Interesting that for a man concerned about market instability ... he chose to make himself one of the top sources of market instability over the past decade.
This thread went viral and The entire buy side went short. Om nom nom: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/the-spx-has-hit-a-cyclical-top.325108/
I nearly doubled my net liq on that trade. The Jan/Mar 2019 2900/3000 bear diagonal in the SPX. I am currently short a 5MM Dec 2019 3200 digital call. So no, 3020 would be hit on a trade agreement.
Doesn't it come full circle because the Fed does react to earnings from a macro point of view? Also what do you mean by liquidity? (I know what liquidity is) but is he talking following asset classes that are increasing in volume? As a very amateurish example, the S&P is very liquid....?
%% Almost alWays, QQQ is also; i never try to make every FED statement super accurate, or use one source for data.,
Perhaps if you plot the S&P using monthly bars from the 666, march low of 2009 through 2018 and then add parallel upper and lower channel lines it will become clear what the most likely reason for 2018 correction was. It is probably better to use percentage rather than nominal numbers if you want to compare various market corrections and crashes over long periods of time. Remember the the nominal value of the dow, for example, is much greater now than it once was.
Markets are forward looking; the projected trade war impact was a future drag on the economy that takes years to fully develop.
It's impossible to tell how much this trade war's "Future" cost is. I agree markets are forward looking but in this context makes no sense. If S&P is valued at 23x, that's what the market sees as the current balance of the politics in Washington and China? That's silly. If you want to look at Armageddon, the whole S&P will be priced with all it's assets minus all of China... Which is hard to calculate.