I love it when people try to explain what the market did based on the the latest popular headlines and narratives. Yes it's a volatile (and very disturbing) situation in Ukraine, but yes, new lows were going to be reached regardless (and lower lows were even reached after that), but it goes deeper into market dynamics and movement over time, and I can pretty confidently say it had nothing to do with overnight headlines, just something that had been in process for a while. Just because a certain volatility coincides with national or international events, I wouldn't assume headlines are the cause of volatility.You posted this last Monday :
This was never true a bad assumption on your part. The futures moves were ALL Ukraine related. Which helps to understand the action the rest of the week.
Case and point, this volatility is very connected to the volatility that bottomed out on 1/24, and that had nothing to do with Ukraine. But that's another story.
I also said I'm bearish long term but 'crave' the buy opportunities this environment creates, and I was spot on there as well.
As far as headline-demystifiers are concerned, if anyone wants to EXPLAIN what happened based on headlines, I would just say, since one believes their understanding is so keen, stop explaining and start predicting, beginning with the short term and with specifics. Otherwise its just useless posturing for one to feel smart and relevant. (and respect to anyone who is spot on in their concrete predictions.)
Last edited: