The Independent Market Observer

More on Investing and Time Frames

Posted by Brad McMillan, CFA®, CFP®

Find me on:

This entry was posted on Jul 26, 2017 2:09:44 PM

and tagged Investing

Leave a comment

investing and time framesThe other day, I got a question about my recent webcast on the economy and markets (something I do quarterly for clients). The questioner pointed out that I sounded pretty optimistic and wondered how that squared with my concerns about next year and my belief that 2017 looks quite a bit like 1999. A fair question. But what’s the answer?

Shorter time frames, better visibility

Briefly, the answer concerns time frames. My quarterly client webcast has a time frame appropriate to its frequency. I reflect on the last quarter and discuss what I think could happen in the next one. In other words, I present a six-month time frame: three months back and three ahead. Every quarter, listeners get a chance to hear what happened, what is likely to happen next, and then rinse and repeat.

My monthly economic and market risk updates have a similar structure, providing the most recent month’s data and thinking about what might happen in the next month. The monthly client videos, which we post here on the blog, also employ a similar one month forward and backward frame of reference.

Why do I present the information the way I do? With shorter time frames, you can have at least some, if not a lot, of visibility. Most of the time, I can make pretty good calls over one to three months. I know that I will be wrong many times. But on the whole? I’ll be right enough to make it worthwhile.

2017 versus 1999, again

The 2017 versus 1999 comparison, in contrast, looks forward over an extended period (18 months or so) and, as such, is inherently less certain. This kind of extended forecast, in fact, is pretty unusual for me. Instead, what I normally focus on is identifying signs of trouble ahead and then reacting to them—rather than predicting when they will show up. That said, enough of today's warning signs come with likely time frames that it was meaningful, as well as a better story, to wrap everything up into a 1999 comparison.

In the end, though, the takeaway for that comparison was not necessarily the date. I point out that, based on the data, it could well be 1997 rather than 1999, or even 1995. Rather, the lesson is how to identify when the high risk level becomes an immediate risk level. While I framed the analysis and discussion around dates and time frames, the conclusion actually ended up back at risk factors and signals.

Risk levels and signals

This is an important thing to remember: we do have some visibility over what will happen in the next one to three months, and it is useful to think about making forecasts over that time frame. Over longer periods, though, the variability and potential for surprises make forecasts increasingly unlikely. It’s much better to keep an eye on the data, develop warning signs, and watch for them rather than watch the calendar.

It might help to put it in personal terms. We know that heart disease risk increases with age. Does this mean that at age 65 you should start worrying more or go to the doctor? The answer is "yes," but it’s not the best answer. Better to watch your blood pressure, weight, and all the other risk factors to know what your risk level is and to keep an eye out for specific things (like chest pains!) that show the risk is becoming immediate. It’s not turning 65. It is the confluence of all the other factors that creates risk, and it is the chest pains that show the risk is now.

Time frames are useful, over the short term. For investors who live in the long term, though, risk levels and risk signals are much more so.

Subscribe via Email

New call-to-action
Crash-Test Investing

Hot Topics

New Call-to-action



see all



The information on this website is intended for informational/educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or investment product. Please contact your financial professional for more information specific to your situation.

Certain sections of this commentary contain forward-looking statements that are based on our reasonable expectations, estimates, projections, and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties, which are difficult to predict. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Diversification does not assure a profit or protect against loss in declining markets.

The S&P 500 Index is a broad-based measurement of changes in stock market conditions based on the average performance of 500 widely held common stocks. All indices are unmanaged and investors cannot invest directly in an index.

The MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australia, Far East) Index is a free float‐adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. and Canada. The MSCI EAFE Index consists of 21 developed market country indices.

One basis point (bp) is equal to 1/100th of 1 percent, or 0.01 percent.

The VIX (CBOE Volatility Index) measures the market’s expectation of 30-day volatility across a wide range of S&P 500 options.

The forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio divides the current share price of the index by its estimated future earnings.

Third-party links are provided to you as a courtesy. We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided on these websites. Information on such sites, including third-party links contained within, should not be construed as an endorsement or adoption by Commonwealth of any kind. You should consult with a financial advisor regarding your specific situation.


Please review our Terms of Use

Commonwealth Financial Network®