agip wrote:...buying stocks when down 7-12% is historically a pretty good strategy if you have a long time horizon.
Yep, for sure. Except in the rare instances when it isn't...
agip wrote:...buying stocks when down 7-12% is historically a pretty good strategy if you have a long time horizon.
Yep, for sure. Except in the rare instances when it isn't...
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
agip wrote:...buying stocks when down 7-12% is historically a pretty good strategy if you have a long time horizon.
Yep, for sure. Except in the rare instances when it isn't...
if you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the 200 day moving average theory of market timing.
it's very attractive to those who want to stay invested but miss the big drops. It causes some false sales but in the end it would keep you from losing the 50% drops, and it also gets you back in.
agip wrote:
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Yep, for sure. Except in the rare instances when it isn't...
if you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the 200 day moving average theory of market timing.
it's very attractive to those who want to stay invested but miss the big drops. It causes some false sales but in the end it would keep you from losing the 50% drops, and it also gets you back in.
yipes the Sp500 is barely above the 200 day right now.
for those who want to trade on it, this is crunch time.
which shows how hard this is. Happens so fast and you have to be decisive or the market falls another 5% on you and it feels too late.
agip wrote:if you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the 200 day moving average theory of market timing.
Oh no, not you too agip?
I thought I'd disabused most of you of the standard "technical" chartist indicators a few years ago. I guess old ideas die hard...
Looking into your crystal ball at various moving averages can tell you a lot about the past, and absolutely nothing about the future. There's no bigger nonsense in "investing" than looking at such "signals" and believing they have informational value. Let me repeat that for the idiotic notions of fibonacci numbers. Sorry if I'm the first to tell you this. Of course astrological symbols and tarot cards, now there's your meal ticket... :-)
Sorry if that comes across as rude or blunt. I'm trying to be funny but also direct. Maybe a swing and a miss on my part, dunno...
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:I believe the next phase will stealthily attack mega cap growth, with investors believing the playbook of the last five years is still relevant. Over time confidence will erode while waiting for the bounce back that never comes. Portfolio sales will come in mass 50% lower than today.
You and agip have diametrically opposing views of the future, it seems. I prefer your take, not that it is necessarily more likely (I have no FREAKING idea), but that by choosing to believe it I better protect my retirement.
Well think about the proliferation of $Trillion market cap companies, as if that is anywhere close to normal. Investors thinking they were betting on a sure thing. The same magical thinking that has created all the bubbles of the past.
As a reminder, I looked back at S&P 500 historical data and looked for instances of so-called "golden crosses" (200-day moves below the 50-day) and "death crosses" (200-day moves above the 5-day), as illustrated here:
When you consult the data and look for all instances of these "signals" you find that there are statistically meaningful differences when you look back in time (duh, they are defined based on trailing averages), but they are completely indistinguishable from each other and from random days without either as you can see in this table:
You might need to stare hard at the table to figure it out. but the short story is that there is no mathematical basis in real data to believe "signals" from 200-day moving averages (or from any other trailing averages). There may be a mystical reason to believe the signals, but I leave that between you and your deities.
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:... they are completely indistinguishable from each other and from random days ...
... For forward-looking purposes over any meaningful time scale.
we're talking about different strategies.
the one I am referring to is simply not to own stocks when they fall below their 200 day moving average. Sell 'em.
then you buy them back when they move back above the 200 day.
that's it. It's simple and intuitive. It lets stocks bounce around but it gets you out before the 30-50% dumps. And probably more importantly, it provides a rule to get back in even if you don't want to. Getting back in is very hard.
Many people have tried to supply a theoretical foundation for technical analysis. The results are iffy, mostly because statistics itself (and economics) is mostly nothing but bullsh!t and fake math (not to be confused with probability which is very real math).
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.2230&rep=rep1&type=pdf200 day moving average is more like one of those boglehead things and a lot of people (mostly boomers) are taught to just buy at the 200 dma if you intend to go long.
agip wrote:
agip wrote:
if you aren't familiar with it, take a look at the 200 day moving average theory of market timing.
it's very attractive to those who want to stay invested but miss the big drops. It causes some false sales but in the end it would keep you from losing the 50% drops, and it also gets you back in.
yipes the Sp500 is barely above the 200 day right now.
for those who want to trade on it, this is crunch time.
which shows how hard this is. Happens so fast and you have to be decisive or the market falls another 5% on you and it feels too late.
Biggest thing to be mindful of is large intraday spikes in VIX. High volatility spikes like that probably cause basic price discrepancies and small arbitrage moments which algorithmic trading can buy up quickly
agip wrote:the one I am referring to is simply not to own stocks when they fall below their 200 day moving average. Sell 'em.
Yep, that's what I understood you to mean. And I'm telling you that there is no rational basis for that approach. Roll a 12-sided die and you will get as good insight as from the moving averages.
I know you are smart enough to understand this if you try, but I suspect you may be too stubborn to, which is OK, to each their own.
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
I know you are smart enough to understand this if you try, but I suspect you may be too stubborn to, which is OK, to each their own.
*passive aggressiveness intensifies *
I was gonna say this is a backhanded compliment but it's actually just a regular face slap lmao.
Europeans, what can ya do
Prof. Racket wrote:Europeans, what can ya do
?
Typical…
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Prof. Racket wrote:Europeans, what can ya do
?
Aren't you Belgian or something? Or maybe Canadian actually
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
agip wrote:the one I am referring to is simply not to own stocks when they fall below their 200 day moving average. Sell 'em.
Yep, that's what I understood you to mean. And I'm telling you that there is no rational basis for that approach. Roll a 12-sided die and you will get as good insight as from the moving averages.
I know you are smart enough to understand this if you try, but I suspect you may be too stubborn to, which is OK, to each their own.
theoretical math is a vast void in my brain that is easily exploitable but all you have to do is eyeball a long-term chart of the SP500 with the 200 day overlaid and you can see how beneficial it would be to miss much of the 50% drops.
The hard part is the false sales when the market bounces off the 200 day and the monday buy tuesday sell wednesday buy annoyances. Maybe that's what makes it all fail.
Prof. Racket wrote:I was gonna say this is a backhanded compliment but it's actually just a regular face slap lmao.
Well, it was both I guess. agip is a smart guy for sure, but I like him and want to slap some sense into him.
A significant Bitcoin break of $38k starts another leg lower in equity markets….
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A significant Bitcoin break of $38k starts another leg lower in equity markets….
no one cares
youse guys do know that the *average* drawdown every year is 14%, right?
we're down 8% now. Barely half of a NORMAL correction.
What the bloody heck?