Friday's Fall -- Conspiracy? Or in the technical tea leaves?

CallMeIshmael

First Allocation
Reaction score
0
Comment on today's Latest Market Commentary
What was that?

Before we get to conspiracies, which may or may not be true, consider some of the technical indicators that show we’re in for a correction.


First is the MACD, or, almost the same thing on the S&P 500 chart in today's commentary, the PMO. The divergence between the height of its peaks and the peaks in prices is significant. Though prices got higher April 2 than the previous peak Mar. 6-7, the PMO was lower. This is a sign of weakness. Look at the two peaks Dec. 31 and Jan 15-22 – you see the same divergence, followed by the correction starting Jan. 23. This pattern applies to all the major indices. In the case of NASDAQ and QQQ, which been reaching lower highs the past two weeks, the falls in MACD are markedly lower than the falls in price. Like all technical indicators, this is not fool-proof, but it’s one thing to consider.


Second, the NASDAQ (both as a whole and the 100 leaders in QQQ or NDX) has been underperforming the broader market the past couple weeks. Is it the leader? If so, it flashed a couple warning signs recently that it was leading downward. It failed to stay even with the S&P and Dow March 21 and 24 (Friday and Monday). Again, it failed to reach a new high when the S&P (and Transportations) did on April 2-3. In fact, it showed two successively lower peaks since its last high.

Finally, the so-so volume on the apparent breakouts in the S&P in Transportations didn’t manifest any underlying excitement, making a real breakout seem unlikely.


This correction is coming sooner than we’re used to after the last one in January. I’d hope this is another short-term thing like January’s, and the NASDAQ chart alone might suggest we’re near the bottom. (Friday’s low is more or less in line with its year-long rising trend) But when I think of it as the leader and compare it to S&P 500, with prices still way up there where they were in early March, I feel a little more cautious, and think this correction will go a little deeper.


[FONT=&quot]As a side issue, I’ve put most of my TSP into the F-fund now because I see it forming a big old cup-and-handle base since late October. Maybe it’ll break out during this cycle up, or maybe the next one. But even if it goes back down to the bottom of its present channel, that’s less than 1%, not very risky.[/FONT]
 
Before we get to conspiracies
Good analysis, but come on. Conspiracies are more fun. :D

Five times the normal trading volume on Friday, and highest in 3 years, on only the QQQ (Naz 100). The SPY had higher volume days just last month.

040714b.gif


Here's a chart I posted in TSP Talk Plus today. Look at that volume. What's up with that?

040714.gif
 
Someone sent out a secret message, OK 1-2-3 SELL!!!!!!!
 
Conspiracies are indeed fun, but the problem is that we seldom find out who has done the actual conspiring, how they kept it secret so long from the rest of us, and how they actually planned the action together with its exact time.

I like to look at it this way. Conspiracies aren't even necessary when the main actors already think alike anyway. They're already con-spiring, breathing together, breathing the same air, so they don't need to sit down and plan rationally or specifically. Now THAT could be going on in the computerized trading. A large quantity of traders all thinking alike can exaggerate certain tendencies. Humans panic, and the humans who program the computers take that into account. Computer panic.

But I'd still assume the computerized traders' programs saw some of the same technical indicators I mentioned (and undoubtedly a thousand more), weighing the pluses and minuses. The general direction was going to be "down." When a critical mass of selling was reached (partly caused by fellow-computers) their reaction to the fall exacerbated the fall further. The computers and traders don't have to plan any of this together because their programs are all similar already -- make as much and lose as little as possible on the market's movements, same as we humans are doing. They may look like they're leading, but I think they're really all just following, and the more computers there are carrying out trades, the more they're following each other.

I was thinking of leaving on the uptick Wednesday for the same reasons I mentioned in my post, but waited until Thursday after losing another 0.5%. Then come Friday noon I didn't regard myself as some sort of genius, because I felt sure that with the strong opening there'd be a reversal day and here I'd be, stuck in the F-fund. When I checked at night I found out I was wrong about being wrong. That's why I call this technical timing stuff tea leaves -- it's at best some basis for guessing. I had reasons for my guesses and guessed "right" this time, but I know that only after the fact. If I had guessed "wrong" after the same analysis, I shouldn't blame myself for trying. (But then you wouldn't be hearing from me either!)
 
One more thing: The spike in QQQ's volume relates only to that particular ETF, not to the NASDAQ as a whole. NASDAQ's volume Friday was, yes, very high, over 2.5 billion, but that was only about 20% above its 50-day average of about 2.1 billion. (It was even higher March 21, with some 2.9 billion.) QQQ's unusual volume was still "only" 130 million, which accounts for about 5% of the total NASDAQ volume. And it wasn't just the NASDAQ 100 that was down (-2.7%) -- the entire NASDAQ fell 2.6%, virtually the same. So QQQ's volume chart shows us that an extremely large number of people (and/or computers) investing in NASDAQ 100 as an ETF decided to get out, as the NASDAQ's individual stocks tumbled.
 
Back
Top