Amazon

Friday, October 14, 2016

SPX Captures Target 2 for 50+ Points of Profit


Yesterday started off uglier than Ben Bernanke's beard after a dust storm, but then SPX hit Target 2 and bounced like a really bouncy thing made of rubber (writer's note: come back later and substitute witty simile -- if there's time, which there probably isn't).

Presuming readers took at least partial profits at Target 2, then 50+ points of profit in a couple weeks is probably good enough, so bears can relax and play it by ear from here.  Which may be good, because I'm inclined to suspect the market has another trick up its sleeve.  Specifically, the trick noted at the end of Wednesday's update:

I should add that there is one option that bottoms near Target 2 (first chart), then rallies back up all the way to test the zone near the all-time high, THEN drops back toward (or below) Target 2 again... but I'll cover that in more detail if it becomes appropriate.

It's become appropriate to cover that, but let's start off with the 1-minute chart:


Here's a chart of the potential mentioned on Wednesday:



In conclusion, I'm somewhat inclined to suspect the complex flat outlined above, but there is no way to "prove" such a pattern until it unfolds.  This is 100% gut instinct, so I could well be wrong about the bounce continuing.  For readers who have followed these updates for the past couple weeks and are thus 50 points of closed profit to the good, it probably doesn't matter much, because there should presently be no feelings of desperation or fear of "missing out."  The bull potential is that the decline is a complete WXY correction, and thus heading to new highs -- another good reason for bears to be very cautious here, and await the pattern shown above (and its corresponding relatively-low-risk entry) before considering new positions.  If we start to see impulsive looking declines prior to the blue path materializing, then we'll consider the possibility that a continued decline may unfold more directly.  Trade safe.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

SPX Update: Target 1 Finally Captured


For at least the past 18 years, I've been repeating that I felt the decline from 2179.99 was impulsive, and thus due for another leg down.  It seems like longer than 18 years since I first began discussing that prediction, but another leg down finally happened yesterday.  I'm going to let the charts take it from here:



Let's take a quick look at the "obvious" bull option, then we'll look at why I'm inclined to think it's probably not playing out:


To me, the subwaves don't seem to fit the bull option too well:


In conclusion, Target 1 from 9/30 was finally captured, and the prediction for another leg down has been satisfied.  I'm still inclined to think that there's more downside pending, but bears couldn't be blamed for displaying a little caution here near the next key level of 2119.  I should add that there is one option that bottoms near Target 2 (first chart), then rallies back up all the way to test the zone near the all-time high, THEN drops back toward (or below) Target 2 again... but I'll cover that in more detail if it becomes appropriate.  Trade safe.

Monday, October 10, 2016

SPX Update -- and One Rarely-Discussed Aspect of Trading Rules That Will Make or Break You



Since the market is still stuck in the trading range, we're going to talk about trading psychology.  I'm going to cover three interrelated topics, which connect in a subtle way that isn't often discussed.  Since we're still in a trading range, and that can lead to a less-than-exciting trading day, let's start there...

One of the biggest enemies of the trader is boredom.  Contrary to popular belief (especially among teens), boredom does not come about from having a lack of “fun” things to do.  It comes about from a lack of productive things to do.  In my opinion, boredom is simply one of several symptoms that can develop from a feeling of general emptiness.  And while that emptiness can be glossed over and temporarily hidden with frenzied “fun,” it cannot be truly filled by vacuous activity.
 
That’s why we quickly grow bored again as soon as the fun stops:  It doesn’t nourish us in any lasting manner; and certainly not in the way that truly productive accomplishments do.  After a meaningful accomplishment, we can sit and rest for a while, and we feel satisfied from a job well done.  We can be doing “nothing,” but we are not bored... because the emptiness has been filled (at least partially), or our self-esteem has grown, or our character has been enhanced, or some necessary task has been accomplished -- or all of the above.   

This is why “fun” works as a reward for productivity (after we're in the fulfilling mindset that accomplishment brings), but it does not support being chased endlessly for its own sake.  When fun is treated as an end in itself, the emptiness may retreat into the background momentarily, but it never goes away.

Anyway, my point is that many traders understand this, at least instinctively (whether or not they’ve ever put it into words).  The problem isn’t that they’re too lazy, the problem is that they can become hooked on trying too hard to accomplish something productive.  

And that leads to overtrading.   It leads to forcing trades.  It leads to bad decisions, and, sometimes, to acts of outright desperation.  Is there a solution?

Well, the solution may be to redefine our individual views of “productive” action.  I’ve often preached that non-action can be just as important as action.  If a trader has clear rules, then they can derive a sense of accomplishment from NOT taking entries that violate their rules. This is easier said than done, because the market is virtually always going to do something in the way of movement.  So when one resists, say, a buy entry because it violates their rules… and then the (untaken) trade goes on to develop into what would have been a 1000% gain, it can feel like you did the wrong thing. 
 
Which leads us to the area I don’t hear talked about regarding rules:  The psychological importance.  Everyone talks about how you need rules to maintain discipline, and that’s true – but you also need rules to defend yourself psychologically against the one (potential) enemy who knows your every weakness:  Yourself.  That may, in fact, be the most important aspect of trading rules. 

With clear rules, you have an emotional fallback when that trade you never took goes on to become the greatest winner in history.  You can chalk it up to luck, or blind chance, or whatever (because it probably was), and say to yourself, “Hey, good for the people that took that trade.  I didn’t take that trade because MY system didn’t give me any reason to.”  And you can get on with your life.  And your next trade.
 
But without clear rules, you will beat yourself up endlessly for not taking that big-winner trade -- because without rules, you don’t really know WHY you didn’t take the trade.  How can you defend yourself if you don’t know why you didn’t take the trade, you just know it was a huge winner?  Just like in life, without clear guiding principles, your entire position is psychologically untenable over the long haul. 
   
So my point is this:  Without a well-defined trading system, you walk an endless edge where you are always one trade away from total destruction.  The amazing thing is, this one single trade can destroy you even if you never took the trade! Because the repercussions of one “incredible missed trade” will put you in the absolute wrong mindset to make your next trades successful.  You’ll be operating under a psychological gun of regret, and in a “not gonna miss the next one!” mentality -- and you’ll be tempted to jump into every long-shot, high-risk trade you can lay your hands on.  And (unless you get really lucky and hit a big winner), as the money dwindles, your mindset will rapidly spiral out of control.

So do yourself a favor, if you haven’t already:  Before you enter another trade, sit down and figure out exactly what your rules are.  Then agree to support yourself emotionally for honoring those rules.  Period.  Honoring your rules is your “win” -- that’s your productive activity.  No matter what happens to the trade (or non-trade!) afterwards.  As you go along, of course, periodically review and adjust your rules if you see areas that need improvement.   But stick to your rules, and never beat yourself up for maintaining discipline.  No matter how it ends up.

You now have a psychologically-tenable position from which to advance or retreat as you see fit.  You have the emotional foundation needed to support yourself through the inevitable ups and downs.  And you are no longer one bad trade, or one missed trade, away from going on tilt and wiping yourself out. 

Chart-wise, there's nothing to update but the near-term chart, so I've done so below.  For the larger bull/bear options, please refer back to the prior update:


In conclusion, the short-term pattern suggests that Friday's high was a b-wave, thus likely destined to be broken (although all that's technically required is a break of the red a wave high).  As I discussed in depth last update, I continue to feel bears should be cautious here, and only short the upper edges of this range, if they short at all.  Trade safe.

Friday, October 7, 2016

SPX Update: Awaiting a Break of Trading Range


In Wednesday's update, I discussed that it was finally time for bears to begin behaving cautiously:

The bulls do have several potential patterns in play here -- one possibility would be for the entire move off the all-time high to be a fourth wave triangle.  If we followed that pattern to its logical conclusion, then it's technically possible for 2144 to mark the bottom of wave e of that triangle, and head straight up to new ATH's from here.  I'm not favoring that, but it pays to be aware of such things, especially at inflection points (one of which was just reached).

In conclusion, I'm still inclined to favor the bears heading forward, but bulls do have near-term options to add additional confusion to the pattern, and larger options for a more meaningful rally.  Hence, yesterday's target capture signaled a reasonable inflection point for bears to begin behaving at least somewhat cautiously.


Since then, BKX (banking index) has made a new high for this move, and that calls for added bear caution.  Thus, today's update will chart both a bull and a bear count.

We'll start with a chart of the bull count, since I have only discussed this verbally in prior updates.  Please note the typo, wherein the target should be 2234-45 (obviously).


The bear count is unchanged.


In conclusion, although SPX has remained range-bound for quite a while, and although we closed smack in the middle of that range yesterday, my gut tells me that we may finally be close to breaking the range. 

As mentioned, BKX made a new high yesterday, and that at least calls for bears to continue to maintain the cautious stance recommended on Wednesday, until such time as the market can sustain a break of the red trend line shown on the chart above and, more importantly, break down from the trading range.  Whether one is a bull or a bear, whenever dealing with an ongoing range like this, one should choose all entries and exits very carefully.  Trading ranges can be unforgiving of sloppy entries, and even one bad entry can throw off your entire rhythm and cause all subsequent trades to be unbalanced, leading undisciplined traders to be whipsawed out numerous times.  Trade safe.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

SPX Update: First Downside Target Captured



I'm exhausted to the point of... uh, exhaustion this morning, so I'm going to let the charts do all the talking.

First up is the SPX 5-minute:



SPX 1-minute:


Both of those charts talk about the potential for at least a near-term rally from here, so let's look at the most immediately bearish potential for comparison:


Now, none of the charts above discuss the bull option in any detail, but I have mentioned at least one such option briefly over the past several weeks.  The bulls do have several potential patterns in play here -- one possibility would be for the entire move off the all-time high to be a fourth wave triangle.  If we followed that pattern to its logical conclusion, then it's technically possible for 2144 to mark the bottom of wave e of that triangle, and head straight up to new ATH's from here.  I'm not favoring that, but it pays to be aware of such things, especially at inflection points (one of which was just reached).

In conclusion, I'm still inclined to favor the bears heading forward, but bulls do have near-term options to add additional confusion to the pattern, and larger options for a more meaningful rally.  Hence, yesterday's target capture signaled a reasonable inflection point for bears to begin behaving at least somewhat cautiously.  Trade safe.

Monday, October 3, 2016

SPX Update: 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover...


...and 20 ways to say the same thing over and over.  Because, since last update, there's been (as the businessman said to the beggar):  "No change." 



Another view:


Bigger picture:


In conclusion, still no change from within this noise zone: Unless we break out cleanly, I'm still inclined to think bounces should be sold, in a "not trading advice" sort of way.  Trade safe.

Friday, September 30, 2016

SPX and NYA Updates: SPX Reverses from Target Zone


Last update was short, sweet, and to the point -- and anticipated that the S&P 500 (SPX) could rally to, then reverse from, the 2166-2172.50 zone.  SPX exceeded that target by 17/100ths of a point before dropping rather strongly.  Note the intraday gaps during yesterday's decline, suggesting that liquidity is currently thin.



Stepping back a bit to the hourly chart, it's interesting how frequently SPX has reacted to the red median channel line drawn on this chart on September 8:


From an intermediate perspective, I am continuing to treat this as the early stages of a downtrend, however to only consider one side of the trade is often a fool's errand, so I have included some caveats on the chart below.  We can see that bears do indeed have some work to do in order to solidify this "spec count."


Finally, the NYSE Composite Index (NYA) is, in my opinion, one of the best representations of the true broad market (as opposed to SPX, which only covers large cap stocks).  Here again, I have made some notes regarding the bull case:


In conclusion, I suggested shorting the market on September 8, and have not seen anything yet to convince me that the decline we've had since has ended yet.  As I've noted in several prior updates, this is hardly a "slam dunk" for bears, and there's certainly some ambiguity to this pattern -- but the pattern does still seem to give bears a slight edge for the time being.

On an unrelated note, long-time readers already know I believe that "news is noise" when it comes to the market, and that the charts tend to lead the news, not the other way around.  Thus, I feel compelled to comment regarding an article I recently read in a major publication, as follows:

Since I didn't watch the Presidential debate, I was skimming through a couple articles to find out how it went, when I came across this statement in an article that was published a couple days ago:

"Sensing that Clinton may have edged it, global markets traded higher."

That statement stands alone as the sole "market commentary" in the article.

I find this statement offensive, not in any emotional sense -- because I don't really care much about this election -- but in an intellectual sense. It bugs me because it insults the intelligence of the reader, and it plants bad seeds for those readers who do not understand equities markets. The entire statement amounts to nothing more than arrogant presumption -- yet that arrogance is cloaked and presented as a presupposition so indisputable that no further discussion is even needed. Meanwhile:

1. It presumes that the Presidential debates actually impact the equities market in the first place.
2. And not only the U.S. market, mind you: GLOBAL markets.
3. It presumes that Clinton won the debate.
4. It presumes that global markets could "sense" this victory.
5. And since they traded higher, it also presumes that global markets prefer Clinton.

That is an entire book's-worth of debatable assumptions -- yet they are casually dropped-in as indisputable facts via one little sentence. This is the type of crowd-impacting (and subtly brainwashing) bias that reporters throw in (consciously or otherwise) that just gets my goat as a thinking person.

I'd love to see how they explain the market's behavior today. I mean, we haven't had any more debates, have we? So the same logic must still apply: "After thinking a little harder about Clinton's debate victory, SPX gapped down several points on an intraday basis. Or maybe the debate and the market's little rally were totally unrelated to each other and are not a particularly good example of causation."

But I'm guessing that's not forthcoming as a retraction and correction. 

Trade safe.