Why SPX 1250 is not just another level, its a big fn deal!

Discussion in 'Trading' started by retaildaytrader, Dec 11, 2010.

Is 1250 the top of the S&P for several months

  1. Yes

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. No

    6 vote(s)
    60.0%
  1. [​IMG]


    SPX 1250 has been a place of consternation for the index these last 10 or so years. In fact, notice the volume at the bottom. Since the early 80s, volume has been rising and then around 2008 it has been steadily shrinking. In fact, we have not had this low volume since 1999 and the floats have only increased in 2009/2010. The floats of companies like BAC are larger then they were just a few years ago.

    I see the Russell 2000 not having much of a problem, but for how long will small caps keep the market higher? I say this far no further. 1250 is the line in the sand and I am tremendously short.
     
  2. There is a nice autopsy by Taleb that begins on the annaversary issue of The Economist (See page 113 of 25 Year Special Issue)
     
  3. Jack Hershey has a complex system that I do not understand and have no motivation to understand. My personal opinion is that complex systems do not work.

    In this thread I have done the following:

    1) Pointed out an OBVIOUS level of the SPX. A level is defined as a major point where price has pivoted around in history. In this case, we have several areas where price did pivot around. Of course, the SPX is different now. It no longer has a stock like AIG for example and now has a stock like NFLX. However, I believe psychology is the most important in the market. Price has pivoted there a few times before so why is this time different. No matter how much money or profits the companies have now versus before...that wont change the psychology of the market.

    2) Offered my personal opinion as to what will happen next. I know its important for some of you to find perfection on the internet, but I have to laugh at you. That is foolish to find perfection on the internet. Some guys are very good at making you think they "know" the market and have an art with words to make it seem like they are right. It is pure comedy as I watch these guys on blogs write a 3 paragraph essay on the direction of the market and at the end I can't really figure out what they had concluded. They made it purposely like that so whatever way the market goes they can say that "they were right". Let me assure you, I am no magician like these hacks on the internet. I have no mastery of the English language where I can perform complex illusions like those guys that pull shit out of their ass. I am going to state what I believe and it will either be wrong or right. You the reader can either agree or disagree with my personal opinion.

    If you dont like me or dont like Jack Hershey or anyone here, then let me tell you there is a key on this board that will close the thread or ignore us all together. You are welcome to utilize those keys. However, I know there are trollish fools that like to keep spinning these threads to shreds. My expectation is that you can and will keep hacking away. Dont waste too much time though because life is short and you don't want to waste it on a bunch of dudes whose philosophy you don't care for.
     
  4. volumes been going down the last months hmm
     
  5. I don't understand why you would post a chart that clearly indicates the opposite of what you are claiming. In EVERY case on your chart, the prevailing trend blew right through 1250 like it wasn't even there. So in the current trend, the longer term indication would be to blow right through 1250 on the way to retesting the highs again.

    In fact, most bull markets tend to be at least 3-4 years in duration.
     
  6. Looks a lot similar to around 1998 on his chart, except volume is slightly higher now.
     
  7. the premise is totally bogus but that does not mean the level won't hold for whatever other reasons.
     
  8. alls i knows is the fed aint gonna let this mkt down

    QE 12 FTW
     
  9. we should just blow right through it.
    1300 soon and then 1500.

    edit:
    corrrrrrect
     
    #10     Dec 12, 2010