Back to www.cobrasmarketview.com |
Thanks. The thing I am not happy with them is that they seem to cherry-pick some chart/data to support their doom day view, and I as a reader would like to see the whole picture and make the judgement. Therefore I prefer bloomberg/reuters, sometimes economists, even those sources are subject to sensationalization.Trades with cats wrote:Josephli,
For the record, we all know what Zerohedge is like. I think it adds balance because a small percentage of their wild stuff comes true. When I see stuff they broke show up in the Wall Street Journal (which I also read on line every morning) that confirms that the idea has become status quo. What I cannot watch is bobble head TV.
I should add where have you seen brokerages hyping stuff like the Atlanta Fed GDP NOW or the number of failed banks on the FDIC "bail them out when we have the money" list? Just open the glossy quarterly from any major brokerage and it is like asking a real estate agent if now is a good time to buy.
I just keep telling myself that no tree grows to the sky and all oceans have a bottom.
getting better or worse?Out of Bounds wrote:Breadths have rolled over (again).
Weaker. Could just be chop thoughsuperxy wrote:getting better or worse?Out of Bounds wrote:Breadths have rolled over (again).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chris Ciovacco, on SA, discussed this today:Out of Bounds wrote:Breadths have rolled over (again).
I don't use breadth for historical comparisons. I use it in a range of 30-60 minutes to tell me if the market is strengthening or weakening RIGHT NOW.kongen wrote:Chris Ciovacco, on SA, discussed this today:Out of Bounds wrote:Breadths have rolled over (again).
Market breadth as of December 7, 2015 does not look significantly different than similar periods after the S&P 500 bottomed in 2010 and 2011.
In some cases, market breadth in 2015 looks better than at similar points in 2010 and 2011.
The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average looks better in 2015 relative to a similar point after the October 2007 peak.
The jury is still out in terms of using market breadth in the correction vs. bear market debate. If breadth improves, the correction case will get stronger. If breadth deteriorates significantly, the bear market case will improve.
Moral Of The Story - No Firm Conclusions Yet Using Breadth
fwiw % stocks..kongen wrote:Chris Ciovacco, on SA, discussed this today:Out of Bounds wrote:Breadths have rolled over (again).
Market breadth as of December 7, 2015 does not look significantly different than similar periods after the S&P 500 bottomed in 2010 and 2011.
In some cases, market breadth in 2015 looks better than at similar points in 2010 and 2011.
The percentage of S&P 500 stocks above their 200-day moving average looks better in 2015 relative to a similar point after the October 2007 peak.
The jury is still out in terms of using market breadth in the correction vs. bear market debate. If breadth improves, the correction case will get stronger. If breadth deteriorates significantly, the bear market case will improve.
Moral Of The Story - No Firm Conclusions Yet Using Breadth
Every media outlet cherry picks data points. Its called lies of omission. Its how they lie without lying. They just say "everything we reported was true", which can be completely accurate. They just didn't give you all of the information.josephli wrote:Trades with cats wrote:Thanks. The thing I am not happy with them is that they seem to cherry-pick some chart/data to support their doom day view