Back to www.cobrasmarketview.com |
Well, hedge funds are periodically caught with their pants down… and recently they were trying to be “too smart”.jarbo456 wrote:So r u saying ur bullish bias on the broader market? If hedge funds r raising cash then wouldn't that be bearish?cougar wrote:Hello guys! Great charts and discussions!
I have been asking myself one question yesterday:
Why did AAPL slip while the market was going up? Bad news? Well, not really…Even his Royal Crookedness “The Street” could find only some minor dirt to “explain” the drop: “Apple shares slipped almost 4% this week as investors digested analyst reports that poked some chinks in the company's armor. Cleveland Research lowered its iPad estimate from 14 million to 12 million units, citing "surprise revisions" to supply chain orders and lack of visibility. Ticonderoga Securities also noted negative supply chain data, with sales hitting well below the October monthly average”.
Lack of visibility for AAPL & iPAD noted by "Cleveland Resesrch" and supply problems detected by “Ticonderoga“?! Let’s be serious!
Other little worms also took a bite of AAPL and you can find their stuff everywhere on the internet…Not convincing, but Money Flow dropped abruptly (see charts)!
Then, what? Well...there are other rumors: European banks and hedge funds raising cash because of some well-known reasons. They “take profit” from wherever they can and AAPL is probably the most liquid asset that they own.
I like this second view. If the AAPL drop was not based on its organic weakness, it should bounce soon. Let us look at some charts which, in my opinion, are compatible with this optimistic scenario, without being bullish…yet.
My bullish view of the aapl divergence is that Apple is acting as a defensive core portfolio position. As a result it's actually beta negative. As a result if the funds r chasin beta, they'd sell apple and by bidu or vmw or etc etc.
The opposing argument is that apple is a leading institutional name. If the institutions, aka smart money is selling, then that could be predicting broader market weakness.
I don't know what's right, these are just thesis I'm thinking about
Dr. Al, I'm not sure what you are getting at with your second chart...Al_Dente wrote:Here is one of my “leading indicators” charts, stacked, weekly.
Note how the “leaders” took turns calling tops/bottoms over the last six years, via neg and pos divergences (note especially yield, which called most of the turns).
Yes…what lovely chartS…. point is, I don’t see anything diverging and calling a bottom yet…do you?
Note: this is the first time I’ve used industrial metals as “leading” (so, grain-o-salt there). It is certainly more stable than the bubblicious silver and gold charts, but needs more study as a “tell”.
This is a work in progress; comments encouraged.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SPX&p ... =248618588
Here is my gold chart; I’ll try to post a better one later.
http://screencast.com/t/2YLAighY74
I would place emphasis on your last point. Bulkowski notes how symmetrical triangles can become busted patterns where price breaks out one way only to reverse. The key point he makes is that the move after the reverse is usually a big move.Al_Dente wrote:PAGING Baron von Channeling52x and Rhight:
I could argue that SPY 60min shows a wonky symmetrical triangle, rather than a pennant or a “red light district”. According to Bulkowski, the symmetrical is a bullish coin toss; and volume trends downward 86% of the time with this “pattern.”
SPY may have more room to run, at least to 127.50-ish to take out all the covering, or a breakout above 128 to scare the bejezzus out of the bears, before turning down.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=SPY&p= ... =248626248