Dow-Jones' Decline Largely Impacted by Index Changes 5 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
After considerable pondering on the subject, I have come to the conclusion that the 89% decline in the Dow Industrials from 1929 to 1932 had little to do with the economic state of the nation. In fact, a simpler explanation lies behind the cause of the decline in the Dow which was thankfully never repeated since. A good portion of the blame should rest squarely on the shoulders of Dow-Jones, subsidiary of News Corp. (NWS).
First, this is not an article to explain away the various levels of overvaluation in the market of 1929. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that the stock market was extremely overvalued. Also, the explanation that follows isn't the only reason for the decline of '29 to '32. We all know that various economic and political events pushed our economy and stock market to the known limits in the shortest period of time. In this article, I'm trying to point out or explain the reason for the extent of the decline in the stock market. I am hopeful that readers of this article will be open to a "different" perspective on this reasonably unique period which might broaden the minds of the reader rather than convince the reader to buy or sell their stocks.
As a person who tries to examine the Dow Jones Industrial Average from every angle, I have often wondered what the impact of the changes to the index would be if the changes to the index were never made. For example, where would the index be if AIG wasn't added to the index on April 2004? How about if Bank of America (BAC) was never part of the index? Bank of America was added to the Dow on February 2008. What about if Microsoft (MSFT), Intel (INTC), and Home Depot (HD) weren't added to the index in November of 1999? Where would we be if Citigroup (C) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) weren't added to the index in March 1997.
These questions have significant bearing on why the index has fallen so much in the last year and a half. It is worth noting that the selection of these stocks were at or near the peak in the respective industry groups that these companies are members. As an example, when Bank of America was added to the index in 2008 it replaced Altria (MO) and/or Honeywell (HON). Both of these companies, when compared to BAC, fared much better in the time after being taken out of the index. In fact, Kraft (KFT), a successful spinoff of MO when it was taken out of the index, was added back into the index on September 22, 2008 replacing AIG. Unfortunately, once KFT was added to the index it promptly fell from its relatively high price of $34.97 to the current level of $22.55.
The decision to take AIG out of the index and put KFT into the index couldn't have happened at a worse time. After all, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price weighted index. This means that the higher the stock price, the greater the impact the stock would have on the overall movement of the index. Essentially, the people at Dow-Jones traded a low priced stock with little impact on the index for a high priced stock that was susceptible to falling during a crummy economy. Furthermore, by choosing KFT, Dow-Jones ensured that the index would fall further because high quality stocks like KFT are the last to go when the market hits the skids. And so, KFT promptly fell 33% after being added to the index. Being a relatively high priced stock in the index, KFT had a much more significant impact on the Dow Industrials than the 90% decline in AIG over the same period.
Effectively, what I am describing is a "buy high and sell low" strategy that Dow-Jones exhibited in recent years. Which got me wondering, how did they manage during the "Great" Crash of 1929? Well, the results were what I would consider to be astonishing. The untimely inclusion of companies like KFT, C, HPQ, INTC, MSFT, AIG, BAC and HD were nothing new. However, what was unique about the period of 1929 to 1932 was the number of changes to the index that took place in such a short period of time. A total of 18 companies were taken in and taken out of the Dow.
Never before and never since has the Dow had so many companies added and dropped as constituents of the index. The only other period that came close was the period from 1899 to 1901, when the index had 9 companies added and dropped from the index. As demonstrated earlier, the timing of the selections were not the most optimal. As one company was added at a relatively high price the outgoing company with a low price, which would have had little impact on the downside, was given the boot. This resulted in a vicious cycle which propelled the index much lower than was otherwise necessary.
I contrasted the period of 1929 to 1932 with other known bear markets like 1906 to 1924, when the Dow languished around the 100 level, and the period from 1966 to 1982, when the Dow traded at or below 1000. In each case, the number of changes to the index was marginal, at best. The 18 year period from 1906 to 1924 had only 13 changes or 1.38 changes per year. The 16 year period from 1966 to 1982 had only 4 changes or 0.25 changes per year. This is contrasted with the 1929 to 1932 period which had 6 changes per year.
If looked at from the perspective that Dow-Jones is always going to "buy high and sell low" then we can reasonably assume that much of the decline in the Dow from 1929 to 1932 was due primarily to the constant changes to the index. Frequent changes to the index causes "the market" to grope about for a bottom (no pun intended) that doesn't exist. It appears that Dow-Jones learned the lesson that "buy and hold" works better than trading in and out. However, the timing of their changes to the index has caused more pain to last much longer than if they just let sleeping dogs lie.
Disclosure: I hold a long position in Altria (MO)
First, this is not an article to explain away the various levels of overvaluation in the market of 1929. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that the stock market was extremely overvalued. Also, the explanation that follows isn't the only reason for the decline of '29 to '32. We all know that various economic and political events pushed our economy and stock market to the known limits in the shortest period of time. In this article, I'm trying to point out or explain the reason for the extent of the decline in the stock market. I am hopeful that readers of this article will be open to a "different" perspective on this reasonably unique period which might broaden the minds of the reader rather than convince the reader to buy or sell their stocks.
As a person who tries to examine the Dow Jones Industrial Average from every angle, I have often wondered what the impact of the changes to the index would be if the changes to the index were never made. For example, where would the index be if AIG wasn't added to the index on April 2004? How about if Bank of America (BAC) was never part of the index? Bank of America was added to the Dow on February 2008. What about if Microsoft (MSFT), Intel (INTC), and Home Depot (HD) weren't added to the index in November of 1999? Where would we be if Citigroup (C) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) weren't added to the index in March 1997.
These questions have significant bearing on why the index has fallen so much in the last year and a half. It is worth noting that the selection of these stocks were at or near the peak in the respective industry groups that these companies are members. As an example, when Bank of America was added to the index in 2008 it replaced Altria (MO) and/or Honeywell (HON). Both of these companies, when compared to BAC, fared much better in the time after being taken out of the index. In fact, Kraft (KFT), a successful spinoff of MO when it was taken out of the index, was added back into the index on September 22, 2008 replacing AIG. Unfortunately, once KFT was added to the index it promptly fell from its relatively high price of $34.97 to the current level of $22.55.
The decision to take AIG out of the index and put KFT into the index couldn't have happened at a worse time. After all, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a price weighted index. This means that the higher the stock price, the greater the impact the stock would have on the overall movement of the index. Essentially, the people at Dow-Jones traded a low priced stock with little impact on the index for a high priced stock that was susceptible to falling during a crummy economy. Furthermore, by choosing KFT, Dow-Jones ensured that the index would fall further because high quality stocks like KFT are the last to go when the market hits the skids. And so, KFT promptly fell 33% after being added to the index. Being a relatively high priced stock in the index, KFT had a much more significant impact on the Dow Industrials than the 90% decline in AIG over the same period.
Effectively, what I am describing is a "buy high and sell low" strategy that Dow-Jones exhibited in recent years. Which got me wondering, how did they manage during the "Great" Crash of 1929? Well, the results were what I would consider to be astonishing. The untimely inclusion of companies like KFT, C, HPQ, INTC, MSFT, AIG, BAC and HD were nothing new. However, what was unique about the period of 1929 to 1932 was the number of changes to the index that took place in such a short period of time. A total of 18 companies were taken in and taken out of the Dow.
Never before and never since has the Dow had so many companies added and dropped as constituents of the index. The only other period that came close was the period from 1899 to 1901, when the index had 9 companies added and dropped from the index. As demonstrated earlier, the timing of the selections were not the most optimal. As one company was added at a relatively high price the outgoing company with a low price, which would have had little impact on the downside, was given the boot. This resulted in a vicious cycle which propelled the index much lower than was otherwise necessary.
I contrasted the period of 1929 to 1932 with other known bear markets like 1906 to 1924, when the Dow languished around the 100 level, and the period from 1966 to 1982, when the Dow traded at or below 1000. In each case, the number of changes to the index was marginal, at best. The 18 year period from 1906 to 1924 had only 13 changes or 1.38 changes per year. The 16 year period from 1966 to 1982 had only 4 changes or 0.25 changes per year. This is contrasted with the 1929 to 1932 period which had 6 changes per year.
If looked at from the perspective that Dow-Jones is always going to "buy high and sell low" then we can reasonably assume that much of the decline in the Dow from 1929 to 1932 was due primarily to the constant changes to the index. Frequent changes to the index causes "the market" to grope about for a bottom (no pun intended) that doesn't exist. It appears that Dow-Jones learned the lesson that "buy and hold" works better than trading in and out. However, the timing of their changes to the index has caused more pain to last much longer than if they just let sleeping dogs lie.
Disclosure: I hold a long position in Altria (MO)
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 5 comments:
jay
irelandcheap.com
Thank you for your comment on my article.
The fact that Dow-Jones has demonstrated a lack of judgment in the timing of the selection of their companies is only one issue. Another problem is that index managers exhibit herd mentality.
Because the S&P 500 was created in 1957 and backward calculated, there is no way to see how the S&P managed their index back in 1929. However, you can seen exactly the same decisions that Dow-Jones made by the teams at S&P. S&P added and dropped companies in a similar fashion that Dow Jones did.
Regarding the Russell 2000, that index was created, from what I can tell, in 1984. Russell indices also seem to exhibit bias towards changing their index when S&P and Dow-Jones make changes by switching out companies that have hit bottom with companies that are still in the position to fall further.
Again, my article wasn't an effort to demonstrate that companies will go up or down based on being in an index or that earnings aren't important. Instead, I was trying to demonstrate that the creators of the indices are prone to chacteristics of novice traders.
Regarding your question of the similarity of market movements, there is surprising evidence that although similar, the indices movements isn't the same. I have addressed this issue in a prior Seeking Alpha article at: seekingalpha.com/artic...
Thanks again Jay.
On Apr 22 10:00 AM jay fredrickson wrote:
> Good article but it doesn't really go anywhere. So the DJIA is wrong
> to move stocks in and out? What would explain similar moves to the
> S & P 500 and the Russell 2000? Seems like on face value you
> are correct, but the potential for companies to earn money in the
> future is still the main reason for stock price movement, up or down.
>
>
> jay
>
> irelandcheap.com
American Cotton Oil - Predecessor of Bestfoods
American Sugar - Evolved into Amstar Holdings
American Tobacco - Broken up in 1911 by antitrust actions
Chicago Gas - Now part of Peoples Energy
Distilling & Cattle Feeding - Evolved into Millennium Chemicals
Laclede Gas - Still in operation as Laclede Group
National Lead - Now known as NL Industries
North American - Utility broken up in the 1940s
Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company - Bought by U.S. Steel
US Leather - Dissolved in 1952
US Rubber - Now part of Michelin
www.money-zine.com/Inv.../
I completely agree with your comment that the purpose of the index isn't to pick stocks with strength but to reflect the overall market. However, you need strong companies to last long enough to actually reflect the market. Otherwise, the companies chosen would go out of business and then have to be be replaced. As you'll see below, many other stocks that went in and out of the index never were either obsolenscent or bankrupt.
Although AIG has been nationalized it conceivably could still be in the index. After all, even though the rails were nationalized in 1914 they still were part of the Dow-Jones Transportation Index.
Regarding changes to the Dow it should be noted that many companies have been added and dropped in that fashion of an inexperienced trader. Here are some notable examples:
-American Tobacco was dropped in 1899 and added in 1924, was dropped in 1928 and replace with the American Tobacco B shares, B shares were dropped in 1930
-General Electric was dropped in 1898, added in 1899, dropped in 1901, added 1907.
-IBM was added in 1932, dropped in 1939, added in 1979
-International Paper preferred shares were added in April 1901, dropped July 1901, common shares were added in 1956, dropped in 2004.
-Remington Typewriter was added in 1925, dropped in 1927
-Texaco or Texas Company was added in 1916, dropped in 1924, added in 1925, dropped in 1997.
-Goodrich was added 1916, dropped in 1924, added in 1928, dropped in 1930.
-Coca Cola was added in 1932, dropped in 1935, added in 1987.
The evidence seems to indicate that the managers of indices act like traders rather than trying to reflect the overall economy or market.
Thanks for your comment SivBum.