|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Short-term
Outlook:
Intermediate-term Outlook:
What: We will turn Neutral if the S&P 500
closes above 1151.
Why:
In March,
we discussed
a large number of reasons to expect an imminent rally of one
to three months' duration, or perhaps even more. The
rally exceeded all expectations. On January 8th, the
Dumb Money Confidence hit 75%, and every time we've seen
this kind of extreme in the past 15 years, any further
short-term strength (over 2-4 weeks) was reversed
longer-term (over 1-3 months). We expect the same this
time around, so it was a matter of waiting for price action
to crack a little. We're getting some conflicting
studies about whether the price action the past few days is
a sign of a larger trend change, so more than anything we
want to see how any bounce from short-term oversold
conditions plays out. A bounce, then move under
December's low (around 1090) will bring the
intermediate-term trend into question.
Sentiment:
Trend:
Still mildly bearish for the market, but off its worst
levels.
Rrising 200-day avg;
higher highs/higher lows. Sup / Res:
Other:
Resistance at 1115, support
at 1090. Nothing notable.
Indicators - Updates and Extremes
There are any number of extremes we could discuss among our short-term
indicators after Friday's drop through some widely-watched support
levels.
Instead of going over a half-dozen of them, a good proxy is the
short-term Score. On Friday, it exceeded 80% for only the 11th
time since 2000.
A week after the others,
the S&P 500 was higher 8 out of 10 times, with an average return of
nearly 4%. The two failures were during the spectacular outliers
after 9/11 and early October 2008.
The lesson from the other occurrences is clear - the broader market
should bounce, and probably right away. We've already seen a
substantial bounce pre-market, so obviously that takes away some of the
impact.
There have been 5 times the S&P gapped up at least +0.5% the next
morning, as it's on track to do today. All 5 tacked on more gains
into the close, with all but one gaining an additional 1%. After
that, it was much more questionable. For the record, here are
those dates: 09/24/01, 02/28/07, 09/18/08, 11/21/08 and 10/29/09.
Any bounce will add an additional bit of
oomph to Friday's (and December's...) low around 1090ish. A
bounce that then fails to hold this support for more than a day or two
would be much more indicative of a larger change in trend.
Speaking of...
Large Drops From A High
That is only the 3rd time in history the S&P 500
suffered three consecutive 1% down days following a 52-week high.
After the others, the market rallied for a month then declined again,
not hitting another new high for a couple of years (from 07/21/33) and
the other time it continued to fall in the short-term then hit a new
high a few months later (from 10/10/79).
But 1% moves aren't really good for context. Sometimes 1% is
average given the volatility of that time, and other times 1% is a huge
move. So let's look at this in a different way.
The table below shows the other times that the S&P 500 hit a 52-week
high, then suffered a very large decline. By "very large", we're
talking about the largest 3-day loss in at least six months. This
is the kind of quick, scary decline that raises fear levels quickly and
always makes investors wonder whether we've seen enough damage in
sentiment to alter the long-term trend.
What we're looking at in the table is how long it took for the S&P 500
to bottom (and how much of a loss to get there) before embarking on a
run to a new 52-week high.
S&P 500 Performance After Very Large Loss Following A
New 52-Week High
The numbers confirm something we've looked at several times over the
past 8 years - very large downside moves from high levels don't usually
portend a bigger change in trend. Tops are most often choppy
affairs that are significantly less dramatic. Not always, but
usually.
From the table, we see that the median number of days it took to form an
important bottom was barely longer than a week. The average
(median) drawdown was only -1.6%, though there were three losses greater
than -10%.
The moves weren't usually a straight shot higher, though - it took an
average of nearly 30 days to reach a new 52-week high. The problem
with that "Days 'Til New 52-Week High" column is the dispersion; there's a
very high standard deviation among the precedents.
Bottom line, like the "top spotter" table we looked at
last week, this move isn't necessarily indicative of a change in the long-term trend.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equity Market Indicators
Notes: Many of our shorter-term indicators have moved well into oversold territory, especially in the Volatility and Breadth groups.
By Friday's close, we had more bullish (for the market) indicators than bearish ones. The three other times that's occurred since the March low, stocks were able to form bottoms quickly thereafter. If we don't see that now, it will be a definite change in character for this uptrend.
More history:
* New extreme
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On A Personal Note...
I've been a Vikings fan my entire life. A year ago, a game like yesterday - with a half-dozen missed opportunities to put the game away - would have seen me screaming at the TV and stuck in a pissy mood for a week.
When my daughter started having seizures a year ago, several of you wrote to say that on the bright side, there may be some good that comes of it. And you know what? There has been.
Last night, I tuned out the tube during the fourth quarter and played with my daughter instead. The game ceased to matter in the least, and after an hour of playing forts, balloon toss and robot, I'm in the best mood I've been in all weekend.
And I'm actually looking forward to the Super Bowl, even though the Vikes aren't in it. But if my kids want to play...well, then I'll shut that game off too.
Jason Goepfert Founder, Sundial Capital Research, Inc.
Forwarding or other distribution of this email is prohibited without the express permission of Sundial Capital Research, Inc. If you do not possess a firm-wide license, then forwarding this message will violate your subscription agreement.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2001-2010 Sundial Capital Research, Inc. All rights reserved. sentimenTrader.com is a trademark of Sundial Capital Research, Inc. Sundial Capital Research, Inc. 12527 Central Avenue NE, Suite 165 Blaine, MN 55434
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||