Recs

27

Lots of Worry, Even More Opportunity

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

A group of Motley Fool analysts once discussed what we learned from the 2008-2009 financial crisis. One noted the difference between thinking you're a contrarian, and actually being a contrarian. All of us agreed on the adage of being greedy when others are fearful. That was our philosophy, our goal. But come 2008, many of us, myself included, were as fearful as everyone else. It was a sober reminder that by definition, not everyone can be a contrarian. That's why the few who actually can move against the herd end up so successful.

In hindsight, markets usually move in the opposite direction of sentiment. When the masses are bullish, future returns will be relatively low. When the masses are fearful, future returns will be relatively high. You never know how high or how low sentiment might go, or exactly when it will turn, but in a broad sense, the correlation between sentiment and future returns is one of the market's most dependable links. Have a look:

anImage

Sources: S&P Capital IQ, Yahoo! Finance, and author's calculations.

It may take a second to grasp what this chart shows, but bear with me. The blue line is the inverse of the Conference Board's consumer confidence index, so areas where the blue line is highest shows times when consumers were the glummest. The red line is subsequent five-year returns of the S&P 500 -- for example, the red line's value at the year 1970 is measuring stock returns from 1970-1975.

What this shows is fairly clear: When consumer confidence is low, ensuing stock returns are generally high, and vice versa. The correlation isn't perfect -- nothing is -- but it's strong given how random stock returns tend to be. Statistically, consumer confidence is actually a better predictor of future stock returns than the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, or CAPE, championed by Yale economist Robert Shiller.

Keep that in mind, and consider a few headlines from the past two months:            

  • "Consumer confidence hits 30-year low"
  • "US consumer confidence plunges to recession levels"
  • "Consumer confidence plunges as hope dims"
  • "Consumer confidence tumbles, home prices stagnate"
  • "Consumer confidence lowest since Great Recession"

Don't use this information alone to rush out and buy stocks. The standard caveats apply to the above chart: Correlation doesn't mean causation, no one knows how low consumer confidence might fall, and the future is still inherently unpredictable. As I showed earlier this week, retail investors by and large are not fleeing the market. But there's something to be said for the fact that, historically, it would be rare for consumer confidence to be this low and not see stocks rally strongly over the coming years.  

And it's not just consumer confidence that's low. As Jason Zweig wrote in The Wall Street Journal, an investor survey conducted by a team of psychologists in August showed that "58% of investors ... believed that their future would be 'moderately' or 'greatly' limited, up from 56% in March 2009." Another survey released last week by Human Events found that "only 61% of respondents have at least 'some' confidence in the U.S. capital markets, compared with 68% in 2010 and 73% in 2009." For contrarians, these are some of the surest signs that stocks are poised to do well .

It's easy to spurn the idea that stocks' future might now be brighter than it's been in years. After all, unemployment is at a generational high, real wages are stagnant, budget deficits are spiraling, and America seems to be losing its edge on the global stage. But some version of those same fears were around in 1974, 1982, and 1991. All three periods were followed by hellacious rallies, not just because things did get better, but because expectations that things could get better were so low.

Think about a few of today's stocks. Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) is one of the most successful companies on the planet, yet it trades at just 10.5 times forward earnings. Intel (Nasdaq: INTC  ) trades at less than 10 times earnings, and its dividend yield is 50% higher than the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds. 3M (NYSE: MMM  ) sells for 12 times earnings. ArcelorMittal (NYSE: MT  ) sells for about half of book value.

The message these companies' investors are sending is clear: ho-hum. They're nervous about the future. Their confidence is low.

Will their views be proven right?

As a group, have they ever been?

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Morgan Housel doesn't own shares in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Follow him on Twitter @TMFHousel. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple and Intel. The Fool owns shares of and has bought calls on Intel. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of 3M, Apple, and Intel. Motley Fool newsletter services have also recommended creating a bull call spread position in Intel and Apple, as well as a diagonal call position in 3M. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


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 November 05, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Chontichajim wrote:

    It looks to me like the correlation exists between 1982 and 2002 but not much before or after. I do try to avoid buying during peak positive sentiments and who could resist Chrysler stock in the 1974 drop. Looks like after 2002 sentiments are going down and stock performances are remaining down, so might have to wait 10-20 years to see if the correlation gets back on track.

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joy64 wrote:

    Great article. The graph only goes through 2006 because you don't have 5 year returns (of course) for anything more current. But you could post a graph showing the consumer confidence (inverted) for 2006 to 2011. After all, the point of the article is what is consumer confidence telling us about investing now?

    I would love to see an update on the article with a separate graph of consumer confidence today.

    Thanks,

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2011, at 11:05 AM, FutureMonkey wrote:

    I gave up trying to predict the future of market movements based on "indicators" or "correlation" a long time ago.

    The human animal just loves to look for cause and effect to help sort out what is likely to happen next. Unfortunately this tendency makes us wrong more often than right when dealing with complex and chaotic systems. Just because X proceeded Y does not mean that X has anything to do with Y.

    Steady Eddie investing in high quality earnings seems like the best way to "time the market." I'm with you on AAPL. Haven't looked at 3M or Intel for a few years. I have no understanding of MT at all.

    FM

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2011, at 11:55 AM, mhy729 wrote:

    "The human animal just loves to look for cause and effect to help sort out what is likely to happen next. Unfortunately this tendency makes us wrong more often than right when dealing with complex and chaotic systems. Just because X proceeded Y does not mean that X has anything to do with Y."

    There's a lot of research that suggests our brains are wired to identify patterns, and that our thinking operates very heuristically. The curiousness often exhibited by children (why this? or how that?) helps them conceptualize causal relationships which aids in their understanding of the world and how it works. Of course, our natural predilection for deduction needs to be well-accompanied by sound logic (and may I suggest elements of the scientific method) to make correct analyses and draw valid conclusions, especially when it comes to complex systems, and in those cases the valid conclusion may often be that there is insufficient data to reach an "answer". This causal bias in our thinking is likely responsible for our historical fondness for superstitions.

    Yes, I'd say that technical analysis is a very good example of our brains wanting to find patterns, and derive some predictive ability from that. Whether or not it is valid is something I have no real opinion on, as I am rather unfamiliar with the practice.

  • Report this Comment On November 05, 2011, at 11:08 PM, TMFKopp wrote:

    @Chontichajim

    I saw Morgan's dataset and calculations so I can vouch for the fact that he wasn't just eyeballing this :)

    Matt

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2011, at 6:41 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    I marked this under "Read again one year from now" in my investment notes. The date was October 21st 2011.

    
Edd Mcdermott wrote: 
"We bring good things to ruin" should be their new motto. Andrew Liveris (DOW Chemical) and Immelt are leaders who stated their dividend will not be cut on their watch...Both, quickly proceeded to slash dividends. Fool me once...etc, etc.Perhaps bifurcation of GE will benefit new and old investors.

    Link

    02:17 pm ET October 21, 2011
Tina Patalano wrote: 
If I bought GE every time Barron's recommended it, I'd be broke.

    Link

    01:46 pm ET October 23, 2011
Zen Cheru Veettil replied: 
Haha..GE is always "cheap" if you think that GE Capital can bring in trading profits like it used to

    Link

    02:12 pm ET October 24, 2011
David Abel replied: 
I will not soon forget the day GE, under Immelt, sold those "special shares with a 10% dividend" to Warren Buffett. Everyone that held common GE shares got an instant "haircut" that day. Sorry - GE is one dog that will never go in my portfolio anytime again.

    Link

    




    04:06 pm ET October 21, 2011
Herman Unanski wrote: 
Get rid of Jeff Immelt, and I will think about buying some! How does he survive with his track record of failure? Any other American company would have fired him long ago!

    Link

    06:30 pm ET October 21, 2011
Myron Harvist wrote: 
I think the 3 people above hit it right on the head. It's a company like Microsoft - should be doing better, but ain't.

    Link

    08:54 pm ET October 21, 2011
Kirk Cornwell wrote: 
We are talking about a company with well over ten billion shares outstanding. The "strong capital position " is a feature of an almost incomprehensibly complex balance sheet. A. prolonged "15%" growth rate is virtually impossible here. Buy on the dip? Maybe. Sell on a pop. sounds wise too.

    Link

    02:50 pm ET October 22, 2011
Dana Mauch wrote: 
Stock action would benefit greatly with a 1-2 reverse stock split. 10 billion plus shares outstanding is a little much.

    Link

    02:08 pm ET October 24, 2011
David Abel wrote: 
This recommendation is almost too funny. The management of GE under Immelt has been one crisis after another. And as noted above, their balance sheet is almost incomprehensible. Then there is the millstone of GE Capital - that you can always count on for some sort of minor financial disaster every year. Oh - and last but not least - about four years ago GE was a compnay that traded in the mid-$30s - about double what it sells for now.

    October 21st 2011 closing price – 16.31

    (Estimated) 12 month forward dividend yield - 4.17-4.41%

    Price to book - 1.39

    Trailing p/e – 13.4

    Five year p/e average – 9.95

    Ten year p/e average -10.52

    Forward p/e – 10.59

    Market cap - 172.9 billion

    Revenue Backlog – 191 billion

    Shares outstanding 10.6 billion

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Frankydontfailme wrote:

    I remain unconvinced that consumer sentiment is a contrary indicator.

    It would interesting to look at inverse consumer sentiment compared to real returns of the S and P. Periods with low consumer sentiment tend to be associated with money printing, and so while returns may be positive real returns often are not.

    While general investment sentiment, and overall short positions can be informative, negative consumer sentiment seems to be a forward indicator for extended negative real returns

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1584255, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 7:53:00 PM

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 22 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

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

5/25/2012 4:01 PM
MMM $84.78 Down -0.20 -0.24%
3M Company CAPS Rating: *****
MT $14.30 Up +0.01 +0.07%
ArcelorMittal CAPS Rating: *****
AAPL $562.29 Down -3.03 -0.54%
Apple CAPS Rating: ***
INTC $25.74 Up +0.09 +0.35%
Intel Corp CAPS Rating: *****

Advertisement