Down goes the Dow

[quote]Gruntz wrote:

Your math skills are atrocious, Igy. This is middle school math.

57/43 = 1.33

Now care to explain how you got your answer?

So you get the point that a large drop like 57% requires a much larger recovery -- 133% -- to get back to even.

I meant to use the number 50% (a 50% drop needs a 100% run-up to get to even) but got distracted by the actual 57% drop I dug out of the data

---

You got it wrote:

So you get the point that a large drop like 57% requires a much larger recovery -- 133% -- to get back to even.

---

---

Gruntz wrote:

---

Yowsah wrote:

---

Math Mann wrote:

---

Math matters wrote:

If you lose 57% as the market did in five month in 08-09, it needs to then go up 114% to get back to even.

---

1. Your math is wrong.

2. It did get back to even and then some.

---

The math is wrong? Care to explain?

Your hindsight is great.

---

Your math skills are atrocious, Igy. This is middle school math.

57/43 = 1.33

Now care to explain how you got your answer? I’m guessing you'll opt to deflect, as usual.

---

No, this is correct:

https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/comment/mc180201b.png

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

No, this is correct:

https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/comment/mc180201b.png

---

---

Trews wrote:

Tell me again why anyone would listen to him?

---

---

Math Mann wrote:

---

You got it wrote:

So you get the point that a large drop like 57% requires a much larger recovery -- 133% -- to get back to even.

---

The amount of recovery would be the same as the drop. The percent change is different because the calculations are based on different values.

---

---

So wut wrote:

---

Math Mann wrote:

---

You got it wrote:

So you get the point that a large drop like 57% requires a much larger recovery -- 133% -- to get back to even.

---

The amount of recovery would be the same as the drop. The percent change is different because the calculations are based on different values.

---

That is correct.

Down 50% -- need to come back 100% to get to even.

Much harder to go up 100% than to drop 50%.

---

---

So wut wrote:

Much harder to go up 100% than to drop 50%.

---

The only thing going down is your sendrome

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

No, this is correct:

---

---

Math Mann wrote:

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

No, this is correct:

---

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

---

---

wondering wrote:

---

So wut wrote:

Much harder to go up 100% than to drop 50%.

---

Please explain why that is.

---

---

Rilly? wrote:

---

wondering wrote:

---

So wut wrote:

Much harder to go up 100% than to drop 50%.

---

Please explain why that is.

---

You really need an explanation as to why it is a number doubling is more of a change then a number halving?

---

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Ah, not my posts grunting ☝️ one

---

?SOL

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

?SOL

---

Pajama trader warning: After four consecutive days of failed upside breakouts in the S&P, some have noticed a change in sentiment, and as Georg Schuh, CIO of Deutsche Asset Mgmt told Bloomberg, "we have moved our view on stocks from ‘buy the dips’ to ‘sell the rebounds’." adding that "I’m not ruling out one final peak in stocks, but we’re getting late in the cycle and we’re starting to see anecdotal evidence that points toward the end of the rally."

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Pajama trader warning: After four consecutive days of failed upside breakouts in the S&P, some have noticed a change in sentiment, and as Georg Schuh, CIO of Deutsche Asset Mgmt told Bloomberg, "we have moved our view on stocks from ‘buy the dips’ to ‘sell the rebounds’." adding that "I’m not ruling out one final peak in stocks, but we’re getting late in the cycle and we’re starting to see anecdotal evidence that points toward the end of the rally."

---