PM Images/DigitalVision via Getty Images
Listen here or on the go via Apple Podcasts and Spotify
Why Michael Kramer from Mott Capital Management and Reading The Markets is focused on Fed dot plot, BOJ meeting (0:30). What happens with inflation expectations? (6:15) AI hype, tech stock valuations (9:00). Undervalued names in healthcare (25:30). Metrics for different stocks and sectors and long-term themes (27:50).
Transcript
Rena Sherbill: Happy to welcome back to Investing Experts, always a pleasure to have you on, Michael Kramer from Mott Capital Management and the Investing Group on Seeking Alpha, Reading the Markets. Welcome back, Michael.
Michael Kramer: Thanks for having me again.
RS: Great to have you. We were just talking before we hit record, there is a lot to talk about these days. We are recording this, midafternoon on Wednesday, September 17. We have a Fed decision coming. It’s pretty much baked in what’s gonna happen.
A lot to discuss other than that, but let me get your thoughts first off. Where is your head at today? What are you thinking about primarily today and this week?
MK: Obviously, the Fed meeting, I’m really anxious about what they’re gonna not only do. I mean, I think everyone expects them to cut rates today. I think the odds are something like 97 or 98% for a 25 basis point, and I think there’s a 2% chance for a 50.
But, I’m really more curious about what they’re gonna say in the dot pot when it comes to where they see that rate cycle sort of ending, cutting cycle. And I think that’s a really important concept because I think once the market can really get a feel for where that endpoint is on the rate cutting cycle, that’s gonna really allow the yield curve to steepen.
Because if you look at the yield curve right now, historically, it’s still very flat. I mean, a ten year rate right now trades for $4.03, and a three month rate is trading at, you know, $3.97. So if you’re an investor, why do you wanna own a ten year rate when you can just keep rolling three month treasury bills over for as long as you can until you can get a bigger premium?
And so, I’d be really curious to see if the opposite happens of what everyone thinks, which is, they’re gonna cut rates and rates are gonna go down across the curve.
I’m actually more curious because I think there’s a good possibility that they can cut rates and the back of the curve can actually rise. And so I’m really interested and excited to see what happens there.
And I’m also really interested and excited to see what happens with the BOJ meeting actually a few hours tonight, later this evening, a few hours from now because what we’ve been seeing is these interest rate differentials really contracting with Japan rates going up and US rates coming down.
And that’s, I think, gonna pressure the yen in a really material way and potentially lead to its strengthening. And so I think for that to happen and that to play out, you’re gonna have to see the BOJ kinda commit towards more rate hikes in the future.
And I think they’re probably gonna have to do that given where inflation is over there. So those are the two really important things that are on my radar right now.
But there’s a lot of other things going on, you have Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) with China today talking about how they’re not gonna allow them to sell their chips there anymore. We were just saying that when they announced the US was gonna allow Nvidia to export H20 chips again, the stock skyrocketed, and now they’re basically shut out of China.
Whether that changes or not, I have no idea.
But you would think that the opposite should happen now when the stock should really come back down and probably take the entire market with it because that’s what it it tends to do with that big eight to nine percent weighting in the S&P 500 (SP500).
RS: If I can just finish the point on the dot plot, what are you predicating your supposition on? What’s that based on?
MK: I think you have these two school of thoughts out there. I think there’s a school of thought out there that the rate cutting cycle means the onset of quantitative easing.
The rate cutting cycle means that rates are going back to zero or 1%, because that’s what the market has been trained to do. It’s like Pavlov’s dog. You talk about rate cuts. Everyone gets excited because they think rates are going back to 1%.
Think about what happened during the GFC and then, of course, during the pandemic, rates were at zero when we did massive amounts of quantitative easing.
But I think what this cycle has proven to us is that the economy can avoid recession technically with rates even at where they are right now, even though there are signs of it slowing.
So what that implies to me is that terminal rate, the rate when the rate cut cycle is all over, it’s probably closer to somewhere around three percent than 1%.
And so one of the reasons why I think you haven’t really seen the yield curve steepen in a more material way is because the market doesn’t really know for sure where that terminal endpoint will be for the the floor in this rate cutting cycle because we’re sort of in uncharted waters.
We haven’t been in a period of time where we haven’t had a a zero rate on the lower bound for since 2008, going on almost twenty years. So the market’s really not sure where the rate cutting cycle stops.
And I think once the market can really sniff out where that rate cutting cycle at the bottom is, which the Fed fund futures indicate are somewhere around 3%, 2.8, 3%.
If that’s right, then I think that the yield curve will need to steepen in the form of the front of the curve coming down a little bit, but then the back of the curve will really have to steepen out because if you go back and you look historically, typically, a ten year trades at 300 basis points above a two or the thirty year typically trades almost 450 basis points above Fed funds.
So if Fed funds is gonna be three, then why shouldn’t a thirty year be closer to six or seven? And that’s what I’m going off of. That was a long winded answer, I guess.
RS: No. I think explanatory. So what would you say, what are you looking at bond wise, portfolio wise based on this? What is it gonna mean for you in the next coming days, in the coming weeks? And what other data would you be looking to bolster your case?
MK: So I think the important things that I’ll be watching immediately following this, will be what happens with inflation expectations. How do those change with the rate cut?
And that will really help me form my opinion on how far we are from where the ultimate target is on this. Really, the dot plot, what I’m interested in is that long run rate, and seeing if that’s gonna be where that number is gonna be.
But I think, ultimately, what this implies to me, I don’t really invest in bonds. I’m more of an equity guy, but I use bond yields as a kind of a tool to help me get a sense of where equity should be in a normal world, and what it likely means for the state of the economy and inflation and how all that plays out.
But, clearly, I wouldn’t wanna own the (TLT), for example. I wouldn’t wanna own something that’s really long duration because I think more so that the risk is that the TLT could go much lower if you really started to see bond yields go significantly higher.
And at the same time, the other piece that’s very important is what happens to credit spreads in all of this, because we know that equities really trade with credit spreads.
Right now, credit spreads are historically very tight. You’re seeing all sorts of weird things happening in Europe with Italian ten years now trading on par with French ten year rates and Italian ten year spreads now only 80 basis points above a German.
It’s you have all this weird stuff going on, but I think in Europe, you have more political changes that are going on where if the markets here are kind of feeding off of this stuff going on in Europe thinking that this is a risk on signal, when in reality, it’s because of regime changes and political changes and shifting demographics and spending habits, then it’s quite possible that high yield spreads could really start to also go up as well because they’re gonna latch on to where long end rates are gonna go here.
And so again, things like the (HYG), (LQD) probably wouldn’t do very well in that type of environment.
RS: You mentioned NVIDIA and China, and we’ve talked a lot with you on this podcast, also with other people, a lot of talk about how tech is owning the market and has for a bit of time. What are your thoughts vis a vis tech stocks and the market and how you’re thinking about that?
MK: I’ve seen things happen in this market that I haven’t seen.
RS: Which is also something we’ve been talking a lot about, this unprecedented time.
MK: I’m trying to think I’m trying to think I’m 47, I’m gonna be 48 soon. And the last time I’ve seen markets and tech do things like this, I was about 18. So that was when I was in college. That takes you back to basically 1998, 1999, February.
And it makes me very nervous as an investor because it really brings back those memories. I mean, of course, the memories of the market going higher during that time were absolutely, you know, fantastic. I mean, I paid my way through college investing in the market. Luckily, I graduated in February, so I didn’t have to depend on that income anymore because the way down was extremely painful.
Every time you thought a stock was getting cheap, you found out that the earnings estimates were too high and they had to come down and the p would go right back up again.
People don’t realize how that works. So there’s a lot of similarities with that. I think that when you look at a stock like NVIDIA, I think the difference between now and I think everyone tries to compare this to 1999 and 2000 and will say things like, oh, well, in 1999, you had profitless companies.
Well, first of all, if they were profitless, they weren’t in the S&P 500. Right? And if you look at the leadership in the late nineties, early two thousands, it was the Ciscos (CSCO), Intels (INTC), (GE)s, Exxons (XOM), Microsofts (MSFT). So there was, amazingly, some similar names.
Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) obviously was a different business then, and Apple (AAPL) was very different than what it is today. But I think today, you have a lot more concentration than you did even then, at least how I think about it.
We talk about this in my Investing Group Reading the Markets a lot because you don’t realize it, but when you invest in an S&P 500 index fund, you own eight and a half or 9% of your portfolio in Nvidia. You own 40% of your portfolio in the first few names.
And so there’s a lot of concentration risk in this market, and it makes it hard because I think if you’re an investor, I try to always remind people, don’t just look at the S&P 500 because the S&P 500 has become somewhat of a broken index.
It’s basically become a NVIDIA proxy. Some days, it’s a Tesla (TSLA) proxy. Some days, it’s an Alphabet (GOOG) (GOOGL) proxy, which I own some of.
But you really have to look at a broader spectrum of indexes. People talk about small caps, all small caps have underperformed. I don’t know if anyone’s ever actually taken the time to look at the top 10 holdings in the (IWM). Pull those stocks up, and you’ll say that, oh, those stocks haven’t underperformed. They’re like vertical lines straight up.
In this market today, I think you have to distinguish between what your objectives and goals are versus what’s happening in the index and where you are in your life. So, basically, I don’t think you should be chasing the index at this point if you can avoid chasing it because of the concentration risk that it comes with. And I think that’s a big underpriced appreciation.
I mean, again, I don’t know what’s gonna happen tomorrow, but I would imagine that, if NVIDIA keeps going down, there’s a probably a high likelihood that the stock market will go down and the whole AI complex will go down with it.
And that could create a painful environment because people who think that they’re invested safely aren’t really necessarily invested safely.
RS: And what’s the flip side to this argument? What would you say counters this argument, and what would you pick apart at the counterargument?
MK: The counterargument obviously is the argument that I lived through in the late nineties, and I was a victim of, really, which is that this is a revolutionary technology, that this is going to change the way we live our lives.
And there’s no doubt that the Internet changed everything. I mean, there are things that we’re doing today that in 1999 or February, you could have never even imagined doing because of the Internet. No one ever dreamt in 1999 or 2000 that they would have a phone that you could touch the screen on or speak to and be able to while you’re walking down the street, place an order from Amazon and have it delivered to your house by the next morning.
That was never even something you would think about because it was so far out into the future. No one ever thought really about being able to have an app where you can communicate with people through social media all day long. I mean, we were still using flip phones. The Razer was the big phone. So, there’s no doubt.
When you look at Cisco, everyone likes to beat up on Cisco because it was kind of the poster child for that dotcom bubble. Cisco actually went on to achieve all the things that everyone thought it was going to achieve in terms of revenue and growth and prospects.
It was the backbone of the Internet. It still kinda is. It makes all those pieces. But what changed isn’t that the company wasn’t able to generate the revenue projections over time. Yes. It took longer to happen.
What changed was the amount that people were willing to pay for it, and that multiple is the risk that NVIDIA today you know, again, AI, I use it all the time. If you if you didn’t tell me what chatbot I was using and you just had me go to work, I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between them because they’re that similar.
What immediately begins to dawn in my head is, okay. AI is revolutionizing things. It’s going to become the future. But that doesn’t mean that it’s worth $250 a month. If I can’t tell the difference between two and if only one is slightly better than the other, but to the average user, it doesn’t really make a difference, then guess what, prices for those come down.
You commoditize that product, and those prices actually go down. And what that also means to me is that these things, while they’re very, very useful, the amount of money that’s being thrown at them may not yield that return on investment that investors are looking for, and that valuation gap may close.
And that’s what really keeps me up at night, especially when I own Microsoft. I’ve owned Alphabet. I own Amazon, and I’ve owned them all for a really long time. In fact, I invested in them before there was really this AI mania for different reasons.
But that’s what really scares me when it comes to owning these because look at a chart of Alphabet. It’s gone up 18 or 20% in one month. I totally and completely get the AI story. I can get all of it. I see how my kids use it, but that doesn’t mean that the market will be willing to pay the same multiple for it in the future.
RS: To your point that you have owned these mega tech names for a long time and to the point that we don’t know yet the killer application of these technologies and also how tech companies come out like Facebook (META), how it came out, how it morphed into what it is now.
Amazon, how it makes its money now versus how it made its money that I mean, we could go down the list. Given that we’re focused on investing and not trading, what about a long term hold in these names if you like the business model?
Even if you think there is a bit of a bubble that might get pricked at some point, are you of the opinion that long term it’s a bullish thesis? Or, I guess, how would how do you think about the long term nature of it?
MK: That’s a really hard question because I can remember firsthand thinking, in September 2000. Cisco at $40 or $50, five years from now, ten years from now, it’ll be worth more. Right? Still never gotten back to some of those highs that it was.
Qualcomm (QCOM), 25 years to get back to where it was. Intel still hasn’t gotten back. Oracle’s (ORCL) more recent. Microsoft’s one of the few that came back relatively quickly. It only took maybe a decade.
And so what that means is, you need to realize when you’re buying these stocks at these types of valuations and these multiples, you’re taking not only a long term view, but you’re taking potentially a very long term view.
People have different meanings for what long term is. And if your long term view is one year, well, you may have to wait significantly longer than one year for those valuations to make sense.
So it’s a game that’s a really risky game, because it’s hard to predict if the market resets the valuation and you’re paying what they used to do in 2000, was they used to play these games.
The sell side would do these models. They do a discounted cash flow model, in the year 1999. So they do a discounted cash cash flow model with cash flows going out to the year 2005. I used to look at that stuff and be like, oh, look. They’re saying it’s gonna be whatever in twenty years.
Then when I got older and I went to grad school, I realized, well, I don’t even know what the interest rate is gonna be. So how can I possibly do a discounted cash flow model ten years from now?
And so you realize the games that were played to make these valuations seem attractive at those levels.
The way that I try to think about these investments because I have a list of stocks that I just wanna buy, but I can’t do it at these prices. And I look at them and say, well, let’s say NVIDIA today trades at, I don’t know, 25 times sales. And I try to pick what a normal, like, sales range is.
So I would say NVIDIA at a 4 and a half trillion dollar valuation, at 10 times sales means that the company needs to do $450,000,000,000 a year in sales. At five times sales, it would need to do $800,000,000,000. So the risk here is that that multiple goes from 25 to five.
And all of a sudden, now you’re looking at the revenue needing to grow from 200,000,000,000 to 800,000,000,000. And then I think about the odds of that actually happening. And I say to myself, well, that’s pretty hard to go from making 200,000,000,000 to 800,000,000,000.
That’s a big feat. It might take a long time for that to happen. And, how much pain comes in between? So I scratch it off my list, move on to the next one.
RS: Last time you were on Investing Experts, I believe a couple months ago, you were talking about choosing Amazon over NVIDIA a while back. And I think this speaks to this point in terms of, maybe you could have gotten an NVIDIA and it you could have done gangbusters for your portfolio.
But going by your rules, you chose some mega cap stocks that also did quite well. And it’s like sometimes you have to choose the win, organizing your emotions around your portfolio and how you pick and how you don’t beat yourself up about lost opportunities if you’re sticking to a core thesis.
MK: Look. There’s always lost opportunities in investing. That’s the nature of the business. You’re never gonna get it right all the time. But I always try to think about what works best for me and and what I’m trying to accomplish.
When I was looking at NVIDIA in October ’22 with and comparing it with Amazon, at that point, there wasn’t really much talk about AI. And NVIDIA, I knew, was a very volatile stock. And I was trying to look at it from a standpoint of which one do I stand a better chance with in this moment in time to make a good return on my investment.
And Amazon was just, when I looked at it, I value Amazon on a market cap to free to funds from operation sort of multiple, because what really matters for Amazon has always been how much cash flow AWS can throw off to support the rest of the business.
I looked at that, and I said Amazon is just too cheap, and NVIDIA at this point is too much of a risk.
I would beat myself up far more if I missed Amazon and chose NVIDIA over it because NVIDIA was a different a different animal at that point. And so, yeah, I could’ve had NVIDIA at the same exact moment that I had gotten Amazon, but Amazon hasn’t done too poorly either, although it’s not up as much, it just came down to trying to measure my my risks and my reward.
RS: What else would you say about other tech names? How would you encourage investors to be looking at the tech space and/or other sectors that you’re looking at?
MK: The tech space, it’s something else right now.
I mean, the moves you’re seeing in some of these stocks make no sense. I’ve owned Alphabet since 2017, and it grew to be a very large percentage of my portfolio over the last couple of weeks. I trimmed it in half just yesterday, actually, because if you just look at it from a valuation standpoint, it’s starting to get up towards the upper end of the range historically.
Technically, the stock is just through the roof in terms of technicals. It’s just totally overbought. And, it’s okay to take a profit. And I bought the stock in 2017. It’s okay to take a profit. I think my cost base is, like, 40.
There’s nothing wrong with taking profits. I think from that standpoint, you have to look at where some of these stocks are relative to where they’ve been versus their historical valuations.
I think the way I look at stocks is I like to value them against themselves. Meaning, if Microsoft has never traded above 40 times earnings and it always has peaked in every cycle at 35 times earnings, then probably a 40 multiple is too high for it. Right? And if it always tends to bottom around 20 and now it’s trading at 15, it’s probably too cheap.
And that’s how I try to look at it from that standpoint. Right now, all these stocks from my view are trading at or near the upper end of the historical ranges, from a valuation standpoint.
I don’t know Oracle, but when you kinda see how Oracle responds to these news headlines that are like, well, how is OpenAI going to generate all this revenue that they’re gonna be able to actually make good on these commitments?
You realize that the market right now is trading a lot on impulse and not really thought. So the interesting thing is I think everyone is so focused on tech, they’re missing out on opportunities in things like health care.
I recently wrote about how health care was underappreciated, because if you look at a chart where you compare the ratio of the (XLK) to the (XLV) or the (SPY) to the XLV historically, the health care group is just incredibly undervalued.
And so, I bought UnitedHealthcare (UNH) for myself, when it came down to that $270 range, I think it was in early mid May, and I’ve just stuck with it. I looked at it and I looked at the risk reward. And I said, well, either it’s a zero, so it goes from $270 to zero, or it’s gonna go back to 800 or 600.
I looked through all the financials. I could see there’s a good business there. I followed it for years. It was super cheap. So to me, it’s a no brainer because the risk reward favors, to me, the upside. The biggest health insurer going bankrupt or going out of business in this country would probably be pretty detrimental. So I went with the positive view. And so far, it’s been working for me, and I’m pleased with that.
And I recently also bought shares of Zoetis (ZTS), which makes medications for pets. I own two golden retrievers, and I know that the cost of these pets are extremely expensive.
Who makes most of the medications? Zoetis does. A lot of people bought dogs and cats during COVID. Those dogs and cats, maybe people don’t realize, but those dogs and cats are gonna become very expensive as they get older and so they’re gonna need lots of medications.
Zoetis to me was too cheap to pass up the opportunity on. So I added that to my portfolio. So I’m really trying to look away from tech, and I’m trying to look for these beaten down parts of the market that really make sense from a valuation standpoint.
And, I mean, when I look at buying things, I’m looking at the valuation. I’m looking at the technicals. I’m looking at what the options market is pricing, and I’m putting in all sorts of different factors because I really care a lot about price when I’m buying something.
Even though I tend to plan when I buy things, I tend to own them for five to ten year periods.
RS: Is there anything sector specific that comes up when you’re talking about metrics, or is it across the board you’re using the same type of methodology?
MK: It’s interesting because different sectors use different type of metrics. Different stocks use different types of metrics.
For example, I mentioned Amazon. I found that going through my analysis, what really matters for Amazon is that twelve month trailing cash flow from operations, at least it used to, and it still seems to to me.
When I look at software companies, I’m looking for those margins. Those gross margins matter a lot. I’ve been recently doing work on (FICO), which is Fair Isaac. You know, a lot of people you wouldn’t think about FICO as being an attractive business, but they run 80 margins with 15 to 20% revenue growth. And so I’ve been doing a lot of work on that, seeing how the multiples, it’s been expanding over the years because margins have been expanding.
So I think that each sector carries its own methods in terms of how you have to value them. I don’t think it’s a cookie cutter, oh, look. The stock trades at 30 times sales, or oh, look the stock trades at 30 times earnings. That’s expensive because the market’s at 22. I think you have to look at it compared to the growth, the margins you have to look at it versus the growth.
You have to look at it versus what its competitors are doing. So there’s a lot of factors, I think, that go into each different part of the sectors.
RS: In terms of the market that we’re looking at today, there’s talk of small caps, mid caps, MLPs, dividend stocks. Is there anything that you’re primarily focused on in this present moment?
MK: So when I invest, I’m actually looking for these long term themes. And I’m looking for things that are going to grow over time. So for example, I had back surgery in 2021. My disc was bulging, and so they did a discectomy where they just cut out part of the disc and you’re good.
So I was going through the process of MRIs and and the surgery, and I was learning a lot about the technologies that went into all. I said, wow, could you imagine if they just have robots do all of this stuff one day?
So sure enough, Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) is one such company. So I put Intuitive Surgical on my list in 2021. And in 2022, the market sold off because I saw and I tracked Intuitive Surgical for nine months or a year, maybe a little longer. And then finally, it got to the point where the valuations I saw every time the stock got to, I don’t remember what the number was off the top of my head, but let’s say it was 15 times sales or 40 times earnings, I think it was 35 times earnings was the metric. Every time the stock got down to 35 times earnings, that’s where the bottom in the multiple was.
So I waited for it to get the 35 times earnings, and then I bought it. I added to my portfolio. So I tend to do things like that.
Like, I’ve used Shopify (SHOP). I used to use Shopify a lot when I was trying to build out my website. So I did the same exercise with Shopify. Every time I got the five times sales, it would bounce and bounce. So I waited, and I bought Shopify back in 2022 also.
But, the things that I’m kinda leaning on are thinking about a lot about AI and not in the sense of, I wanna own tech stocks. I wanna own AI because what is this going to do for drug development? What is this gonna do for blood testing?
What is this you know, imagine if one day, you could get a drop of blood taken and an algorithm is gonna be able to detect really quickly whether or not you have cancer based on a certain gene or certain pattern and that can detect those types of things because it’s run across a big database that would have taken humans maybe six months to do.
So looking for those type of businesses are certainly interesting to me.
Other things that I’m doing a lot of is paying attention to what my kids do. I mean, I don’t hear my kids ever talk about Instagram. My kids only talk about two things, TikTok and Snapchat. And Snapchat (SNAP) stock doesn’t do anything, but I know that the kids are using Snapchat a lot.
And recently, I went into a Chipotle (CMG). Just last week, it was 5:30, and the place was empty. All my kids like to drink, and their friends like to drink Starbucks. And I said, wow, the guy who used to be the CEO of Chipotle is now the CEO of Starbucks (SBUX). Is that something I should be thinking about?
Maybe it really is about who the leadership is because look at Chipotle. This place is dead empty at 5:30 on a Thursday afternoon. But my kids I mean, my my kids are running up bills on their Starbucks app. So maybe Brian Nichols is sort of the key in all of this. Maybe he is the guy that’s going to turn this business around, and maybe Starbucks is something I should be thinking about.
So I’m watching what my kids are doing. I’m thinking about these types of things, and it could take me months to decide when to actually pull the trigger because I’ll come up with the idea, goes on a list. It has to make sense from all these different standpoints, And that’s because I’ve gotten burned so badly.
When I first launched my portfolio in 2015, 2016, I got caught up in the biotech mania, and I got absolutely destroyed. And I had one bad year in my early infancy of the thematic growth portfolio I created, and it basically ruined my performance for the next ten years because you’re digging yourself out of this hole that compounds over time. Makes it really hard.
RS: Appreciate this conversation, Michael. For those interested, your investing group is called Reading The Markets on Seeking Alpha. What would you encourage investors to remember? What are you talking about on reading the markets? What do you find that people are most interested in knowing at this point? Anything that you feel like is worthy of investors’ attention right now. Happy for you to leave them with that.
MK: Investors today are just very confused. I think this is a very challenging market. I think there are many things that happen in it today.
You see it on the news all the time. Oh, the job report’s a disaster. The market likes it, though. Why? Well, it’s because the Fed’s gonna cut rates. They come up with these narratives.
The reason why the market does certain things really has to do with a lot of mechanical stuff that’s going on behind the scenes. And it really has nothing to do with the data itself, but the positioning that goes on into the data.
And so I try to prepare all my readers going into every single event, and I always make fun of it before. I’ll always say something like, watch, now tomorrow, he’s gonna cut rates and rates are gonna go higher on the back of the curve or something or the market’s gonna rip during the press conference, and everyone’s gonna say, it’s a dovish Fed, it’s a dovish Fed cut if there’s such a thing.
But, really, it has to do with the fact that implied volatility is super jacked up going into the news, and then it crashes as soon as the event risk passes. And that pushes the market up because all those puts that were in place just got burned.
And so those types of things, I think, are what people really like to hear about today because it helps them get a little bit of a handle on what’s really happening and gets them away from chasing the news, which I think is a destructive way to invest, when you’re trying to chase after the market.
And, if you can just take a step back from that and say, well, you know what? This is probably just a reaction. Let me wait and see. In some cases, it can save you from making a bad choice.
