Transcription of interview with Ken Fisher on March 19, 2012.

Douglas Goldstein, CFPÆ, Financial Planner & Investment Advisor

Ken Fisher is the founder, chairman and CEO of Fisher Investments Company, which manages

about $41 billion. He has been known for over 27 years as Forbesí portfolio strategy columnist

and is the fourth-longest running columnist in Forbesí history. He is also a New York

Times bestselling author and wrote the book, Markets Can Never Forget (But People Do).

Douglas Goldstein, financial planner & investment advisor, interviewed Fisher on Arutz Sheva

Radio.

Douglas Goldstein: Can you tell us a little bit about the link between the stock market

price/earnings ratios and stock prices?

Ken Fisher: Much of what we commonly believe about things is because of the way our brains

work rather than the things themselves, and people have difficulty with that. Our brains

were set up to process information a long time ago, but they were not really set up

to deal with the kinds of modern phenomena that we also encounter today, and we process

that information through those old processors. Things like price/earnings ratios are ones

were we routinely presume because our brain naturally assumes that high P/Es are riskier

than low P/Es, and this becomes part of a common culture that is widely accepted. People

agree on it, but the fact remains at almost any time I put any information in a framework

that is a framework of height, people will always see a heights framework as risky because

we are descended from people where heights were inherently risky if you fell. You likely

got killed or maimed, and if you are maimed, itís almost as bad as getting killed so heights

were risky.

For example, if you pick a high P/E and flip it into any key that would be earnings divided

by price and think of that as an interest rate as compared to other interest rates,

the heights framework goes away and the compared of cost of money becomes more important. You

become more rational and analytical, and you get closer to a reality that make sense in

an economic way, but if you just think in terms of P/E, people auto default that high

P/E is risky and low P/E is safe. Meir Statman has done a lot of work on this that was published

long ago. Any way you measure it, looking at one, three, or five years, doesnít tell

you anything at all about risky returns.

Douglas Goldstein: If youíre buying something and paying 30, 40, or 50 times earnings, it

is very expensive. Youíre saying that thatís just how we are programmed to think and itís

not really the reality of how the market works?

Ken Fisher: High P/E stocks over one, three, and five-year periods donít have a markedly

higher or lower return than low P/E stocks except in the periods where high P/E stocks

do better and periods where high P/E stocks do worse. But if you take out just a very

few, which you could think of as outliers and outliers are always things that have a

status of additional ones to throw out, itís likely not to be very meaningful and doesnít

look at the bulk of the returns. So you donít see any effect that actually leads you anywhere

on a predictive sense that anybody would ever want to bet on, and yet thatís what our brains

want to do.

The same is true if you think of, for example, the total market. People generally believe

that things like markets are less risky when the marketís P/E is low. They are more risky

when the marketís P/E is high and you can just measure looking at one, three, and five-year

returns, how many times the market depends at this P/E level, that P/E level, and the

other P/E level. High P/E tells you nothing about whether it will in the next year go

up or down or by how much, because for example you can give me a high P/E market that has

done terribly and I can show you a complete example of how an exactly identical high P/E

time period over the next 12 months did wonderfully. Itís actually very 50/50, and the same as

true with low P/E. Low P/Es sometimes do wonderfully, sometimes they do terribly, and if you look

again at one, three and five years, itís very 50-50, but yet thatís now what our brains

want to believe. One of the key things of behavior is that we tend to see information

that confirms our prior biases and we tend to be blind to the information that contradicts

some of these.

My newest book which came out last year, called Markets Can Never Forget (But People Do),

is just chock-full of examples of the things where our memories just donít work for us

in showing us what it is that weíve often seen many times before. But because itís

inconsistent with our prior bias, we donít accept it until we donít see it, so weíre

blind to it. One of the points thatís amazing about our brains and our memory is that our

memories about some things are very good. Weíre very good at recognizing facial patterns,

for example, and holding them for a very long time period and being able to recognize somebody

that we havenít seen for 20 years as their face changes and ages. Weíre really good

at doing that, but thatís a really old thing that weíve done for a really long time with

people. A lot of us are in the framework that once we have ever dealt with our own, what

we tend to do is believe that all of our friends believe it. We tend to think itís true, which

reinforces our tendency to believe it. Yet in fact, the message that Iím saying is check

it out for yourself to see if itís really true because most of what you believe isnít

really true. People find this troublesome, and they also find it to work and yet the

whole world of markets takes advantage.

Douglas Goldstein: One of the very common numbers that comes out and affects the markets

all the time is consumer confidence. How does that affect stock returns?

Ken Fisher: Consumer confidence is something that is largely and overly simple since it

moves with the market with a very slight time lag. If you know what the stock market has

done in terms of the global stock market, you know pretty much where the consumer confidence

numbers are going to come out. When the market goes up, rising and performing well, strong

consumer confidence tends to rise. When the market tends to be falling, consumer confidence

is often updated and revised a little bit after theyíre initially released, but the

revised numbers largely have a slightly lag effect to the stock market. The stock market

is telling you the same thing- that consumers will be able to see how theyíre feeling.

The point is so simple that most people donít want to believe it. For example, in the media

it regularly says that you should be more optimistic because consumer confidence is

up and thatís the sign that things will be better ahead. On the one hand, the stock market

is in of itself the leading indicator, and it always has been both on the upside and

on the downside but an improvement in consumer confidence is really a statement that the

stock market has already been up. Itís not because consumer confidence is up, so you

should be bullish, or that because consumer confidence is down, you should be bearish.

We see lots of these things, but weíre just unwilling to accept them because we donít

want to accept them. The most egregious that I know of are all of the features that surround

deficits and debt. We have heavy biases with the Western world and much of the rest of

the world. Everything that has to do with debt is that debt is bad and more debt is

worse, but there are lots of examples that contradict it. But people donít want to look

at those examples of where somebody had debt and they got into trouble, and therefore this

reinforces their view that this is bad. The willingness of people that contemplate that

their bias might be wrong is very low, very small. Thereís this tremendous desire to

say which behavior was called accumulating pride, which is, ìWhat if Iím smart? So

you want to see me doing it again?î and that tendency really doesnít want to challenge

its own belief system because when you challenge your own belief system about basic things,

itís scary and as if youíre ego-driven.

Douglas Goldstein: If you were to give advice to regular investors, what would be the number

one thing that people should be doing when theyíre beginning to work on their own finances?

Ken Fisher: I presume that if youíve been right, youíre probably lucky, and if youíve

been wrong that you should be focusing on learning something that changes some belief

set that you have. Otherwise, maybe youíre overconfident if youíre not ready to do that,

and if youíre overconfident, maybe you shouldnít be making your own decisions. Thereís a tremendous

tendency among humans of all types to be overconfident, to presume that they can make decisions that

arenít the basis as they donít really know anything.

Finance basically says, to make a long story very short, that you need to know something

other people donít know or when you make decisions youíll either be right because

youíre lucky or more often be wrong and be worse if you made no decisions at all. I decide

Iím going to buy stock X because I really like the new product that theyíre coming

out with, which is a really easy thing for somebody to see that you might do that, and

it goes up so you think you were smart. If it goes down, you think, ìI didnít really

decide to buy that stock; the broker sold it to me.î The fact is, what a financier

would say is that if you didnít know something that other people didnít broadly know, you

shouldnít be making the decision, and if youíre going to be an investor, you should

largely just be passive. The part that says I want to give up my overconfidence is a very

hard thing for most people.

The fundamental basis of investing should include an extra dose of pre-plan humility

that is actually very hard for many people to engage in. Most people fall to this notion

that behaviorists call ìaccumulating prideî and ìshining regret,î which associates success

with scale repeatability and associates failure with victimization or bad luck. Our ancestors

accumulated pride and shining regret in almost everything they did, which motivated them

to keep trying, and we are the descendants of people who are very heavy priers because

if you think of doing something as audacious as taking a stick with a stone point on it

and running up next to some large animal and thinking youíre going to stab it and take

it home and defeat it, that takes a fair amount of confidence and a fair amount of willingness

to take a risk that you donít get trampled in the process and killed yourself. We are

the descendants of people who are very successful at engaging in these activities, where they

were on the one hand overconfident, but they were good at what they did, compared to others

who are not their descendants because they didnít pass on their genes. The fact is that

that overconfidence plays really well in a lot of environments.

So, in a distant time in a tribal format, one time I had to go into the north, to the

east, to the south, to the west, and the guy that comes back at the end of the day with

a couple of gazelles over his skin is a big hero around the camp fire that night. The

guy that comes back with nothing for the day comes back with a lot of excuses as to why

it wasnít his fault. The winds are blowing the wrong way, there were big noises in the

area that scared all the gazelles off, the neighboring tribe were making a lot of noise,

but nobody really appreciates all the excuses. They leave and go back out to hunt the next

day. The guy with both gazelles has turned into a real hero around the campfire and people

are talking about how maybe the chief is going to have the guy marry one of his daughters.

The next day, the guy who was unlucky the prior day may actually just stumble on a gazelle

that had mangled its leg and canít get away, and even if heís a terrible hunter, he brings

back meat because he got lucky that day, and thatís still good for the tribe. The one

that came back with the two gazelles accumulates pride as around the campfire they associate

his success with scale repeatability, and the one who comes back with nothing associates

his failure with victimization or bad luck that allows them to continue trying the next

day, which for the tribe is a good thing.

We as people have been hardwired for millennia on accumulating pride and shining regret,

and in that environment where we came from it is actually a beneficial feature to our

society. In the environment where weíre engaged in security transactions and capital market,

it actually builds this overconfidence that causes us to do things that we really arenít

able to do and the market takes advantage of us, which is central to some of the basic

tenets of behaviorism.

Douglas Goldstein, CFPÆ, is the director of Profile Investment Services and the host

of the Goldstein on Gelt radio show (Monday nights at 7:00 PM on www.israelnationalradio.com.

He is a licensed financial professional both in the U.S. and Israel. Securities offered

through Portfolio Resources Group, Inc., Member FINRA, SIPC, MSRB, NFA, SIFMA. Accounts carried

by National Financial Services LLC. Member NYSE/SIPC, a Fidelity Investments company.

His book Building Wealth in Israel is available in bookstores, on the web, or can be ordered

at: www.profile-financial.com (02) 624-2788 or (03) 524-0942.

Disclaimer: This document is a transcription and/or an educational article. While it is

believed to be current and accurate, divergence from the original is to be expected. The original

podcast can be heard at https://sites.google.com/site/goldsteinradioshows/. All information on this website is purely

information and should not be used as the sole basis for making financial decisions.

The opinions rendered herein are those of the guests, and not necessarily those of Douglas

Goldstein, Profile Investment Services, Ltd., or Israel National News. Readers should consult

with a professional financial advisor before making any financial decisions. Please see

the complete disclaimer at https://sites.google.com/site/goldsteinradioshows/.