Realcent.org

I admire optimists. But when they see a jobs report (with stats offered by a government which has consistently offered overly optimistic incorrect early numbers, only to quietly correct them later) which says that "only" 395,000 people applied for first-time unemployment, and that is GOOD news, and the market turns up, then they are all drinking their own kool-aid. This is a stay out of the market time, folks...

The Bear deserves a day off. No worries, he'll be back at work tomorrow.

Classic sawtooth bear trap in action

CME just raised gold margins by 22%. Surprised that hasn't hurt gold today worse than I see so far. Still at an amazing price.

My comment above was not disappointment at a lack of market drop - just amazement at how people see what they want to see. (Thus my two signature lines.)

beauanderos wrote:Classic sawtooth bear trap in action

I would agree. As with much in TA (in my opinion), it's one of those things easier seen in hindsight than going forward. I think you still need to combine fundamentals along with TA in order to interpret, and when you do, I would come to your conclusion.

I never "go short" or even buy puts, I'm an eternal optimist. I either "buy" or "do nothing". Today though, it seems like buying a put or perhaps a bearish spread makes sense.

I'm probably not going to do so, but I agree with most here (on this) that this is the most obvious "dead cat bounce" I've seen lately.

68Camaro wrote:CME just raised gold margins by 22%. Surprised that hasn't hurt gold today worse than I see so far. Still at an amazing price.

My comment above was not disappointment at a lack of market drop - just amazement at how people see what they want to see. (Thus my two signature lines.)

Of course not, I don't want it to go down either.....but it is....and thus with my limited cap... I ride the prevailing wind.

I would much rather be living in a boom economy.....making and spending more "care free".

DJIA Average Daily Change

"When in doubt blame it on the computers."

Nowadays, this seems to be the go to scapegoat for any market related problems. Over the last few days, numerous reports have said it is the computers to blame for the whipsaw trading the market has seen in recent weeks.

The explanation sounds plausible, but it is not necessarily borne out by the facts. Over the last 50 trading days, the average daily percentage move (up or down) in the DJIA has been 0.90%. Relative to history, the current level is far from the extreme readings we saw during the Financial crisis when the average daily change rose to 3.71%. Granted, the last few days have been extremely volatile, so if the recent trend continues, we will see the current 50-day average rise much higher.

One could still argue that computers were behind the big spike in volatility during the Financial Crisis, but what would explain the big spike in the 1930s, when the average daily change was also above 3%? Last we checked, there were no computers back then. While HFT and computer trading may be contributing to the recent surge in volatility, it isn't solely to blame. The reality is that when the market goes down, investors step to the sidelines, causing liquidity to dry up. In illiquid markets, price volatility rises.

agree

beauanderos wrote:DJIA Average Daily Change

"When in doubt blame it on the computers."

Nowadays, this seems to be the go to scapegoat for any market related problems. Over the last few days, numerous reports have said it is the computers to blame for the whipsaw trading the market has seen in recent weeks.

The explanation sounds plausible, but it is not necessarily borne out by the facts. Over the last 50 trading days, the average daily percentage move (up or down) in the DJIA has been 0.90%. Relative to history, the current level is far from the extreme readings we saw during the Financial crisis when the average daily change rose to 3.71%. Granted, the last few days have been extremely volatile, so if the recent trend continues, we will see the current 50-day average rise much higher.

One could still argue that computers were behind the big spike in volatility during the Financial Crisis, but what would explain the big spike in the 1930s, when the average daily change was also above 3%? Last we checked, there were no computers back then. While HFT and computer trading may be contributing to the recent surge in volatility, it isn't solely to blame. The reality is that when the market goes down, investors step to the sidelines, causing liquidity to dry up. In illiquid markets, price volatility rises.

+1