44 replies to this topic

[zoropb]

we had a 34 first stall but did not think it would hold the freaking entire day.

[jjc]

speaking of value crude is probably the most overvalued com out there.

Oh yeah coffee is cheap hit the levels I told my coffee friends here to watch 1-1.15

Hey Z,

Do you have a view on corn? Fundamental wise has a lot going against higher price, however chart looks like we are painint a bottom.


I'm expecting higher prices into this summer on Es after a very fast and furious 15% drop soon. What you don't typically see at a
top is CNBC ratings falling off the charts, lack of mom & pop stock chasers, and low volume on ES/YM...; I think the volume can
be partially explained with the rise and fall of HFT algo driven shops. Quote stuffing rule changes (and selective enforcement) at the
exchanges are putting most out of bussiness.

thks

[fib_1618]

...look at total volume for the run to 2000 and the one to 2007 increasing volume ever year but the top years. You do not think this one is a bit more fishy?

Not at all...much of what you're referring has to do with the liquidity dynamic that's brought on by monetary policies.

Simple and quick example presented below using the 1 year T-Bill rate in comparison to daily volume on the NYA (which closed at new all time highs on Thursday). As the cost of money becomes more expensive, to wit less available, it takes more volume to keep the advancing price trend moving higher against the weight of the bear market default. As less and less money is available, stocks within an index begin to lose their sponsorship one by one to the point in which the weight is just to heavy to fight the default and prices collapse. So as long as interest rates remain at historic low levels, there is enough liquidity to keep prices rising without the same (volume) effort it would take if this same liquidity flow was taken away.

Think of the space shuttle already in orbit above the Earth. The further away from the gravitational pull of the planet, the less the burst of energy needed to climb to a higher orbit. Take away the fuel (or constrict it), and you begin to decay to the point to where it would take more and more fuel, for longer bursts, to keep a comfortable orbit and re-entering the atmosphere. When the fuel runs out, the decay eventually allows gravity to take over fully, and down you go (that's what happened in 1998 and 2000).

And, yes, it's a process...and it's this same process of which that drives the direction of volatility measures as well.

Fib

[SemiBizz]

The problem as I have mentioned is that 70% of the volume in the market is PRICE FIXING. There's no real liquidity derived. When the market turns, the only way the robots can participate is to replicate the same discovery process to the downside. Slam prices to support, when it is registered, back off a few cts above it with the ask, wait for the bids to fill up, down to the next support. So it's a vicious circle. They can either unplug them and let nature take it's course with no liquidity offered and wait for selling to dry up like they did in the Flash Crash, or use the robots to create a FAST MARK DOWN and try to stabilize at lower prices.

[jjc]

The problem as I have mentioned is that 70% of the volume in the market is PRICE FIXING.

Quote stuffing rule changes (and selective enforcement)

See Supplemental Liquidity Providers
http://usequities.ny...-equities/types

[zoropb]

Hey jjc nice to see your post been a while. It depends on time horizon. On all these other coms but es a like to go long mainly almost 90% of the time and I hold it a while. Its pretty cheap here. Over a 3 year period you should do well even if it goes down now if it bounces good then take some profit. . btw I may buy some for a bounce to near 600

Edited by zoropb, 27 December 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[andiron]

...look at total volume for the run to 2000 and the one to 2007 increasing volume ever year but the top years. You do not think this one is a bit more fishy?

Not at all...much of what you're referring has to do with the liquidity dynamic that's brought on by monetary policies.

Simple and quick example presented below using the 1 year T-Bill rate in comparison to daily volume on the NYA (which closed at new all time highs on Thursday). As the cost of money becomes more expensive, to wit less available, it takes more volume to keep the advancing price trend moving higher against the weight of the bear market default. As less and less money is available, stocks within an index begin to lose their sponsorship one by one to the point in which the weight is just to heavy to fight the default and prices collapse. So as long as interest rates remain at historic low levels, there is enough liquidity to keep prices rising without the same (volume) effort it would take if this same liquidity flow was taken away.

Think of the space shuttle already in orbit above the Earth. The further away from the gravitational pull of the planet, the less the burst of energy needed to climb to a higher orbit. Take away the fuel (or constrict it), and you begin to decay to the point to where it would take more and more fuel, for longer bursts, to keep a comfortable orbit and re-entering the atmosphere. When the fuel runs out, the decay eventually allows gravity to take over fully, and down you go (that's what happened in 1998 and 2000).

And, yes, it's a process...and it's this same process of which that drives the direction of volatility measures as well.

Fib

we are at ZIRP more or less//so at least if a desperate attempt is needed to justify low volume, the fed balance sheet/stock market correlation chart should come to rescue...

this market moved in a quantum mode..that is sudden big spurt and then no price movement....essentially defining an inorganic and weak system that will atrophy when time comes...the means and methods of how it was achieved may be known few yrs from now as matters become public knowledge...

Right now I have posted about the contours of what is likely to happen...and massive assets busts are ahead in the future....(around 2017 +/-)...

[pdx5]

sure would like to go skiing but i broke my foot last year and I probably should take up golf - but it is toooo boring and demanding in a technical way for my idea of recreational fun!

have fun all and thanks for your thoughts.

klh

That is how I used to think before I took up golf full time after retiring at age 57..

As I got better at the game, it became more and more interesting.
Some of the most beautiful chunks of land I have ever walked on are
the gorgeous golf courses in states like Ohio, South Carolina, Illinois and here in Northwest.
There is a golf course in Cook county, Illinois named Forest preserve National. It is carved
out of a forest preserve, with lots of ponds and trees. It is amazing to play there just
as sun is coming up, the birds are singing and the greens are virgin without trampling.
Every one of the 18 holes are separated from others by trees. You do not see other fairways!
Another amazing course is Cog Hill #4 where pro's play tournament every year. It is public!
Here in NW, I belonged to a high end golf course Royal Oaks for many years and played
every private course in Portland area due to reciprocal playing privileges. All are great!

I am so absorbed for 4+ hours on golf course, I don't even think of anything else!
There is absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing that can hold my interest for 4+ hours.
I am shocked at how great shape I am in 70's because I walk all 18 holes = 6 to 7 miles.
I was pre-diabetic just before retirement, and had mild hypertension. Plus aches and pains.
Now all that is history! Nothing beats walking 7 miles 3 to 4 times a week.

But first you have to break 90 to make golf interesting. It is not the easiest game to
learn and get good at. The best way to get better is to find a companion who is a good golfer
and willing to help. Lessons from pro's is a waste of time and money if you can't break 100.

By the way I did a lot of down hill skiing in my younger years, but don't like cold weather
anymore. I still remember skiing at age 40 on sugar loaf ski area in Michigan when it was
20 below and 25 mph wind! I was a bit crazy then

Edited by pdx5, 27 December 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[pedro]

I just want to commend Cruise for his excellent post on this qtn ... I'm of exactly the same mind, esp. regarding the use of weeklies and monthlies. In particular, "In all these cases, the S&P pulled back to the monthly 20 SMA and rallied one more time off that low, set a new marginally higher high and turned down. That is likely to happen again." 20 mo sma, or the 200dma ... something like that for the warning.

Edited by pedro, 27 December 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[opinionated]

Not yet Z-man 1845-48 then we test lower. (TEST) the bulls not dead yet. I expect a little soft Monday morning then bear will fuel the 1845 pop. IMO