Meh, interesting somewhat, but flawed IMO.
Who is geting layed off? Those who buy staples, or those who buy the luxury discretionary products?
His so-called CEI, or ratio of XLY to XLP has underlying, yet unstated assumption - namely that XLY and XLP move 'proportionately' to the same economic data. (Economic hard times hit both at the same time and in the same/identical way. Any deviance in those will skew results giving a false positive or negative.)
Is it not possible that broad economic bad news (such as latoffs of the lower and middle class) could lower the XLP (staples) more than the XLY (luxury/discretionary goods)?
(Why do I continue to see the corp elite ect still frolicing at fancy resorts while the layoff lines get longer?)
If the two indexes (XLY & XLP) don't necessarily respond alike, with XLY not hammered as hard because luxury/discretionary is not elastic as staples for any given bit of bad news, is CEI index will yield a higher number thus making the CEI (LT outcome) appear stronger for thre longer term than it really is.
I'd also like to know what the effect is on having McDonalds stock classified as a 'luxury". No doubt it's effect can be quantified and isolated, yet he has not done that.
Clearly McDonalds has benefited (or hurt less) by the more difficult times. FFS, they have a "Dollar Menu" now.
Also, I find his last paragraph conjecture (his personal interpretation):
the stock market is engaged in something of a pity party -- the prevailing emotions being fear and loathing. It is concerned about policies which might be burdensome to equityholders in large corporations while perhaps nevertheless being boons to economic recovery.
Well, OK. That is
one explanation for the CEI movement (in additiona to mine above - the rich not hit as hard as the lower & middle class). But is his 'wishfull thinking' or accurate? Unfortunately, there is nothing his study to tell which.
Fern