Stock Market

77,551 Views | 826 Replies | Last: 21 hrs ago by DiabloWags
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mark (FISH) Fisher

The biggest floor trader on the Commodities Exchange in #4 World Trade Center in the 90's when I was there.
It doesnt take a rocket-scientist to make common sense.

"We need to manage the supply crisis"

We need to manage the supply crisis to deal with inflation, says MBF's Mark Fisher (cnbc.com)


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

cbbass1 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

cbb - this makes zero sense. Are you really claiming that the "elites" are using Powell to destroy the economy, including the large corporations they own and run, in order to make it easier for them to hire people? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.


That's exactly what I'm saying.



Sorry, you only bolded the first part of my question and completely ignored the subordinate clause. You missed the part where I asked if you were really stating that Powell was cratering the economy just to make it easier to hire people. Obviously that is not the case and your long response makes it clear that you don't really believe it either.
You're right. It's not just to make it easier to hire people. It's for all the other "benefits" that go along with it.

You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:




You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?



I'm afraid your narrative is far too simplistic.
As predicted, you try to fit EVERYTHING in a nice, tidy, little, "box" of Capital vs Labor.

Never mind that banks like Wachovia ($307 Billion in assets) and Washington Mutual ($813 Billion in assets) were near collapse and literally taken over by the FDIC because of the housing market collapse.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:




You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?



I'm afraid your narrative is far too simplistic.
As predicted, you try to fit EVERYTHING in a nice, tidy, little, "box" of Capital vs Labor.

Never mind that banks like Wachovia ($307 Billion in assets) and Washington Mutual ($813 Billion in assets) were near collapse and literally taken over by the FDIC because of the housing market collapse.


Yes, and then Wells Fargo bought Wachovia for peanuts (after receiving a generous bailout), and JPM Chase bought Washington Mutual for peanuts, after receiving a generous bailout.

The FDIC made the depositors whole; but the people who were duped into buying an overpriced house, with a fraudulent loan from Wachovia or WaMu, still owed the money, but now WF or JPM Chase owned the house, and got it for peanuts. And they foreclosed on the homeowners anyway.

So WF & JPM Chase made out like,... well... bandits, flush with cash from U.S. Taxpayers, and able to buy out competitors for peanuts.

Thanks for supporting my point.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:




You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?



I'm afraid your narrative is far too simplistic.
As predicted, you try to fit EVERYTHING in a nice, tidy, little, "box" of Capital vs Labor.

Never mind that banks like Wachovia ($307 Billion in assets) and Washington Mutual ($813 Billion in assets) were near collapse and literally taken over by the FDIC because of the housing market collapse.


Yes, and then Wells Fargo bought Wachovia for peanuts (after receiving a generous bailout), and JPM Chase bought Washington Mutual for peanuts, after receiving a generous bailout.

The FDIC made the depositors whole; but the people who were duped into buying an overpriced house . . .



Of course in your book, the buyer of the home (mortgage) can be a complete moron and assumes zero accountability or responsibility whatsoever.

I'm surprised that you didnt also blame the Federal Reserve during this time period for raising interest rates and causing these ARMS to become unserviceable by the Avg Joe who you claim was "duped".


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dimitrig said:



The figures you cite are for the Americans who have brokerage accounts, which is not most people. Only 15% of Americans directly hold stock (meaning outside of retirement accounts).



Gallup finds that 58% of Americans report that they own stock.
Down from 62% before the Great Recession of 2008.

What Percentage of Americans Owns Stock? (gallup.com)



Please reread: outside of retirement accounts


DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:



Please reread: outside of retirement accounts



Im aware of that.
I was simply providing context.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

dimitrig said:



Please reread: outside of retirement accounts



Im aware of that.
I was simply providing context.



The chart was showing average values for non-retirement accounts. The reality is most Americans don't have any non-retirement stock holdings.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

DiabloWags said:

dimitrig said:



Please reread: outside of retirement accounts



Im aware of that.
I was simply providing context.



The chart was showing average values for non-retirement accounts. The reality is most Americans don't have any non-retirement stock holdings.



I would also suggest the same for much of the younger crowd who have traded up a Reddit Meme Storm.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

It's going to cause investors a lot of pain but will be better for the long term health of our economy. I don't know how high the interest rates need to go to kill inflation but it should be clear to everyone that Powell is going to take us there.


On Wednesday, Powell made it clear in no uncertain terms that there will be a "hard" landing.

Until this week, he and his colleagues had projected an "immaculate disinflation" whereby 8% inflation would fall sharply, to around 2% with virtually no increase in unemployment.

Given their new forecast of 4.4% unemployment in a year, hard to imagine that rate not ushering in a Recession, given the current 3.7% rate. And that 4.4% forecast is most likely far too optimistic.

I would suggest that the long term health of our economy will depend on supply chain solutions that lower our energy, housing, food, and healthcare costs as Mark Fisher suggested in the video that I posted above.

The FED is simply applying blood pressure medication, when in reality the patient needs to lose 25 - 30 pounds.


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:




You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?



I'm afraid your narrative is far too simplistic.
As predicted, you try to fit EVERYTHING in a nice, tidy, little, "box" of Capital vs Labor.

Never mind that banks like Wachovia ($307 Billion in assets) and Washington Mutual ($813 Billion in assets) were near collapse and literally taken over by the FDIC because of the housing market collapse.


Yes, and then Wells Fargo bought Wachovia for peanuts (after receiving a generous bailout), and JPM Chase bought Washington Mutual for peanuts, after receiving a generous bailout.

The FDIC made the depositors whole; but the people who were duped into buying an overpriced house . . .



Of course in your book, the buyer of the home (mortgage) can be a complete moron and assumes zero accountability or responsibility whatsoever.

I'm surprised that you didnt also blame the Federal Reserve during this time period for raising interest rates and causing these ARMS to become unserviceable by the Avg Joe who you claim was "duped".
I'm not absolving mortgage borrowers of their share of responsibility. When the Housing Bubble was inflating, 2002 - 2006, I did my best to discourage people from buying if they didn't have the income to make the payments. People should've known that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

The 2008 Financial Collapse was systemic. It started with the passage, under Clinton, of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999), which cancelled the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibited banks from making risky investments with their depositors' money. The banks lobbied for this deregulation for years, and finally got it.

Many of the bad loans that were made (& securitized as mortgage-backed securities [MBS]) would never have been made under the Glass-Steagall regulations. Before deregulation, if a bank made a bad loan, and the borrower defaulted, they would have to take the loss. After deregulation, lenders would make bad loans, collect the fees, bundle & sell the loans, and let other financial institutions service the loans & carry the default risk -- which they would ultimately pass on to U.S. Taxpayers.

Remember, too, that in 2002, the Bush administration kicked off a U.S. Taxpayer-funded Home Ownership Program to encourage more people to buy homes, even if they didn't have enough cash for a down payment.
Presiden George W Bush announces Home Ownership Program

At the time, most people still had faith that the Federal Government would never orchestrate a massive con on millions of working Americans. But that's exactly what they did. They used Taxpayer money to cover down payments, and then used taxpayer money to compensate the banks & financial institutions who lost money by gambling on all this activity.

You can blame the victims all you want, but the fact remains that in 2008, and now, you have sociopaths in charge of economic policy, and they're conducting another scam to enrich themselves at the expense of you, me, and America's workers & taxpayers.

The criminals weren't held accountable in 2008, and they aren't likely to be held accountable for this upcoming collapse. Their plan is already in place to increase their economic and political power, at our expense.

From the late 1800s until FDR's New Deal & Glass-Steagall, there was a financial collapse every 7 to 15 years. That's just the norm with unregulated, laissez-faire Capitalism. The exception is the New Deal period, when banks were regulated, we had slow, steady growth, a stable environment for businesses and worker to do well, and a robust U.S. economy that was the strongest in world economic history. Until 1980...

When I got home from my poker game last night, my son was watching "The Big Short." It's definitely worth watching again as we head into yet another financial crisis.

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:




You're also right, that it would be like "cutting off your nose to spite your face," except for the Government's handing out "free stuff", like they did in the wake of the 2008 crash. The banks who caused the financial crisis got a huuge bailout, and used the money to buy other banks & financial companies. But homeowners who were victims of bank & lender fraud got nothing.

If no one was held accountable in 2008, why not do it again?



I'm afraid your narrative is far too simplistic.
As predicted, you try to fit EVERYTHING in a nice, tidy, little, "box" of Capital vs Labor.

Never mind that banks like Wachovia ($307 Billion in assets) and Washington Mutual ($813 Billion in assets) were near collapse and literally taken over by the FDIC because of the housing market collapse.


Yes, and then Wells Fargo bought Wachovia for peanuts (after receiving a generous bailout), and JPM Chase bought Washington Mutual for peanuts, after receiving a generous bailout.

The FDIC made the depositors whole; but the people who were duped into buying an overpriced house . . .



Of course in your book, the buyer of the home (mortgage) can be a complete moron and assumes zero accountability or responsibility whatsoever.

I'm surprised that you didnt also blame the Federal Reserve during this time period for raising interest rates and causing these ARMS to become unserviceable by the Avg Joe who you claim was "duped".

When I got home from my poker game last night, my son was watching "The Big Short." It's definitely worth watching again as we head into yet another financial crisis.


Please please please tell me you only play low limit holdem', that you thoroughly vet all players financially and that you redistribute winnings at the end of the night.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:



When I got home from my poker game last night, my son was watching "The Big Short." It's definitely worth watching again as we head into yet another financial crisis.




Who are you going to blame this time "around" given that Banks have been banned from proprietary trading?
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
cbbass1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbb said:

Of course in your book, the buyer of the home (mortgage) can be a complete moron and assumes zero accountability or responsibility whatsoever.






When I got home from my poker game last night, my son was watching "The Big Short." It's definitely worth watching again as we head into yet another financial crisis.


Please please please tell me you only play low limit holdem', that you thoroughly vet all players financially and that you redistribute winnings at the end of the night.
$21 buy-in, most hands are $1 max bet. Lots of 7-Stud & Omaha Hi-Lo, Guts, and a few others.

Won $30 (net) last night.

No vetting required. Cash in the bowl. Been playing with these guys for years/decades.

And since everyone's pretty even, the "redistribution" happens naturally, over time -- just like a healthy, sustainable, competitive marketplace. ;-)

There's also appetizers, beverages, brined/smoked chicken from the Traeger, watching the Giants (long game last night, good win!) and chocolate brownies.

We cherish our monthly Friday night ritual!

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cbbass1 said:

Unit2Sucks said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbbass1 said:

DiabloWags said:

cbb said:

Of course in your book, the buyer of the home (mortgage) can be a complete moron and assumes zero accountability or responsibility whatsoever.






When I got home from my poker game last night, my son was watching "The Big Short." It's definitely worth watching again as we head into yet another financial crisis.


Please please please tell me you only play low limit holdem', that you thoroughly vet all players financially and that you redistribute winnings at the end of the night.
$21 buy-in, most hands are $1 max bet. Lots of 7-Stud & Omaha Hi-Lo, Guts, and a few others.

Won $30 (net) last night.

No vetting required. Cash in the bowl. Been playing with these guys for years/decades.

And since everyone's pretty even, the "redistribution" happens naturally, over time -- just like a healthy, sustainable, competitive marketplace. ;-)

There's also appetizers, beverages, brined/smoked chicken from the Traeger, watching the Giants (long game last night, good win!) and chocolate brownies.

We cherish our monthly Friday night ritual!




Sounds awesome! A well matched recurring poker night is a great thing.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
McRib is now available, right?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ofdollarsanddata.com/the-mcrib-effect/amp/
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nothing to see here.
J. Powell at work.

The official statement spoke about "lags" and market participants saw that as an opportunity to "pause" and rallied the market accordingly.

Then came his press conference 30 minutes later.

He has literature that tells him that the "lags" are shorter in duration than the past.
But he has no idea why.

Almost sounds like being "mindful of lags" was inserted into the Policy Statement so as to appease "doves" on the Board.

The more he talks during a press conference.... the more Hawkish he sounds.

Dow: - 505

SPX: - 96

NAZ: - 366
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FOMO


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With the yield curve extremely inverted, NOW things get interesting.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.

OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:


Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.

He hopes that the Fed will pause soon and points to the declining money supply.
But as I posted last weekend, M2 (although down 2% YoY) is still at very elevated levels at 21.4 Trillion.

Nancy Lazar has suggested that its about $4 Trillion over where she estimates it would be had it stayed on its pre-pandemic growth track.

"That extra money remains in the economy is evident in real-world measures, she adds. Domestic corporate revenue is about $2 trillion above where it would have been under the pre-Covid trend, while consumers' pay is about $1.5 trillion higher. While there are signs of slowing growth in these measures, their still-elevated levels risk keeping wage inflation rising."

This, combined with bank credit growth BOOMING will cause the Fed to continue raising rates in my opinion.

"If money and credit are sending conflicting signals, then the Fed should concentrate more on controlling the supply of the aggregate that has shown a closer link to aggregate spending. And here credit may have the edge."

That was written by former Fed boss Ben Bernanke for the Philadelphia Fed's Business Review, before he joined the central bank. If his analysis is right, the Fed must do more to restrain inflation.







"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Lazar says that the fed-funds target must be raised to the rate of nominal gross-domestic-product growth, plus inflation. She sees nominal GDP expansion slowing sharply next year to 4% from 9% recently. If so, the Fed should lift the fed-funds rate to two percentage points above nominal GDP, or about 6%, she says. That would be well above the peak priced in the fed-funds futures market on Fridaya shade over 5% by mid-2023."

Borrowing Surge Makes Quick End to Rate Hikes Unlikely | Barron's (barrons.com)
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.
My, my. Dajo we agree on something. Haha. Jeremy Siegel is one smart fella.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.
My, my. Dajo we agree on something. Haha. Jeremy Siegel is one smart fella.


We both agree with the statement
"I am a moderate"
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.
My, my. Dajo we agree on something. Haha. Jeremy Siegel is one smart fella.

Yeah, he's so smart that he was bullish on the market back in May of 2000.
Oh well. Can't win them all.


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

OdontoBear66 said:

dajo9 said:

Translation for below:
Step 1 - OMG, this jobs report means the Fed will raise rates
Step 2 - OMG, the Fed raising rates will mean the upcoming recession will be even worse and rates will go even lower.


Worry not. Closer to a bottom than a top. Volatility persists. Relax, all will be well. Jeremy Siegel is closer than most all pundits.
Jeremy Siegel believes the Fed will need to pivot soon as they are pushing a recession on us. I agree with Jeremy Siegel.
My, my. Dajo we agree on something. Haha. Jeremy Siegel is one smart fella.

Yeah, he's so smart that he was bullish on the market back in May of 2000.
Oh well. Can't win them all.



Guess you're not gonna listen to the likes of the Whiz of Wharton. We shall see. Market down may not be over, but anything you buy now will be at a price that the market passes through pretty quickly. Got my RIAs covering my backside, so I can play with some reckless abandon at current valuations.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone cant wait for the "pause" where the Fed has reached their terminal rate, let alone the "pivot".
Ever thought about what happens when that happens?

The COMMODITY MARKETS will explode and create even more inflation.
It's a Doom Loop.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Everyone cant wait for the "pause" where the Fed has reached their terminal rate, let alone the "pivot".
Ever thought about what happens when that happens?

The COMMODITY MARKETS will explode and create even more inflation.
It's a Doom Loop.

Short tem maybe, but at eight decades I have seen a lot of prognostications like yours. Steady long term strategy beats all the 1987s, 2001-2002s, and 2008s. We shall see. Somehow there comes a "complete market cycle" time after time with the direction of the Y chart up from left to right. Cheers.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Powell taking the "hawkish" hardline in his presser.

Median estimate for Fed Funds at 5.1% next year.

17 of 19 board members see a Fed Funds rate > 5.0% (according to the "Dot Plot")

2 are at 5.63%
4 are at 5.40%

Their SEP sees another 75 basis points of increases.

SEP forecast for the unemployment rate next year implies losing 1.6 million jobs.

They say that they need higher rates to combat "services" inflation which is a large part of core PCE.

Labor Participation Rate is running 3.5 million jobs short of where they thought we'd be.

Early retirement, lack of migration, etc.

"Ongoing rate increases appropriate"

"Inflation risks are to the upside"

Markets tanking on the "higher for longer" SEP (Dot Plot)

Dow - 400 at the worst level before coming back to unchanged . . . after JP said that we are (finally) starting to get into "restrictive" conditions.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
OsoDorado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm going to defer to you with respect to fundamentals, but how much do technicals (i.e., momentum and trend) matter in your thinking, and how do you read the technicals now?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OsoDorado said:

I'm going to defer to you with respect to fundamentals, but how much do technicals (i.e., momentum and trend) matter in your thinking, and how do you read the technicals now?

There have been some terrific shorting opportunities.

Especially when JPM's quant department got super bullish in mid-August anticipating the SPX breaking back above the 200 day moving average and attracting all kinds of CTA trend following "momo" money. Talk about a contrary signal! That move in August just above 4300 turned out to be the Top. - - - And now 4100 is clear resistance with yet another Bear Market rally ending.

My position has been that market participants have been in "fantasy" land thinking that the S&P can rally from 17.5x earnings. Especially given that margins are about to decline. They've been piling into "defensive" names in the Dow, which has allowed that index to hold up the best.

There's a big "gap" in the SPX chart down at 3825 that needs to get filled (seen in yellow)
That's where I thought we'd be heading after the market failed (again) at 4100.

All "gaps" eventually get filled/closed.








"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
OsoDorado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

OsoDorado said:

I'm going to defer to you with respect to fundamentals, but how much do technicals (i.e., momentum and trend) matter in your thinking, and how do you read the technicals now?

There have been some terrific shorting opportunities.

Especially when JPM's quant department got super bullish in mid-August anticipating the SPX breaking back above the 200 day moving average and attracting all kinds of CTA trend following "momo" money. Talk about a contrary signal! That move in August just above 4300 turned out to be the Top. - - - And now 4100 is clear resistance with yet another Bear Market rally ending.

My position has been that market participants have been in "fantasy" land thinking that the S&P can rally from 17.5x earnings. Especially given that margins are about to decline. They've been piling into "defensive" names in the Dow, which has allowed that index to hold up the best.

There's a big "gap" in the SPX chart down at 3825 that needs to get filled (seen in yellow)
That's where I thought we'd be heading after the market failed (again) at 4100.

All "gaps" eventually get filled/closed.









It's interesting what you say about the momentum and trend, especially because practically all of your market comments are related to the fundamentals. Please keep posting your insights on the technicals too!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.