Recs

75

Is This the Ultimate Sucker's Rally?

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

After seeing the stock market lose more than half its value, the recent rally has brought welcome relief to battered investors. But as stocks continue to plow higher, the question on everyone's mind is  whether they'll continue to rise -- or whether smart investors are starting to tiptoe toward the exits before a next wave down.

Of course, how you answer that question depends on a lot on your view of not just the stock market but the overall economy as well. If you believe that the economy has bottomed and that things will only get better from here, then the gains we've seen so far could be just the beginning of the next bull market. On the other hand, many believe that plenty of bad news is yet to come -- and that the stage has been set for the biggest sucker's rally since 1930.

The Great Depression's post-crash rally
For some perspective, take a look at the situation right after the 1929 stock market crash:

  • From early September 1929 to mid-November, the Dow lost almost 50% of its value.
  • Then, though, the market rebounded over the next five months until mid-April 1930, as the Dow jumped over 50% and recovered more than half of its previous losses.
  • Only then did the worst of the fall begin, as the Dow plunged an astounding 85% before bottoming in 1932.

Now compare that to the situation we've faced lately:

  • From late 2007 to March 2009, the S&P lost about 58% of its value.
  • Since the March lows, though, the market has rebounded, and the S&P has jumped 47% and recovered about a third of its losses.

So what comes next? If you believe that the Great Depression serves as a reasonable model for what's going on today, then two things pop out. First, the 1930 sucker's rally lasted about five months -- only a few weeks longer than the current rally has run. Second, the current rally has roughly matched the Dow's 50% bounce in 1930, although for the S&P to recover half of its losses since late 2007, it would have to jump to around 1,120, about 15% higher than its current level.

Of course, there are plenty of other models that would lead you to different conclusions. After the 1987 crash, for instance, stocks recovered quickly and kept on moving to new highs in relatively short order. During the 1970s, on the other hand, a substantial recovery for stocks hit a ceiling, and markets traded roughly sideways for much of the rest of the decade.

OK, but what should I do now?
History can't tell you whether stocks will rise or fall tomorrow, but it can give you some good long-term basic rules to follow.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that even in the worst economic downturns, some companies survive and later thrive. While it's difficult to track back long-term returns over 80 years, look at how these Depression-era survivors have done in recent decades:

Stock

Stock Data Available

Average Annual Return

Ford Motor (NYSE: F  )

30 years

8.9%

General Electric (NYSE: GE  )

45 years

9.4%

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM  )

25 years

10.7%

Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG  )

35 years

11.8%

General Mills (NYSE: GIS  )

25 years

15.2%

PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP  )

30 years

16.0%

Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO  )

45 years

9.4%

 Source: Yahoo! Finance.

It's easy to get caught up in markets rising and falling. Obviously, many stocks will track the overall market, and as we've seen over the past two years, it's tough for even the best companies to see good stock performance when the market is plummeting.

But remember: Market barometers like the Dow and S&P 500 are only averages. They're important for index fund investors, but if you've singled out individual stocks to invest in for the long haul, don't let the overall market's direction sway you too much. It’s far more important to focus on the particular business conditions that your companies face and whether they can meet their own unique challenges to keep producing profits for shareholders.

Don't get suckered
I don't know whether this is a sucker's rally or not. But the best way to get suckered is to let the current uncertainty lure you into abandoning your long-term investing plan. Although stocks will inevitably drop again at some point in the future, the best rewards come from promising companies that will survive no matter what happens.

For more on smart investing:

Start investing today -- just $7 per trade with Scottrade. Or find the broker that’s right for you.

Best Odds in the Universe!
If you're interested in a 98.79% chance at beating the market... and a 70.84% chance at DOUBLING the market's return – Motley Fool Supernova could be just what you're looking for. And get this: We arrived at these odds from 10,000 random back-tested portfolios composed of Motley Fool Co-founder David Gardner's personal stock picks.

It's why David recently handpicked a small team of world-class portfolio managers. You see, he thinks these odds can get even better! And he'd like to prove it to you...

Simply enter your email address. And the answer to the question everybody is asking will be delivered to your inbox!

Get more insight on the rally from Fool co-founders Tom and David Gardner in their Motley Fool Stock Advisor newsletter. A free look at their analysis and commentary is yours for 30 days just by clicking here.

There may be a sucker born every minute, but Fool contributor Dan Caplinger isn't one of them. He owns shares of General Electric. Coca-Cola is a Motley Fool Inside Value selection. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Procter & Gamble are Income Investor recommendations. The Fool owns shares of Procter & Gamble. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool's disclosure policy won't give you a sucker-punch.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 6:00 PM, memoandstitch wrote:

    Where's GM? You should have at least 40 years of data, right? Its average annual return should come out around -2.5%.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 6:42 PM, nuf2bdangrus wrote:

    As much as I wish it was for real, partly because I've missed a lot of it being hedged, my answer is a suckers rally for one simple reason. DEBT. More debt won't cure the economy this time.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 7:22 PM, bigtfi wrote:

    How did you get avg. annual return of 8.9% for Ford? Even at its recently rebounded $7/shr, it couldn't have returned that much even with dividends.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 7:42 PM, TMFEditorsDesk wrote:

    Hi Bigtfi,

    Ford had a dividend/split adjusted close of .53 on July 26, 1979.

    Yesterday (the price referenced in this article) it closed at 6.78.

    That works out to a compounded rate of 8.87% over 30 years.

    Updated to today's closing price (7.27), the CAGR would be about 9.1%. So, updated to closing, the figure in this article is actually undershooting Ford's growth.

    Thanks,

    Eric

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 7:51 PM, VegasMartin wrote:

    One indication that this is a "suckers rally" and that the pullback is coming soon is the amount of calls being sold and puts being bought has increased in the last 2 days.

    Since we didn't see the pullback Friday and Monday, I'm left scratching my head, but the euphoria is still in the air. I don't think there's much upside in buying now, so I'll be sitting on the sidelines, but the action on calls and puts is suggesting a pullback soon.

    www.ShootTheBears.com

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 10:22 PM, swingtrader930 wrote:

    Some times you can't see the forest through the trees. Market action is following the perfect pattern for continuation of a down trend. If you look at a monthly chart, ( yes a monthly chart ) you will see a 10 step drop from June 08 to February 09. After the market does a 4 step pull back. I dont understand how people don't see this. If this same pattern were happening in daily chart it would stick out like a sore thumb. You would be betting on a continuation down. People should open up their scope a little more. If you do you will at least prepare yourself for the possibility of a continuation in the down trend. Granted we have had some positive things developing as of late. But we still have unemployment at near 10%, earnings are still off about 25% year over year and revenues are off about 15% year over year.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 10:33 PM, QwertyHero wrote:

    10 step pull back after a 4 step pullback??? So the market has been going down for the last 14 months???

    I think your chart is upside down dude.

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 10:49 PM, swingtrader930 wrote:

    Let me say it another way. 10 steps down with 4 steps retracement. Does that suit your terminology better??

  • Report this Comment On July 27, 2009, at 11:40 PM, daveandrae wrote:

    Something to think about-

    In july 1929, the DJIA was trading at an all time high, 347. 80 years later, in July of 2009, the annualized rate of return for the index, before dividends, was roughly 4%, to which one may include another 4% from dividends, for a total return of roughly 8% annualized over the 80 year period.

    Now this was about the WORST time in history to invest in the DJIA. For between 1929 and 1942 there were three howling bear markets, the first was an unprecedented 89% drop from the all time high, followed by TWO, 57% drops from 1937-38, and 1940-42. In fact, by 1942, the DJIA had lost more than 2/3's of it's 1929 value, The US was reeling from Pearl Harbor, and the world was mired in WWII. Yet, a man that invested $10,000 in the index for his grandchildren at the very PEAK, in 1929 had quite literally put enough seeds in the ground for them to become millionaires many times over by now.

    Not only are his grandchildren millionaires, but the income they receive from dividends, TODAY, is more than enough to maintain a very, high standard of living. And this is AFTER a 40%+ drop from the 2007 all time high!

    This just reinforces the fact that every single bear market has been nothing more than a BIG SALE to the truly long term investor. Yet, for whatever reason, everyone loves a sale, except when there's on wall street.

    Thus, at the end of the day, it does not matter if this is a "sucker's rally" or not. The only thing that matters is...will you even care by the time you're 80 years old, traveling to New Zealand, first class, having held onto your GE stock through thick and thin over the last 50 years?

    Because I certainly won't.

    David

  • Report this Comment On July 28, 2009, at 12:57 AM, TimothyVR wrote:

    daveandrae:

    Good post. The very long term perspective is almost never heard now.

    Of couurse not all of us have 50 years between today and 80 but I take you point.

    Not too sure about GE though....

  • Report this Comment On July 28, 2009, at 2:56 AM, arizonalawdawg wrote:

    daveandrae:

    In today's economy, indeed global economy, that is almost certain to be led by Tech, Buy and Hold simply won't do anymore. I said no to GE equity in 08 and I would forever because it's basically a big mutual fund. There are far better alternatives for retirement investing, and that begins with investing in the best of breed stocks, and then watching them in case adjustments need to be made.

    Darrin

  • Report this Comment On July 28, 2009, at 8:56 AM, Gregeph wrote:

    Everybody would become a better investor today if they would just acknowledge that they don’t know the direction of the market, and that nobody knows the direction of the market. Simply commit to doing the best job you can finding stocks of good solid businesses based on good research. Then wait until the market prices them attractively. Of course, this requires learning how to invest by reading and then taking the time to research your stocks. http://valueinvestingfundamentals.blogspot.com/

  • Report this Comment On July 28, 2009, at 10:39 AM, mikecart1 wrote:

    The stock market is going to crash bigtime sometime late this year or sometime next year. Anyone thinking that it won't is living in Kirby's Dreamland for Super Nintendo :D

  • Report this Comment On July 28, 2009, at 10:49 PM, rolly707 wrote:

    Dan,

    Excellent article, explains the core issue of investing in stocks, with its up-and-downs.

    Keep good work,

    Congratulation!!

  • Report this Comment On July 30, 2009, at 3:34 PM, NotCrazy wrote:

    I, for one, was very happy to see a Motley Fool article that does not end with a pitch for one of the MF paid services. The content was good, but the ending was better.

  • Report this Comment On July 30, 2009, at 3:43 PM, NotCrazy wrote:

    Incidentally, I think it is a sucker's rally, and for one simple reason. The current administration openly models its policies on FDR's policies--but many economists argue (convincingly, in my opinon), that FDR's policies made a bad economy much, much worse, that he essentially fathered the Great Depression. So I think there's a great chance that economic recovery will be hampered or even reversed by misguided government policies, setting us up for a Great Depression type future.

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 2:21 PM, smarttogether2 wrote:

    It's really annoying for the author to ask a question in the headline - and then answer it with "I don't know".

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 3:06 PM, shepmo wrote:

    Today, I got two e-mails from MF, titled:

    # 1 Update: A Market Rally and Earnings Rebound

    # 2 Is This the Ultimate Sucker's Rally?

    Talk about bait and switch! Am I subscribed to Stock Advisor or Stock Confuser?! I got the MF part.

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 3:28 PM, StopLaughing wrote:

    This rally has been discounted by many because the volume is considered to be too light.

    1. 70 % of the volume is now created by flash traders who are a handful of well connected investmentbanks/brokerages (2%).

    2. 1/2 of the shadow bankers dissappeared in the crash. They no longer create volume.

    3. The volume for this rally is substantially higher than the volume for the 2003-2008 rally and the rally under Clinton. It is not as high as the volume in the crash/panic. Why would a rally have higher volume than a crash?

    4. Traditionally volume was an indication of committment. Now volume can be an indication of how much churning is being caused by the flash trading. The meaning of volume and how to interpret it has changed dramatically.

    5. Would you have more faith in the rally if the flash traders turned up the volume?

    6. The rally is over when the larger traders (7 as I recall) , who publically declared the panic over and that they were going long in early march, decide it is over. They can control volume and to some extent price. Especially if they act in unison.

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 3:58 PM, stiksmith wrote:

    Apparently, the Depression was caused by a large bank in Central Europe going belly up ..not the U. S. Stock Market. The Market hit took a recessionary hit ..but would have recovered had the European bank not failed.

    This is the word from the book of Ben. Rally on with a

    few hiccups here and there

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 6:25 PM, rexoman2 wrote:

    In article...the Dow dropped 50%...then rose 50%...

    it did NOT gain back 1/2 of its loss!!!!

    $200 less 50% leaves $100 loss of $100

    $100 gaining 50% equals $150 gain back of $50

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 7:21 PM, WishToRetire2 wrote:

    The post above about being a millionaire even if you bought at the top prior to the 1929 crash is not taking into account inflation. The real dollar value (i.e. expressed in 1929 dollars) that the grandchildren would have is much less.

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 8:46 PM, tycoon15 wrote:

    Not only did it not take into account inflation, how much was $10,000 in 1929 dollars worth in todays dollars??? and how many people had $10,000 laying around to invest into a fund for the grandkids??????

  • Report this Comment On July 31, 2009, at 8:56 PM, alexxlea wrote:

    You would probably have invested in brokerage that was connected to a bank that had a run on it and you would have been left with nothing.

    Factoring inflation of 1% over 80 years you might arrive with an initial investment of about 1 million dollars for that 10000 you're talking about, and that's being generous. There are a million better things you could have done than invest in the market back then, and to invest it all in stocks would have been pure idiocy.

    All these arguments buy buy and hold till you're dead are just ridiculous, and good luck getting rich by adhering to a doctrine that NEVER worked.

  • Report this Comment On August 02, 2009, at 8:26 AM, Ephmen85 wrote:

    One big thing to remember in all the long-term stats is that the United States was, by far, THE dominant economic power since the end of the depression. Today, we are still the largest economy, but we have no where near the dominance we once had.

  • Report this Comment On August 02, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Classof1964 wrote:

    What one needs to know is whether the returns cited for the stocks in the article are adjusted for inflation and whether it was assumed that dividends were reinvested.

    R. Arnott and P. Bernstein wrote an article in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2002, "What Risk Premium is 'Normal'?" The article notes that the major components of stock market return have been inflation and dividends. Arnott & Bernstein find that from 1801 to 2001, $100 invested in stocks would have grown to $700 million IF you assumed all dividends were reinvested. If you take out inflation, you are left with only $37 million, but IF you take out reinvested dividends, your $100 is only worth, $2,099. !!!! And in 1982 at the end of a bear market the stocks would have been worth only $400. The bulk of the growth, over 80% of value in 2002 came with the Great Bull Market from 1982-2000.

    Jeremy Siegel found that "From 1871 to 2003, 97% of the total AFTER-Inflation accumulation from stocks comes from reinvesting dividends. Only 3% comes from capital gains." ( The Future for Investors,126).

    I think that much more attention has to be paid to inflation and the length and nature of bear and bull markets and how one should invest, depending on which kind of market we are in. But if one does have a long term view, more than ten years, then the advice of Buffet, buy when others are fearful makes sense. The price of stocks are down so that reliable, good companies that will continue to pay and even raise dividends are giving a high yield, and the same sort of companies have a built in margin of safety and potential for capital gains. When the market returns and starts going up, the professionals get ready to separate the small investors, buying and holding, from their cash.

  • Report this Comment On August 02, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Classof1964 wrote:

    What one needs to know is whether the returns cited for the stocks in the article are adjusted for inflation and whether it was assumed that dividends were reinvested.

    R. Arnott and P. Bernstein wrote an article in the Financial Analysts Journal in 2002, "What Risk Premium is 'Normal'?" The article notes that the major components of stock market return have been inflation and dividends. Arnott & Bernstein find that from 1801 to 2001, $100 invested in stocks would have grown to $700 million IF you assumed all dividends were reinvested. If you take out inflation, you are left with only $37 million, but IF you take out reinvested dividends, your $100 is only worth, $2,099. !!!! And in 1982 at the end of a bear market the stocks would have been worth only $400. The bulk of the growth, over 80% of value in 2002 came with the Great Bull Market from 1982-2000.

    Jeremy Siegel found that "From 1871 to 2003, 97% of the total AFTER-Inflation accumulation from stocks comes from reinvesting dividends. Only 3% comes from capital gains." ( The Future for Investors,126).

    I think that much more attention has to be paid to inflation and the length and nature of bear and bull markets and how one should invest, depending on which kind of market we are in. But if one does have a long term view, more than ten years, then the advice of Buffet, buy when others are fearful makes sense. The price of stocks are down so that reliable, good companies that will continue to pay and even raise dividends are giving a high yield, and the same sort of companies have a built in margin of safety and potential for capital gains. When the market returns and starts going up, the professionals get ready to separate the small investors, buying and holding, from their cash.

  • Report this Comment On August 02, 2009, at 12:08 PM, etdiii wrote:

    One won't know whether this is 1930-1932 or 1987 for a few more years. About the best one can do is reach an informed decision about whether there is more upside potential or downside risk in the market today. My personal bias is there is more downside risk. The consumer is 70% of the economy and, as is generally recognized, is excessively leveraged while at the same time facing the risk of outright job loss or reduced hours/wages. Those parts of the stimulus package that were/are pro consumer were/are too little, too late and likely will fizzle out as 3Q09 unfolds. The economy might be near bottom but the bottom is not to be confused with a healthy rebound, the "V" of talking head fame. I also suspect the economy is far more fragile than in any post war rebound and thus likely to catch pneumonia if China sneezes or there is serious geopolitical event detrimental to US interests. Lastly, one needs to consider all the elements of the GDP results for 2Q09. For example since imports decreased by more than exports, a sure sign of consumer reluctance to spend, GDP was helped by that fall off in consumer spending. One analysis I read indicated that if exports and imports were more balanced, indicating a rebound in consumer confidence and spending, GDP for 2Q09 would be -2.14%! Of course one can't put all one's chips on a weaker market over the next several months but one can tread carefully, keep some powder dry and use stop losses to protect for a downward move.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 950917, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 2/11/2012 6:41:41 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 8 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,801.23 -89.23 -0.69%
S&P 500 1,342.64 -9.31 -0.69%
NASD 2,903.88 -23.35 -0.80%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

2/10/2012 4:01 PM
KO $67.94 Down -0.03 -0.04%
The Coca-Cola Comp… CAPS Rating: *****
PEP $63.95 Down -0.32 -0.50%
PepsiCo, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
PG $63.88 Down -0.16 -0.25%
The Procter & Gamb… CAPS Rating: *****
JPM $37.61 Down -0.25 -0.66%
JPMorgan Chase & C… CAPS Rating: ***
F $12.44 Down -0.25 -1.97%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****
GE $18.88 Down -0.26 -1.33%
General Electric C… CAPS Rating: ****
GIS $39.09 Up +0.01 +0.03%
General Mills, Inc… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement