Dear Followers, 

 

With deep humility and profound ambivalence, we want our readers to know that we are nonpartisan in our views.

With that being said, there are a few things to take note of that are presently misleading and do support our proposition that the fundamentals (which are highly correlated to the news) are usually the last line of consideration in the financial decision making process. Here are the true facts:

We do not, and never will, take anything but an objective view of what we see happening when it comes to fundamentals. We have had a recent experience in the United States that is entirely fundamental in its import to the financial markets, the economy, and overall health of the United States which clearly plays a role in the health of the world economy as it is still the world’s largest open market.

What we do see here, that is consistent with what we stated on election night long before anyone else, is that the fundamentals were once again inaccurate. In this instance, it appears that the ultimate result will prove to mask that inaccuracy. There were several criteria that went into this analysis.

In the first instance, the fundamentals, or the “polls,” were incredibly skewed in favor of former vice president Joe Biden. Many states had Biden winning by a much larger margin then what has occurred. When the actual numbers, which constitute the “technicals,” did start to come in, they established that the news analysts were wrong yet again. Here is what is concerning to The Wizard as far as the analysis and reasoning as to why it looks like the election will most likely end with a Biden victory. Bear in mind how close the election was and how large the margin was predicted to be.

If you look at what happened in the election and analogize that to the markets you still see what separates The Wizard from your typical predictive service and why our track record is as successful as it has been and will continue to be. We here at The Wizard are not impervious to error… yes even The Wizard will be wrong sometimes and we humbly accept that fact. It is also with humility that, compared to other services, we will continue to have an accuracy rate that is unparalleled and unmatched. We are the only service that will truly add value on all the markets we analyze.

In our opinion, the news was wrong from a profitable standpoint. Ultimately the “trade” of predicting that Donald Trump would win the election turned out to be much closer than what was predicted by the so-called analysts. Here is what we find interesting from a nonpartisan standpoint:

A week before the election the president predicted that precisely what happened would occur on election night. In no uncertain terms, he stated that he would be the victor and that as votes slowly came in after the polls were closed his lead, and hence the election, would be stolen from him.

Indeed, the votes that were mailed in were somehow largely disproportionate toward the challenger than the votes that had been counted on election day. That alone is interesting on its face. Being statistical analysts is, in many ways, part of our success and the fact that Trump made statements that were precisely in harmony with what occurred alone raises the specter that something should be scrutinized further. Statistically, it is well off the bell curve, although not an outlier, that the majority of late vote counts were largely favorable to the challenger who appears to now be president elect. The fact that the numbers are so overwhelmingly swayed to one candidate raises questions that stand on their own.

When you consider the fact that the president predicted this would happen, this, at the very least, engenders further analysis into what happened and why the general election showed a clear victory for one candidate and then a large percentage of votes that slowly come in swayed heavily in favor of a different candidate. Why were Biden supporters more likely to use mail-in ballots than Trump supporters? In other words, are liberals more likely to use the mail than conservatives? Perhaps, yet no explanation for this has been provided in any cogent manner.

Sound democracy is vital to a healthy world economy and the wealth of nations. The Wizard is no stranger in any way and has protracted experience analyzing the wealth of nations and the importance of stability particularly when it comes to indices and currency valuations.

What we need to look at now is if this election was fair and if so, the victor should be named as such and the loser should concede and allow the democratic process to presume smoothly and swiftly.

It is unfair for the media to baselessly claim that no fraud has occurred. Maybe it has maybe it has not. To say the President has made baseless claims only further compounds the ineptitude of the media and hence the fundamentals in most instances. The reason this is necessarily so is that they are making a baseless claim as well by stating “without any evidence” that the President’s claim is baseless “without any evidence.” This emboldens something that is very important to investors and that is, if you listen to the news, whether it be financial or otherwise, and trade solely on that information, more often than not you are going to lose money with that strategy.

Furthermore, the president also said on election night that the voting should stop. He never said the vote “counting” should stop.  In all fairness to a person not afraid to make divisive statements or being offensive, he did not use the words that the pundits have repeatedly stated were misleadingly. The Wizard is nonpartisan, and Biden appears to have won the election and there is no hard evidence that has been revealed that will nullify those results. There is nothing that we have been availed of that indicates the result should be any different.  Importantly, this election was again much closer than any pundit, predictive analysis, or news analysis or any other source anticipated.

We have no little doubt that the current president will challenge this election to the bitter end and that a legal battle will ensue for at least weeks and possibly even through the new year. This could have tumultuous effects on the stability of the economy. This would be exponentially worsened if there is evidence of voter irregularities. Clearly this journal sounds like we are not being objective acknowledging, in a humorous manner, that objectivity is necessarily subjective.

Now let us look at the other side. I do not think it is doubtful at all that even on election night the race was going to be closer than the last election was. What The Wizard had predicted is close to what we saw happen during election night and into the morning hours of November 4th. Despite the statistical anomaly of the percentage of mailed in ballots that were counted after election polls had closed, if there is no hard concrete evidence a voter irregularity then we assert, again, that the race should be conceded as fast as possible for the good of the democracy of the United States which is the home to many of the employees of The Futures Wizard.

We would not make a prediction that this election will be overturned as that would be an outlier and we hope that there is no evidence that could support that proposition. We do our best to ensure that any information we provide is only for the benefit of our investment community and those that choose to follow us.  You are what comes first we simply have no other agenda. We believe the facts that we have parlayed in this journal are irrefutable.

The upshot is that the fundamentals alone are very dangerous and the technicals alone can reveal possible improprieties or inconsistencies in the marketplace in the same manner the president predicted a week before the election how it would unfold.  Political unrest is always profoundly impactful on the stock markets. Since the US Dollar is the dominant currency in the world in that all other currency fluctuations, including cross currencies, are correlated to the value of the US Dollar Index. That pretty much sums up what we see at the present time. We do believe there will be a legal battle simply through knowing the personality of who we are dealing with. If the president believes, as he clearly does, that there is any indication of impropriety he will fully pursue all legal redress. Whether this has any import on the outcome appears, at least to The Wizard, to be very small indeed.  The fundamental analysts predicted a blowout in this election. The Wizard predicted a very close victory for the incumbent. We have ended up with an extraordinarily close election that will be contested in the weeks to come. So was our prediction inaccurate? Again, with humility we would say yes and no. We would say that we were accurate in that the election was much closer than the analysts had anticipated.

In the end, it looks like there will be a new president inaugurated which ultimately renders our prediction inaccurate. At the same time, if this were applied to a trade in the marketplace there clearly would have been many opportunities to have taken profits. Metaphorically speaking, If the market were the election it clearly swayed into profitable territory the likes of which no other analyst thought that it would. Therefore, profits could have been made on our prediction.

Currently, The Wizard does think it is best to look to the future. We do believe that the challenger will ultimately prevail based on the evidence that we have seen. At the same time, we do find it substantive enough to scrutinize further why the ballots that were mailed in were so heavily skewed toward the apparent winner.  If any evidence is unveiled that is adverse to the challenger then The Wizard believes the incumbent will stay in office.  Late voting is different than late counting and it is amazing to us that no one in the president’s political team has highlighted that important distinction.

We have had in the United States a lot of candidates that have an inability to speak effectively or to make a point that is sensible to a person of ordinary sagacity. After all, a two-party system is necessarily contradictory to a true democracy. That is the extent of any political opinion we will put forth and it does not relate in any way to who we would favor as a candidate for public office. What we have seen throughout our history of trading is that in the political arena one side will have a bad idea and the other side will claim that they can make it even worse.

The less they do the better. The United States was founded on that principal. We do believe that the challenger will prevail in the end at this point.  We will simply just have to wait to see if there is any evidence to support any improprieties in the outcome.

In conclusion, without uncovering evidence to support an aberration in the law of large numbers the president should concede the election in the overall interest of the United States and the stability of the world economy. However, if there is evidence of impropriety, the president has every right to contest the election and to gather evidence to support any claims that may relate to that proposition. Absent any such evidence it is time to move on. What is important is our continued success in predictive analysis and adding value to our membership.

This will never change nor can it be credibly refuted or contested.

Warmly,

Daniel J. Leboeuf- Senior Editor