Saturday, August 26, 2006

Freaky Friday

OK so it isn't an original headline - so what. The market isn't very original either. As in - I've heard this tune before. As in all week long. Interestingly enough I ended the week pretty much exactly where I started only $100 difference and that is to the bad - I lost money this week.

The chop chop chop of a tired market trudging ever so slowly across time has taken its toll on a lot of fortunes this week.

The three sisters all finished the last hour decidedly red but I don't believe anything on a Friday in August. Next week will be worse because it is the Friday before labor day and absolutely no one will be buying or selling stocks much past noon if then.

The up/down ratio sits at 49% and I'll discuss the significance of this in a minute. The new 20 day highs vs lows prints 410 to 335. Remember that below 500 for either one is quite meaningless - things only get exciting when they get up in the over 500 area. The last time that happened was 11 August on the new 20 day lows and we had a mini-boom right after that. Then the last time we had 500+ on the 20 day highs was 4 days ago (trading days) and we've gone down or sideways since.

The 10-day up/down ratio averages around 49 which is about where it should be (50%).

Why would 50% be normal? Because the market generally spends the same amount of time going up as it does going down. I haven't looked at this in awhile but in general over the past 60 years the Dow Industrials have gone up on 52% of the trading days and down on 48% of the days. The average up day has yielded $18.86 and the average down day $18.89.

It is that 3 cents variance on a down day that keeps the average from running away and hiding at some unheard of value - that and the fact that they keep changing the components. If they didn't that 3 cents would probably be $3 or more. One of these days I'm going to run the figures for the SPX. I'll get back to you on that.

If the muse strikes over the rest of the weekend I publish a post regarding recessions and why I don't think we are in one.

No comments: