Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Loading...
Chart Of The Day

The 2013 Wall of Worry

Nice chart here from LPL Financial.  It shows the 2013 “wall of worry”.  I attached a bit of the commentary as well:

“When we take a look at weather forecasts, such as those in farmers’ almanacs, we do not often consider any bias by the source of those forecasts. But maybe we should. It turns out that when it comes to weather forecasting, it is common to find low-probability outcomes consistently overestimated by forecasters. For example, according to a study at Texas A&M “when TWC (The Weather Channel) forecasted a 0.2 (20%) chance of precipitation for the same day, precipitation occurred only 5.5% of the time.”

The well-known bias of weather forecasters to exaggerate fears of negative, low-probability outcomes, such as the likelihood and amount of snowfall, also often appears in the forecasts of non-weather-related issues. We saw this bias in the media over the antics in Washington, D.C., fixating on the threat of a default on U.S. Treasury debt during the debt ceiling discussions, or a return to recession due to the impact of the sequester spending cuts. This bias could also be seen in events beyond the United States’ borders in the exaggerated attention devoted to the threat of another financial crisis stemming from the Cyprus bank bailout, the risk of the outcome of the Italian elections plunging the Eurozone debt markets into chaos, and the risks of a strike on Syria turning into a major geopolitical military engagement.

Of course, the probabilities of those outcomes were very low, and the markets did not dwell on those potential outcomes. Market participants tuned them out, and the S&P 500 moved steadily higher throughout the year without experiencing more than a 6% pullback at any point [Figure 11]. We believe it will be safe in 2014 to again tune out much of the antics in Washington, D.C. as the mid-term elections turn up the volume but not the impact.”

LPL2

 

Source: LPL Financial

 

Comments are closed.