,



For us longer-term (6-18 month time scale) investors, the past week

appears to have been a nonevent. Of more than passing interest to me,

the New York Stock Exchange Composite Index appears to have bounced off

an upward trend line after hitting a resistance level but is still below

its all-time high. If it fails to push through the all-time high, I

would start to worry. If it succeeds, then things could be very

positive.



Good luck,

Tex



----------------------------

#29165 Jul 7, 2013

Fellow Board Members,



The 10-year treasury hit a new high in yield (and low in price) for at

least the past six months, and the yield appears to be on a strong up

trend after breaching 2.4% yield. In a recent post, I had pointed to

this as a key resistance level, and now it becomes a key support level.

In addition, gold hit a new 6-month low while the dollar and oil hit new

6-month highs for COB Friday prices. I infer that the economy is

beginning to strengthen considerably and that fear is becoming less

intense among investors.



This is probably quite positive for stocks over the next several months.

However, the headlines will probably be oriented toward the Fed becoming

less accommodative. If so, this could support "a wall of worry," which

stock prices would be "climbing." Either way, I will be looking for

signs of a significant top in stock prices over the next two years.



Good luck,

Tex







----------------------------

#30053 Sep 8, 2013

Fellow Board Members,

The yield curve has steepened over the last week, as indicated by the differential between the 10-year and 3-month treasury yields. This has reached a high (for COB Friday prices) going back to July 8, 2011. A steep yield curve is historically bullish and the difference is now just under 3%. I am starting to smell an end to the recent minor correction. However, we do still have a Syria decision and the next debt ceiling battle. So I would not expect a significant move to the upside either.

So I guess that I will just hold on through September and the upcoming negative milestones, given that the interest rate picture has not changed. The economy is probably flattening due to the sequester and perhaps higher oil prices, but that might ensure that the Fed will attempt to maintain support and perhaps even increase support again.

In other words, from the standpoint of my simple stock investment model, no change of strategy is warranted at this time.

Good luck,Tex



----------------------------

#30054 Sep 8, 2013

Thanks Tex!

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:45 PM, mrweyl@...> wrote:



��Fellow Board Members,

The yield curve has steepened over the last week, as indicated by the differential between the 10-year and 3-month treasury yields. This has reached a high (for COB Friday prices) going back to July 8, 2011. A steep yield curve is historically bullish and the difference is now just under 3%. I am starting to smell an end to the recent minor correction. However, we do still have a Syria decision and the next debt ceiling battle. So I would not expect a significant move to the upside either.

So I guess that I will just hold on through September and the upcoming negative milestones, given that the interest rate picture has not changed. The economy is probably flattening due to the sequester and perhaps higher oil prices, but that might ensure that the Fed will attempt to maintain support and perhaps even increase support again.

In other words, from the standpoint of my simple stock investment model, no change of strategy is warranted at this time.

Good luck,Tex



----------------------------

#30055 Sep 8, 2013

Thank for simplifying it Tex? ��Not��



On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:45 PM, mrweyl@...> wrote:



��Fellow Board Members,

The yield curve has steepened over the last week, as indicated by the differential between the 10-year and 3-month treasury yields. This has reached a high (for COB Friday prices) going back to July 8, 2011. A steep yield curve is historically bullish and the difference is now just under 3%. I am starting to smell an end to the recent minor correction. However, we do still have a Syria decision and the next debt ceiling battle. So I would not expect a significant move to the upside either.

So I guess that I will just hold on through September and the upcoming negative milestones, given that the interest rate picture has not changed. The economy is probably flattening due to the sequester and perhaps higher oil prices, but that might ensure that the Fed will attempt to maintain support and perhaps even increase support again.

In other words, from the standpoint of my simple stock investment model, no change of strategy is warranted at this time.

Good luck,Tex



----------------------------

#30056 Sep 8, 2013

He said stay in S. Simple enuf?

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Abdul Abdul wrote:

>

> Thank for simplifying it Tex? Not

>

>

>

> On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:45 PM, mrweyl@... wrote:

>

> > Fellow Board Members,

> >

> > The yield curve has steepened over the last week, as indicated by

the differential between the 10-year and 3-month treasury yields. This

has reached a high (for COB Friday prices) going back to July 8, 2011. A

steep yield curve is historically bullish and the difference is now just

under 3%. I am starting to smell an end to the recent minor correction.

However, we do still have a Syria decision and the next debt ceiling

battle. So I would not expect a significant move to the upside either.

> >

> > So I guess that I will just hold on through September and the

upcoming negative milestones, given that the interest rate picture has

not changed. The economy is probably flattening due to the sequester and

perhaps higher oil prices, but that might ensure that the Fed will

attempt to maintain support and perhaps even increase support again.

> >

> > In other words, from the standpoint of my simple stock investment

model, no change of strategy is warranted at this time.

> >

> > Good luck,

> > Tex

> >

> >

>



----------------------------

#30062 Sep 9, 2013

Sarah,



Do you mean stay in S for the long term, but parking in G for now?



-- Simon

--- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, "Sarah" sarah_oz@...> wrote:

>

> He said stay in S. Simple enuf?

>

> --- In TSP_Strategy@yahoogroups.com, Abdul Abdul wrote:

> >

> > Thank for simplifying it Tex? Not

> >

> >

> >

> > On Sep 8, 2013, at 5:45 PM, mrweyl@ wrote:

> >

> > > Fellow Board Members,

> > >

> > > The yield curve has steepened over the last week, as indicated by

> the differential between the 10-year and 3-month treasury yields. This

> has reached a high (for COB Friday prices) going back to July 8, 2011. A

> steep yield curve is historically bullish and the difference is now just

> under 3%. I am starting to smell an end to the recent minor correction.

> However, we do still have a Syria decision and the next debt ceiling

> battle. So I would not expect a significant move to the upside either.

> > >

> > > So I guess that I will just hold on through September and the

> upcoming negative milestones, given that the interest rate picture has

> not changed. The economy is probably flattening due to the sequester and

> perhaps higher oil prices, but that might ensure that the Fed will

> attempt to maintain support and perhaps even increase support again.

> > >

> > > In other words, from the standpoint of my simple stock investment

> model, no change of strategy is warranted at this time.

> > >

> > > Good luck,

> > > Tex

> > >

> > >

> >

>







Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g