Strategies

One of the most enduring of Wall Street axioms - falling somewhere under "buy low and sell high" but above "greed is good" - is to "sell in May and go away" and, indeed, there appeared to be some truth to the saying. Between 1950 and 2012, the Dow Jones gained an average of 7.6% annually during the November-April period, but only 0.4% during May-October. Does "Sell In May and Go Away" still hold true as a viable investment strategy? Not according to my analysis. Here's why.

Much has been written that it is impossible to time the market - that a buy and hold approach is much more rewarding - but that is simply not the case. This article provides you with the knowledge and a great charting service (free) to do just that.All you need do then is set aside the time and make the effort to apply the disciplines learned.

It seems logical that a scary, destructive terrorist attack, particularly one that implies more attacks to come, would be bearish for stock prices - but has that actually been the case?

It would seem logical to say that peace allows companies to focus on manufacturing goods, providing services, innovation and competition, all of which helps the overall economy but does peace, in fact, have anything to do with determining stock prices?

Macroeconomic news supposedly explains only about one fifth of the movement in stock prices but if there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best. Let me explain.

A sensible story of causation regarding oil prices and stock prices made by countless economists is that "rising oil prices increase the cost of energy and therefore reduce corporate profits and consumers' spending power, thus putting drags on stock prices and the economy." Stunningly, as far as I can determine, however, no evidence supports that claim, as the discussion below will show.

One of the great myths about investing that we’re told by the mainstream investment education is that we should “buy and hold” for the long term [but, as this article will explain,] it’s time to move on from the mainstream. There’s too much technology and too many global options now to be lulled into conventional investments that are born to lose.

It is common for economists to offer a forecast for the stock market yet add a caveat to the effect that "If a war shock or terrorist attack occurs, then I would have to modify my outlook." As such, it would seem logical to assume that...they must have access to a study showing that such events affect the stock market, right? The answer is no, for the same reason that they do not check relationships between interest rates, oil prices or the trade balance and the stock market. The causality just seems too sensible to doubt.

The belief that earnings drive stock prices powers the bulk of the research on Wall Street but this glaring exception to the idea of a causal relationship between corporate earnings and stock prices challenges that theory. Let me explain.

Whenever oil prices make a big move in either direction, there are some fairly standard arguments made of its effect on the overall stock market but, rarely, is any actual evidence presented to substantiate these more or less intuitive arguments. Let’s take a look at the data and see what the historical relationship has actually been between oil and the stock market.