Kevin Lane observes:

“The chart below looks at how far investors have deviated in their equity asset allocations relative to the 25 year mean of a 60.00 % commitment to equities.  As seen below current asset allocations to equities are just slightly below the aforementioned mean.  Thus investors are not presently over committed to stocks like they were in 2000 when their allocations hit 18.00 % above the mean or 78.00 % commitment to equities. (Note the extreme under commitment to equities in 1987, 1990, 2002 and 2009 … all great buying opportunities.)”


Source: Fusion IQ


“Typically this indicator is best used at extremes to help gauge sentiment and related available liquidity (or lack thereof) that can come from extreme over commitment (ie. investors all in thus no buying power left to support higher equity prices) or extreme under commitment (ie. investors all out of stocks thus plenty of sideline liquidity to support stocks and a rally). What I think this indicator tells us at present is there is still available investor liquidity available to buy stocks with investors only at their mean commitment to stocks.

Thus any subsequent correction that may develop should be somewhat limited in scale and duration (ie. A modest corrections in the 5% to 12% variety).  So while it doesn’t mean we can’t or won’t correct it does suggest that if a correction develops there should be bids below the market given liquidity is somewhat ample.”

Category: Investing, Psychology, Technical Analysis, Think Tank

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

2 Responses to “AAII: Stock Asset Allocation Deviation from Mean”

  1. stratcounsel says:

    Does that chart make sense when viewed in light of the shift in demographics since 2002? Seems like an aging population should be shifting its allocation to equities down which could account for at least part of the reduction. You’d expect a bunch of 48 year olds (bulk of baby boomers in 2002) to have more equity in their portfolio than a bunch of 58 years olds (baby boomers today).

  2. jb says:

    stratcounsel, that was also my thought.