Why Do People Care So Much About All-Time Highs?
What's with this obsession with the high-point of the Nasdaq, back in 2000? The Wall Street Journal is polling economists, asking them when they think the Nasdaq is going to hit a new high – to which the only reasonable answer is "how on earth am I supposed to know" – or words to that effect. Why not ask when it will reach 3,000, or 4,000, or twice its present level?
Meanwhile, Ron Pillar of JP Morgan is comparing the Nasdaq to the Dow, and doesn't look at market cap or earnings multiples or any other normal indicator of value: instead, he, too, is obsessed with that 7-year-old high-water mark.
Deal Journal: How would you characterize the tech deal markets right now?
Ron Pillar: In the tech world there is still what I characterize as a healthy and rational market. While the Dow [Jones Industrial Average] is at an all-time high, the Nasdaq [Composite Index] is still 50% from its peak. That says something about the rationalness of where we are.
Please, someone, explain this to me, 'cos I really don't understand it at all. In what sense is percentage-off-all-time-high a remotely useful indicator? And unless you're one of those funny technical-analysis people who love to draw lines on charts and talk about "bearish engulfings" and exclamation points on doji stars, why does the special case when discount-to-all-time-high is 0% attract such a ridiculous amount of attention?
To a certain extent, the focus on all-time highs is a function of the stock-market-as-horse-race school of financial journalism – where stocks going up is good, stocks going down is bad, and stocks hitting all-time highs is akin to a world record being set. But I think there's something psychological going on, too.
When you buy a stock, you naturally want reassurance that you're not overpaying. If someone else paid significantly more than you a few years or months or days ago, then at least you can feel a little bit superior to them, and help to justify your decision in that way. I get the feeling that's the kind of thinking embedded in what Pillar is saying, but of course the reasoning doesn't bear up very well to sunlight. So I do wonder why the head of technology investment banking at JP Morgan Chase is talking along such lines.
Loading...
Thank you for registering as a Portfolio.com Insider. Your comment has been added.
Create Your Public Profile- The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
- Apr 27 2009 9:26AM EDT
- Sinking Animal Spirits
- Apr 27 2009 8:45AM EDT
- Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
- Apr 26 2009 10:00AM EDT
- Be Your Own Counterfeiter
- Apr 26 2009 9:36AM EDT
- Being Tim Geithner
- Apr 25 2009 12:37PM EDT
- Notes From a Press Conference Naif
- Apr 25 2009 9:41AM EDT
- What Good is the News?
- Apr 25 2009 8:32AM EDT
- Stressful Enough
- Apr 24 2009 2:29PM EDT
- Not Regretting the Pound
- Apr 24 2009 1:09PM EDT
- Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
- Apr 24 2009 9:47AM EDT
- Non-Economic Questions of the Day
- Apr 24 2009 9:12AM EDT
- The Stress Test Blind Alley
- Apr 24 2009 8:36AM EDT
- Happy Hour
- Apr 23 2009 9:40PM EDT
- Recovery Without Rebalancing
- Apr 23 2009 6:13PM EDT
- The Shape of Your Recession
- Apr 23 2009 5:11PM EDT
Categories
Links
- Email Ryan Avent
- Econospeak

- Financial Crookery

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- Ultimi Barbarorum







