Short-term update: popular read on Zero Hedge. Also a new CFA article touching on this topic and most read for the month. Please see them both!
If it's too good to be true, then it probably is! We've seen this show before and admonished about it beforehand (here, here). In the 25 trading days since February 11 (when the S&P closed at 1829), the market surged at an average daily gain of 0.5% (to a current S&P of 2050). The S&P fell <-0.5% in just 3 of those 25 days, netting -3% total among those days. While the S&P rose >0.5% in 10 of those 25 days, netting a whopping 13% total. The remaining 12 trading days contributed just 0.1% daily to the post-February 11 surge. And it's reasonable to state that the market was due for a bounce-back of this nature, after the damage caused earlier in 2016. The question of course remains: where do we go from here? Our probability analysis of market patterns forecasts that we are essentially near the top, and the longer we lurch forward (or even have an extended dawdle) at this point, the more grisly an ensuing crash with the most proximate random news blamed as the "cause".
As a quirky statistical coincidence, the epic market crash in August (here, here) is at the exact midpoint between today and the first trading day of 2015! And the behavior of markets now don't statistically resemble anything of grave consequence, prior to the August crash. We can see in the chart above that the 1st decile S&P levels today are the same as only 6th decile (S&P"6") price levels of early 2015. So below average and certainly nothing riveting; and clearly nothing to heavily wager on.
If it's too good to be true, then it probably is! We've seen this show before and admonished about it beforehand (here, here). In the 25 trading days since February 11 (when the S&P closed at 1829), the market surged at an average daily gain of 0.5% (to a current S&P of 2050). The S&P fell <-0.5% in just 3 of those 25 days, netting -3% total among those days. While the S&P rose >0.5% in 10 of those 25 days, netting a whopping 13% total. The remaining 12 trading days contributed just 0.1% daily to the post-February 11 surge. And it's reasonable to state that the market was due for a bounce-back of this nature, after the damage caused earlier in 2016. The question of course remains: where do we go from here? Our probability analysis of market patterns forecasts that we are essentially near the top, and the longer we lurch forward (or even have an extended dawdle) at this point, the more grisly an ensuing crash with the most proximate random news blamed as the "cause".
However ignoring the fact that the S&P is reasonably below the all-time high from early last year, the complacency/euphoria signals that we have today is the same as what we have had at extreme market tops in the past (see the blood colored data on the chart and labeled S&P1, for 1st decile). What this suggests is that in our debilitated high-risk regime, there is now only modest upward runway for the markets to run (and wilder choppiness regardless which sometimes may assuredly question your judgment). But eventually the music stops and the drunkards get bruised stumbling for the exits. The gravitational weight of excessive frothiness will came back to roost; and we are not at a base for a new bull run.
We prefer stability in the markets here. But if the market momentum continues to bounce a higher through the month, then probabilistically we will see another fierce crash that is guaranteed to ensue.
We prefer stability in the markets here. But if the market momentum continues to bounce a higher through the month, then probabilistically we will see another fierce crash that is guaranteed to ensue.
I'm Shure you are right..what does it take for success?? nat gas and gasoline and commodities are all low. interest rates are low, salary growth is slow. why isn't the consumer spending might be the most important question. the consumer is still getting credit card debt at a double digit rate when mortgage rates are below 5%. Minimum wage has not risen in 7 years. Why would the consumer ever return to their ways of excess when the price of oil was allowed to go so high for so long. It is clear that Americans are becoming like the Chinese, saving more , spending less due to miss trust of our government. American growth may have been slowed for decades. Some claim that the recovery period after the great depression was only turned around by the second world war. it is obvious to me that sweeping changes to the safety net must occur before the economy becomes robust again. Tying the minimum wage to inflation would be a start. We might change it's name to a living wage which sounds less derogatory. Some people seem to forget that minimum wage workers also pay social security. And that were we to establish a living wage, people working 40 hours would not be eligible for food stamps. Half of the cost of several of the safety net programs is the cost of administration. Certainly this work force could be downsized with the advent of a living wage.
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the comments anonymous. Please feel free to peruse other articles on Statistical Ideas, and make sure to sign-up for email updates!
Delete