Head of the PBOC says the China stock market rout will be over soon, perhaps but not today.
Igy
Head of the PBOC says the China stock market rout will be over soon, perhaps but not today.
Igy
Market technical comments:
Coach new level wrote:
Coach points to a definition of the word "self-aggrandizement" to support the argument that the non-existent word "self-aggrandize" in fact exists.
This takes stupidity to a stunning new level.
I'd put someone using "non-existent" on that same level.
just saying ...... wrote:
Coach new level wrote:Coach points to a definition of the word "self-aggrandizement" to support the argument that the non-existent word "self-aggrandize" in fact exists.
This takes stupidity to a stunning new level.
I'd put someone using "non-existent" on that same level.
I am sure you would. Despite the fact non-existent is a word, an adjective meaning not existing, and self-aggrandize is not.
I am sure you would wrote:
just saying ...... wrote:I'd put someone using "non-existent" on that same level.
I am sure you would. Despite the fact non-existent is a word, an adjective meaning not existing, and self-aggrandize is not.
I need to take back what I wrote since now you have doubled down on stupid. Obviously you belong on an even more stunning level of stupidity since you maintain the false notion that "non-existent" is a word instead of just copping to a typo. Congratulations!
just saying ...... wrote:
I am sure you would wrote:I am sure you would. Despite the fact non-existent is a word, an adjective meaning not existing, and self-aggrandize is not.
I need to take back what I wrote since now you have doubled down on stupid. Obviously you belong on an even more stunning level of stupidity since you maintain the false notion that "non-existent" is a word instead of just copping to a typo. Congratulations!
Wow, 'I am sure...' appears to have broken the all time record for stupidity on LRC.
A BIG round of congratulations is in order!
Back on topic.
Non-existent is of course a word.
And self aggrandize is not.
Anyone can look this up.
Examples of the use of non-existent would be:
The honesty of Wowzers is non-existent.
The intelligence of Wowzers would seem to be non-existent.
Non-existent wrote:
Non-existent is of course a word.
And self aggrandize is not.
Anyone can look this up.
Examples of the use of non-existent would be:
The honesty of Wowzers is non-existent.
The intelligence of Wowzers would seem to be non-existent.
Since you appear to be too stupid to even figure out how stupid you are perhaps someone should lend you a hand.
'Nonexistent" is a word. "Non-existent" is not.
Now please try to just shut up and avoid any more pronouncements of your own stupidity. You already have established the all-time record for stupidity on LRC. What more do you want?
good grief, charley brown - you guys are blazing new trails.
anyway, sp500 now up 5.5% from lows and it's been 10 days since lows were put in.
Hard to like the market action here, but anything can happen.
It's definitely a crazy time, but it looks like there's some resistance at 16K.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Market technical comments:
http://www.clivemaund.com/article.php?art_id=3559
I\'m sure you\'re aware of:
(1) Federal Reserve research showing chart patterns to be approximately as accurate as flipping a coin;
(2) The same rising web chart could have been drawn in 2011, also predicting that the end of the world was imminent.
I\'m always amazed at the ability of people who have never accomplished much of anything to predict the market in advance, when people like Lynch and Buffett (and Ben Graham of course) cannot...and like Lynch and Buffett, I don\'t know how to predict in advance either.
This is my present setup (yes, lot\'s of parameters; this is one url):
http://www.barchart.com/chart.php?sym=SPY00&style=technical&template=&p=WO&d=X&sd=05%2F01%2F2011&ed=09%2F08%2F2015&size=M&log=0&t=BAR&v=0&g=1&evnt=1&late=1&o1=&o2=&o3=&sh=100&indicators=RSI%2814%2C0%2C100%2C10079487%2C10040064%29%3BEXPMA%2819%2C%29%3BEXPMA%2839%2C%29%3BBOLLW%2820%2C2%2C16711680%29%3BCCI%2820%2C6710886%2C100%2C26367%2C16724736%29&chartindicator_6_code=RSI&chartindicator_6_param_0=14&chartindicator_6_param_1=0&chartindicator_6_param_2=100&chartindicator_6_param_3=10079487&chartindicator_6_param_4=10040064&chartindicator_7_code=EXPMA&chartindicator_7_param_0=19&chartindicator_7_param_1=&chartindicator_8_code=EXPMA&chartindicator_8_param_0=39&chartindicator_8_param_1=&chartindicator_9_code=BOLLW&chartindicator_9_param_0=20&chartindicator_9_param_1=2&chartindicator_9_param_2=16711680&chartindicator_10_code=CCI&chartindicator_10_param_0=20&chartindicator_10_param_1=6710886&chartindicator_10_param_2=100&chartindicator_10_param_3=26367&chartindicator_10_param_4=16724736&addindicator=&submitted=1&fpage=&txtDate=09%2F08%2F2015#jumpThe long weekly EMAs have crossed as expected, but what really stands out is the magnitude of the selling climax on 8/24 indicated by CCI. Going back more than 30 years, a reading below -500 on the Commodity Channel Index has only been seen twice: At the bottom of the 1987 Crash and the bottom of the 2008 Crash, and readings close to this level (
{stupid incompetent web developer that can\'t handle lt, gt...}.... continues from above:
Going back more than 30 years, a reading below -500 on the Commodity Channel Index has only been seen twice: At the bottom of the 1987 Crash and the bottom of the 2008 Crash, and readings close to this level have only been seen in 1994, 1997, and 2011, all screaming buys.
So to the people NOW predicting a crash, I will claim that we have already had it.
It was a correction, not a crash.
You cannot predict a crash, bear market or correction ahead of time, and some idiotic definition of above/below 20% has no rational meaning. What has meaning is the magnitude of a selling climax, meaning the end of something rather than the start of something.
The point drop on 8/24 was the largest we have ever had, so by absolute magnitude instead of relative magnitude, it qualifies as a crash...and it was clearly a selling climax.
By definition, a definition has rational meaning. Also by definition, it was not a crash.
coach d,
I respect the technicals because they say something and peple pay attention to them. But as I have said before, I am a fundamental guy. S&P revenues are in decline, I doubt if that will turn anytime soon. High yield bonds, energy, commodities, China and emerging markets are all in decline. I find it hard to fathom that these issues move on technicals or any other short term factor. Of course anything is a possibility, for the time being I bet we are in for a more serious decline.
Igy
agip,
China and the Wall Street can prop up the market for awhile, but in the end it is all about valuation. I had to laugh at Tom Lee saying the market was attractive at 14 times earnings which would work out to $137 forward earnings. That is so much B.S. when the June 2015 LTM S&P earnings was $96. There is so much hocum out there it makes me puke. I will stay short.
Igy
Post #6500!!!! Who's your daddy?