You are here: Home > articles > Elliott Wave > Don’t Get Ruined by These 10 Popular Investment Myths (Part V)
Don’t Get Ruined by These 10 Popular Investment Myths (Part V)
September 16, 2014 8:29 amVideo
Latest News
- Trading Signals for GOLD (XAU/USD) for April 19-22, 2024: sell below $2,395 (+2/8 Murray – overbought) April 19, 2024
- USD/JPY: Simple Trading tips for novice traders on April 19th (US session) April 19, 2024
- GBP/USD: Simple trading tips for novice traders on April 19th (US session) April 19, 2024
- EUR/USD: Simple trading tips for novice traders on April 19th (US session) April 19, 2024
- GBP/USD: trading plan for the US session on April 19th (analysis of morning deals). The pound is trying to regain its advantage April 19, 2024
- EUR/USD: trading plan for the US session on April 19th (analysis of morning deals). The euro compensated for the losses April 19, 2024
- Storm in a teacup: EUR/USD analysis April 19, 2024
- Video market update for April 19, 2024 April 19, 2024
- Eurozone PMIs eyed as euro’s focus turns to rate cuts beyond June – Preview April 19, 2024
- Technical Analysis – NZDUSD falls to fresh 5-month low April 19, 2024
- EUR/USD. April 19th. Bostic, Fed: the rate cut will happen at the end of the year April 19, 2024
- Forecast for GBP/USD pair on April 19, 2024 April 19, 2024
- Weekly Forex Outlook: 14/04/2024 – US GDP and BoJ decision on top of next week’s agenda April 19, 2024
- Market Comment – Safe havens jump as Israel retaliates against Iran April 19, 2024
- Technical Analysis – USDCAD puts rally on hold near 1.3800 caution zone April 19, 2024
- USD/JPY: trading tips for beginners for European session on April 19 April 19, 2024
- GBP/USD: trading tips for beginners for European session on April 19 April 19, 2024
- EUR/USD: trading tips for beginners for European session on April 19 April 19, 2024
- Supercharged US dollar turns to GDP growth data – Preview April 19, 2024
- Technical Analysis – USDCHF remains in bullish structure April 19, 2024
You may remember that during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, many called into question traditional economic models.
Why did the traditional financial models fail? And more importantly, will they warn us of a new approaching doomsday, should there be one?
This series gives you a well-researched answer.
Here is Part V; come back soon for Part VI.
Myth #5: “GDP drives stock prices.”
By Robert Prechter (excerpted from the monthly Elliott Wave Theorist; published since 1979)
Surely the stock market reflects the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. The aggregate success of corporations shows up as changes in GDP. Stocks are shares in corporations. How could their prices not reflect the ebb and flow of GDP?
Suppose that you had perfect foreknowledge that over the next 3 3/4 years GDP would be positive every single quarter and that one of those quarters would surprise economists in being the strongest quarterly rise in a half-century span. Would you buy stocks?
If you had acted on such knowledge in March 1976, you would have owned stocks for four years in which the DJIA fell 22%. If at the end of Q1 1980 you figured out that the quarter would be negative and would be followed by yet another negative quarter, you would have sold out at the bottom.
Suppose you were to possess perfect knowledge that next quarter’s GDP will be the strongest rising quarter for a span of 15 years, guaranteed. Would you buy stocks?
Had you anticipated precisely this event for 4Q 1987, you would have owned stocks for the biggest stock market crash since 1929. GDP was positive every quarter for 20 straight quarters before the crash and for 10 quarters thereafter. But the market crashed anyway. Three years after the start of 4Q 1987, stock prices were still below their level of that time despite 30 uninterrupted quarters of rising GDP.
Figure 10 shows these two events. It seems that there is something wrong with the idea that investors rationally value stocks according to growth or contraction in GDP.
Interest rates, oil prices, trade balances, corporate earnings and GDP: None of them seem to be important, or even relevant, to explaining stock price changes. But you need not trust your own eyes. In a study that is stunning for its boldness in actually checking basis premises, Cutler, Poterba and Summers in a paper for the Journal of Portfolio Management in 1989 investigated the effect of economic news on stock prices and concluded,
Even here, I would question the conclusion that such news “explains” even 1/5 of the movement in stock prices. Surely a set of football statistics could generate a 1/5 correlation to the S&P. And every correlation, to have meaning, must have a theory to account for it.
What theory accommodates the idea that macroeconomic fundamentals explain 1/5 of stock price changes? If there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best.v
(Stay tuned for Part VI of this important series, where we examine another popular investment myth: Namely, that “Wars are bullish/bearish for stock prices.”)