Flying Bird

Biggest Money Makers and Losers Since 3/9/09

Interesting piece, everyone looks at percentage change. The author obviously noted the difference between percents and dollars, and I happen to think Google going from 290 to 517 is quite a bit more significant than Bank of America going from 3 to 17.

What Do Stocks Really Return?

Chap08, if you look closely at Triumph of the Optimists their international data is also quite sketchy. For example, while German stocks were closed and did not trade during both World Wars their data sets assumed that these data sets were unchanged during those periods. I would argue that after World War II Germany was more or less devastated and as such the value of its equity market before that period cannot be compared to the value afterwards. The same is true for several other European countries over the same time period.


On Oct 06 07:20 PM chap08 wrote:

> If you want to refute Siegel's analysis then you also need to refute
> "Triumph of the Optimists" (seekingalpha.com/symbo...).
> The key thing here is that TOTO looked at 16 countries. I think that
> is important. Looking at different countries in different continents
> in different economic conditions is a good way to test out the theory.
> You can argue the detail, but the conclusions back up Siegel's work.
>
>
> It was published (I think) in 2001, but mentioned here on SA in 2007:
>
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...

51.68% in 165 Days

That's all well and good, except for the fact that the market went up 300% between 1990 and 1999.


On Aug 22 10:04 AM enigmaman wrote:

> Hypothetical scenario
> start with $1 to invest in 1990 by 1999 you have $2, now the dotcom
> bubble bursts your portfolio drops 50% and your left with $1, back
> to square one, well then you hang in there and your investment grows
> by 50% through 2008 so your up to $1.50, better then nothing though
> your only up 50% in 2 decades, then we get the 2008 collapse down
> another 50% in 6 months to $.75, so now your down 25% from your initial
> investment of $1 in 1990, but wait if you can stay fully invested
> and all your positions move with the market your up 50% in six months
> so you would now have $1.125 in your account, so since 1990 your
> original investment of $1 has grown by 1/8 in just under 2 decades.
> Thats is reality for most investors and to think they dont know is
> foolish and to think they will run back into the market again is
> also foolish, without the Retail Pawns it will be hard for Wall Street
> to continue playing the market manipulation game much longer

Is the Growth Correction Ending?

Awesome post!! Growth stocks are leading the way this morning!

S&P 500 Net Overbought / Oversold Reading

Great chart, if this indicator peaked on 5/4 it would be leading by almost a week.

Dow 30 Overbought / Oversold Edition

Huney:

I would disagree with you completely about your conclusions on technical analysis. Notice Boeing for example, peaked on 5/8/09 which directly corresponds to the author's theoretical high. It seems to me that this is a useful tool.


On May 12 10:40 AM H.J. Huneycutt wrote:

> This is a completely useless article --- it's just some bars and
> some completely meaningless metrics. There are absolutely no explanations.
>
>
> In fact, this article appears to be an advertisement for the author's
> product ("one of our most closely followed customizable products").
> Not sure why anyone would be willing to waste their money on this;
> any moron can look at a chart and see whether a stock's being going
> up or down over a certain time frame. The author's comment that many
> of these stocks are trading near their "theoretical highs" exposes
> how completely useless most technical analysis is.

US Major Index and Sector Bull/Bear Filter

It is foolish to think that this article lacks a point. The point: the current bear market is not as bad as historical bear markets. Get ready for another leg down, I say at the 200-day average.