I would rather look at: M0, M1, (M2-M1), and M3. M1 for spending, M2-M1 for investment in liquid assets, and M3 for inflation/deflation. M0 is for capitalization analysis.
Weekly Poll: Don't Short A Dull Market?
- Thread starter shortie
- Start date
25% CHANCE IT IS OVER FOR THE BULLS
by OVER i mean TOTAL CAPUT
* AUGUST 13, 2010, 6:50 P.M. ET
Wall Street Wonders If 'Hindenburg Omen' Just A Lot Of Hot Air
By Steven Russolillo and Tomi Kilgore Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Forget about Friday the 13th. Many on Wall Street took to whispering about an even scarier phenomenon: the "Hindenburg Omen."
The Omen, named after the famous German airship that crashed in Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937, is a technical indicator that is said to foreshadow not just a bear market but a stock-market crash. Its creator, a blind mathematician named James Miekka, said his indicator is now predicting a market meltdown in September.
.....
Miekka came up with the Omen in 1995 as a way to predict big market downturns, creating a formula that parses over data like 52-week stock levels and the moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange. He said the Hindenburg Omen's name was coined by a fellow market technician, Kennedy Gammage, when they found out the name "Titanic" had already been taken.
The confluence of data used by the Omen was officially tripped this week. There were 92 companies that hit 52-week highs on Thursday, or 2.9% of all the companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange. There were also 81 new lows, or 2.6% of the total. Each number must exceed 2.5% for the Omen to occur, according to Miekka.
Other criteria include a rising 10-week moving average for NYSE and a negative McClellan Oscillator, a technical indicator that measures market fluctuations. Miekka said the appearance of one signal is usually an indication of a market top, but the Omen becomes more accurate when there are two or more close together.
The Omen was present at every market crash since 1987, but has also occurred many other times without an ensuing significant downturn. Market analysts said only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes. ............
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100813-713384.html
by OVER i mean TOTAL CAPUT
* AUGUST 13, 2010, 6:50 P.M. ET
Wall Street Wonders If 'Hindenburg Omen' Just A Lot Of Hot Air
By Steven Russolillo and Tomi Kilgore Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Forget about Friday the 13th. Many on Wall Street took to whispering about an even scarier phenomenon: the "Hindenburg Omen."
The Omen, named after the famous German airship that crashed in Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937, is a technical indicator that is said to foreshadow not just a bear market but a stock-market crash. Its creator, a blind mathematician named James Miekka, said his indicator is now predicting a market meltdown in September.
.....
Miekka came up with the Omen in 1995 as a way to predict big market downturns, creating a formula that parses over data like 52-week stock levels and the moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange. He said the Hindenburg Omen's name was coined by a fellow market technician, Kennedy Gammage, when they found out the name "Titanic" had already been taken.
The confluence of data used by the Omen was officially tripped this week. There were 92 companies that hit 52-week highs on Thursday, or 2.9% of all the companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange. There were also 81 new lows, or 2.6% of the total. Each number must exceed 2.5% for the Omen to occur, according to Miekka.
Other criteria include a rising 10-week moving average for NYSE and a negative McClellan Oscillator, a technical indicator that measures market fluctuations. Miekka said the appearance of one signal is usually an indication of a market top, but the Omen becomes more accurate when there are two or more close together.
The Omen was present at every market crash since 1987, but has also occurred many other times without an ensuing significant downturn. Market analysts said only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes. ............
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100813-713384.html
You guys ever heard of trading what you see ?
This is one of the biggest problems of this board, full of newbies predicting what will happen on Monday.
No one knows!
Be alert prepared for the unexpected and give it a go, but approach a day with a predetermined bias and that will ultimately be your doom.
I'm no expect but damn, that's like basic shit.
Giddy up ET lol
This is one of the biggest problems of this board, full of newbies predicting what will happen on Monday.
No one knows!
Be alert prepared for the unexpected and give it a go, but approach a day with a predetermined bias and that will ultimately be your doom.
I'm no expect but damn, that's like basic shit.
Giddy up ET lol
being biased my not work for one trading style but may work for another one. i would not claim it that "being biased is always the wrong thing to do".
if "bias" is bad for somebody's trading style the poll is actually useful to weed out the bad habit. all one has to do is to keep track of his biases and compare them to the following market action.
Voted bullish just 'cause it's an op-ex week.
As to the dull market hypothesis: the very first thing I ever noticed that was a little unusual was that very narrow 52 week ranges in an index or stock, relative to its historical norms, seemed to precede large moves up. This doesn't always work, of course, but I did find, way back when, that if you combined this with a rising intermediate term MA, like 30 weeks, that improved the reliability of it as an indicator.
Anyway, I never found that it worked for shorter time frames than a Graham & Dodd type investing timeframe. Never found a use for it for short-term trading.
As to the dull market hypothesis: the very first thing I ever noticed that was a little unusual was that very narrow 52 week ranges in an index or stock, relative to its historical norms, seemed to precede large moves up. This doesn't always work, of course, but I did find, way back when, that if you combined this with a rising intermediate term MA, like 30 weeks, that improved the reliability of it as an indicator.
Anyway, I never found that it worked for shorter time frames than a Graham & Dodd type investing timeframe. Never found a use for it for short-term trading.
Could you elaborate on and/or re-explain what you wrote? I feel that there is wisdom in what you wrote, but it is not clear what it is. Also when you refer to bias what do you exactly mean (is it your personal bias, the crowds bias, etc)? Probably giving examples from your experience with past polls would be useful.
Nasdaq-100 futures are at 1805. I think we would rise from here. What do you think?
I have a feeling that we would see a rise in stocks, a retreat in bonds and a rise in EUR/USD, from current levels.
EUR/USd at 1.2740, Bonds at 125'25, and NQ at 1805. Numbers are also nicely round. EUR/USD would be better if it was at 1.2710 area.
I have a feeling that we would see a rise in stocks, a retreat in bonds and a rise in EUR/USD, from current levels.
EUR/USd at 1.2740, Bonds at 125'25, and NQ at 1805. Numbers are also nicely round. EUR/USD would be better if it was at 1.2710 area.