Seeing lots of stocks stuck between 50/200sma's and resistance. Not even going to try guess this one, direction will be more evident once this is resolved. It seems absurd to keep on going up, but if the market was a direct reflection of the state of the economy we should still be below 700...lol It seems that even Whitney and Roubini threw the towel... Still a lot of stocks are looking very well, and there is enough rotation to keep one busy...all short term both long and short side - thread lightly...
Jeez, Prechter's track record is awful... in 2005 he was talking secular bear market for oil and commodities, he was short US stocks in the 90's.... if he is 15% correct on things over time I'd be surprised.. now he's talking "nosebleed levels" for stocks again.. who knows, he could be right, a broken clock is right twice a day too...
he was 4 years early in commodities..oil and metal tumbled in late 2008. stocks crashed in 2002 call the tech wreck.. he is just early in his forecasting the nose is the second leg down... the guys who didn't have the chance to sell all their positions will now sell all at the price they want...like last chance to sell and get some of your cash back. it'll depend on mutual fund redemptions if the economy is still bad more people would be liquidating their portfolios for retirement or for whatever reason etc. or just need the cash for daily expenses either they unemployed etc. making less money than before .. with company layoffs people tend to liquidate their investment portfolios since companies won't be contributing the other half.
buy this dip..PPT coming in pretcher is hedging his bet by being bearish and bullish at the same time
His track record might not be perfect, but I see what he is seeing and agree with it this time. There are several technical measurements that target the 1994 highs as well as fundamental reasons, one of which I relate here. Changes that were made to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as per, and I quote: "Regulatory changes 1995 In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[52] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". These changes effectively forced the mortgage industry to accommodate for 'funny' accounting that resulted in the decoupling of the relationship between homes values to real income. "During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[55]" Niskanen was correct about the effects these changes would have, but seriously underestimated the ability for banks to make a profit from the changes. If you look at an S&P chart you can see the sharp move upwards which started at the end of 1994. For this reason I think, fundamentally, that the market has to reconcile itself before it can resume to what would have been it's normal growth trajectory without the interventions cited. But of course, anything is always possible.