Probability of SP revisiting 666 level

Discussion in 'Trading' started by ramaTrade, Aug 23, 2009.

Probability of SP revisiting 666 level within 12 months

Poll closed Sep 2, 2009.
  1. <= 10%

    49 vote(s)
    41.9%
  2. > 10% but <= 20%

    6 vote(s)
    5.1%
  3. > 20% but <= 30%

    6 vote(s)
    5.1%
  4. > 30% but <= 40%

    9 vote(s)
    7.7%
  5. > 40% but <= 50%

    2 vote(s)
    1.7%
  6. > 50% but <= 60%

    5 vote(s)
    4.3%
  7. > 60% but <= 70%

    6 vote(s)
    5.1%
  8. > 70% but <= 80%

    8 vote(s)
    6.8%
  9. > 80% but <= 90%

    4 vote(s)
    3.4%
  10. > 90% but < 100%

    1 vote(s)
    0.9%
  11. 100%

    21 vote(s)
    17.9%
  1. I would say less than 30%.

    What is your guess ? and why ?
     
  2. Zero percent, Obama will spend trillions to make sure it doesn't happen.
     
  3. I would say 100%. Just like all good ponzi schemes, the current ponzi, I mean stock market, will eventually be exposed.
     
  4. At the rate things are going it looks like 0%.

    Jam it down now jam it back up. Good Job GS.
     
  5. Yes as long as Obama is in charge, the sign of the anti christ will surely manifest
     
  6. Div_Arb

    Div_Arb

    100%

    re-visiting the March lows will be 'max pain' scenario for the MAJORITY of market participants (and politicians). :cool:
     
  7. Less than 30%, in this cycle. The financial panic is over, and the cause of it, the housing market, is finally stabilizing at a much lower price level.
    Also, Paulson is out. Geithner is mediocre, but Paulson was willfully either evil or remarkably stupid. Mere mediocrity being the norm for government bureaucrats, things should be steady again from here on out.
     
  8. Goldman and Obama have teamed up so the market only has one direction going forward, UP!
     
  9. WOW! THIS POLL IS INCREDIBLY BEARISH. Buy a bear spread and make tons if you really think the chances are fat talled...
     
  10. I used to think the chance will be as small as Goldman Sachs going bankruptcy, now I think the chance is much greater.
     
    #10     Aug 24, 2009