Being involved in the grain futures market as a hedger this past summer was a trip to hell and back. Margin call city. My post may be more focused on the 'leveraged issues' like futures etc
One thing I've noticed (and Dennis Gartman talks about this phenom quite regularly) is that when the margin calls get absolutely nightmarish you're usually marking a top or bottom.
The underlying cause of a "climax top/bottom" seems to be totally related to the margin calls flushing people out.
So I've come to sorta believe that markets top NOT because there is nobody willing to still buy it (because obviously the trend followers that are long should still be able to pyramid their gains), but because NOBODY HAS THE GUTS LEFT TO SELL IT (or more importantly the $$$$ available for MARGIN CALLS to sell it).
The converse is probably true of a climax bottom.....everybody gets tired of buying and getting their heads handed to them.
So volume dries up quickly as BUYERS step aside.
The reason I bring these things up is because a lot of people seem to subscribe to the thought that markets always bottom due to a 'surge of demand' or 'value buyers'...when in fact it takes TWO to make a trade...BUYER and Seller. If the buyer is too bloodied to show back up or his BANKER says "no more!" It shrinks the number of people willing to take the other side.
Now a bottom that is formed over a great deal of time, probably is due to true demand and not due to climax sellling. TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF MARKET BOTTOMS ENTIRELY.
I never thought the 'speed' of the move would ever matter...but now I'm beginning to think that it does in relation to leveraged investments. I think the strong momentum truly 'scares' the financiers away from the trade quicker than if the same move came via a slower trend. As soon as the bank says "no more' the leveraged player has to exit quickly and more importantly...won't be returning for awhile to the game...thus helping to form a top or bottom because trading dries up.
Yes I'm rambling to most of you, and I know you P&V guys have all this figured out already...but I have some people think I'm nuts when I tell them a market will bottom when it runs out of "buyers".....they seem to think that money never runs out and that there should always be somebody with enough money yet to buy it. There probably is enough money yet to buy at value "levels" but are the "guts" still there ?
It's kind of a "margin call/ volume/ rate of change" alchemy.
Do you agree that markets can bottom because of scared buyers?
Do you agree that markets can top because of scared sellers ?
I need a drink.
GM
One thing I've noticed (and Dennis Gartman talks about this phenom quite regularly) is that when the margin calls get absolutely nightmarish you're usually marking a top or bottom.
The underlying cause of a "climax top/bottom" seems to be totally related to the margin calls flushing people out.
So I've come to sorta believe that markets top NOT because there is nobody willing to still buy it (because obviously the trend followers that are long should still be able to pyramid their gains), but because NOBODY HAS THE GUTS LEFT TO SELL IT (or more importantly the $$$$ available for MARGIN CALLS to sell it).
The converse is probably true of a climax bottom.....everybody gets tired of buying and getting their heads handed to them.
So volume dries up quickly as BUYERS step aside.
The reason I bring these things up is because a lot of people seem to subscribe to the thought that markets always bottom due to a 'surge of demand' or 'value buyers'...when in fact it takes TWO to make a trade...BUYER and Seller. If the buyer is too bloodied to show back up or his BANKER says "no more!" It shrinks the number of people willing to take the other side.
Now a bottom that is formed over a great deal of time, probably is due to true demand and not due to climax sellling. TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF MARKET BOTTOMS ENTIRELY.
I never thought the 'speed' of the move would ever matter...but now I'm beginning to think that it does in relation to leveraged investments. I think the strong momentum truly 'scares' the financiers away from the trade quicker than if the same move came via a slower trend. As soon as the bank says "no more' the leveraged player has to exit quickly and more importantly...won't be returning for awhile to the game...thus helping to form a top or bottom because trading dries up.
Yes I'm rambling to most of you, and I know you P&V guys have all this figured out already...but I have some people think I'm nuts when I tell them a market will bottom when it runs out of "buyers".....they seem to think that money never runs out and that there should always be somebody with enough money yet to buy it. There probably is enough money yet to buy at value "levels" but are the "guts" still there ?
It's kind of a "margin call/ volume/ rate of change" alchemy.
Do you agree that markets can bottom because of scared buyers?
Do you agree that markets can top because of scared sellers ?
I need a drink.
GM