jgpietsch's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/27596/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/167447-exploring-relative-strength-systems-with-these-11-etfs?source=feed#comment-722056 722056
b) The orange S&P line may be considered buy and hold.]]> Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:43:51 -0400
b) The orange S&P line may be considered buy and hold.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149600-weekly-etf-rewind-maybe-a-short-term-pullback-ahead?source=feed#comment-593828 593828
marketrewind.blogspot....

Cheers, Jeff]]> Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:00:43 -0400
marketrewind.blogspot....

Cheers, Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149191-among-db-s-new-offerings-u-s-carbon-efficient-etf?source=feed#comment-590583 590583 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:02:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142191-hedge-funds-had-a-good-may?source=feed#comment-540730 540730 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:36:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/134770-friday-s-volume-down-significantly?source=feed#comment-487470 487470 Sun, 03 May 2009 11:51:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131093-don-t-forget-sell-the-news?source=feed#comment-465277 465277 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:07:47 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128116-testing-market-highs?source=feed#comment-443712 443712 Sat, 28 Mar 2009 21:28:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121688-santelli-s-rant-a-watershed-moment?source=feed#comment-398604 398604 Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:40:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/109453-weekly-rewind-signs-of-a-nascent-recovery?source=feed#comment-323425 323425 marketrewind.blogspot...., and sorry about that. Have a good weekend, Jeff]]> Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:30:31 -0500 marketrewind.blogspot...., and sorry about that. Have a good weekend, Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/107328-mini-november-crash-update?source=feed#comment-312701 312701
Six, as we all know, there is a government sponsored reinflation attempt afoot.]]> Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:09:59 -0500
Six, as we all know, there is a government sponsored reinflation attempt afoot.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99381-on-a-return-to-normalcy-dow-8-500?source=feed#comment-280200 280200 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:55:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99385-2008-price-targets-higher-than-mt-everest?source=feed#comment-280196 280196 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:48:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99438-the-devastating-week-that-was?source=feed#comment-280186 280186 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:34:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99438-the-devastating-week-that-was?source=feed#comment-280159 280159 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 21:43:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96488-why-we-ve-got-to-stick-together?source=feed#comment-260888 260888
o Homeowners - I tend to think the man on the street relies to some degree on the banker to tell him what he can afford. He may think it is a stretch going in, but when a vaunted "banker" says he's good for it, it confirms his optimistic (if unrealistic) outlook. If he or she mistated assets and earnings, of course that's a different story; it's called fraud. In any event, that home owner has now walked away from 5% to 20% equity. Let's call that $10,ooo to $40,ooo based on typical median US home prices. Not small sums, not to mention the big dings on their credit records and possible bankruptcy status... enough punishment? If anything, the 5% downpayment level (on second homes anyhow), certainly made it too easy for them to walk away, leaving banks with the problem.

o Mortgage Loan Employees - Well, these guys were on commission and undoubtedly pushed more loans through than were deserved. Of course they were incentivezed to do this by their companies that paid on commission. They certainly had a flush run, but are now universally out of the job... enough punishment? To the extent we are talking about the mortgage bankers and such, look at those Lehman employees paid in stock options... now worthless, enough punishment?

o Mortage Loan Companies - On the margin, their management was incentivized to keep up with their competitors in terms of market size and share or be punished by the market. And where were the regulators? It wasn't one or two or three banks doing this alone, or even in collusion, to cover that angle, they were all making the best individual decisions to survive within the herd. Plus, it was easy to drink the coolaid that risk was being spread out appropriately anyhow through reinsurance and CDOs. Plus, like the homeowner, their ratings held up, so it "must be OK, right?" Now they are out of business, out of the job, or holding worthless stock, sufficient punishment?

o Ratings Agencies - Should have been on top of this at least two years ago. Unfortunately, look who pays them! Plus, they also no doubt bought into the notion that risk was spread out and that "real estate has never gone down before." It think this group should be held to a higher standard and realign its incentive structure for their own good reputation, if nothing else. Probably getting the least slack so far, and they deserve more, but will probably get away more or less clean.

o Regulators/Gov - Should have been on this years ago. Some voices (Greenspan) in the woods, but they were not heeded, and it's politically difficult to step in the way of the "American Dream." Which party to blame - both - even though administrative agencies fall under the Pres., Congress has oversight and failed to either understand or act. Vote them out if you can find better replacements.

o Reinsurers - These guys should have known they were headed for a train wreck. Again, look at their stock values now.

Underlying themes are misalignment of incentives, lack of regulatory oversight and/or action, a herd mentality and diffusion of responsibility. It's lame to say no one understood "the complex models," I'm sure they did. The individual models simply didn't consider the possibility of bubble creation through aggregate macro economic effects -- garbage in garbage out. Anyone that stood back and looked at the big picture was likely drowned out by idiots saying, "hey home values have never gone down before."

This is pretty rough, but you get the idea. I'm sure some individuals will get pilloried, that always seems to happen. But really the blame is diffused among so many actors, alot of pain has already been doled out, and now we all need to share in the pain to keep the system functioning.

I don't see how any one of the above parties is necessarily being rewarded here. No one that lost a home is going to get it back (unless they repurchase it for pennies on the dollar from the TARP! Maybe they should be disqualified to bid!) Equity values have plummeted and jobs have been lost, and none of those are coming back overnight. One could even argue that those who didn't sell out months ago or go short the financials should be rewarded with a small bounce. Again, if there was outright fraud or collusion proven, that's a different story.

What do you think?]]> Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:49:21 -0400
o Homeowners - I tend to think the man on the street relies to some degree on the banker to tell him what he can afford. He may think it is a stretch going in, but when a vaunted "banker" says he's good for it, it confirms his optimistic (if unrealistic) outlook. If he or she mistated assets and earnings, of course that's a different story; it's called fraud. In any event, that home owner has now walked away from 5% to 20% equity. Let's call that $10,ooo to $40,ooo based on typical median US home prices. Not small sums, not to mention the big dings on their credit records and possible bankruptcy status... enough punishment? If anything, the 5% downpayment level (on second homes anyhow), certainly made it too easy for them to walk away, leaving banks with the problem.

o Mortgage Loan Employees - Well, these guys were on commission and undoubtedly pushed more loans through than were deserved. Of course they were incentivezed to do this by their companies that paid on commission. They certainly had a flush run, but are now universally out of the job... enough punishment? To the extent we are talking about the mortgage bankers and such, look at those Lehman employees paid in stock options... now worthless, enough punishment?

o Mortage Loan Companies - On the margin, their management was incentivized to keep up with their competitors in terms of market size and share or be punished by the market. And where were the regulators? It wasn't one or two or three banks doing this alone, or even in collusion, to cover that angle, they were all making the best individual decisions to survive within the herd. Plus, it was easy to drink the coolaid that risk was being spread out appropriately anyhow through reinsurance and CDOs. Plus, like the homeowner, their ratings held up, so it "must be OK, right?" Now they are out of business, out of the job, or holding worthless stock, sufficient punishment?

o Ratings Agencies - Should have been on top of this at least two years ago. Unfortunately, look who pays them! Plus, they also no doubt bought into the notion that risk was spread out and that "real estate has never gone down before." It think this group should be held to a higher standard and realign its incentive structure for their own good reputation, if nothing else. Probably getting the least slack so far, and they deserve more, but will probably get away more or less clean.

o Regulators/Gov - Should have been on this years ago. Some voices (Greenspan) in the woods, but they were not heeded, and it's politically difficult to step in the way of the "American Dream." Which party to blame - both - even though administrative agencies fall under the Pres., Congress has oversight and failed to either understand or act. Vote them out if you can find better replacements.

o Reinsurers - These guys should have known they were headed for a train wreck. Again, look at their stock values now.

Underlying themes are misalignment of incentives, lack of regulatory oversight and/or action, a herd mentality and diffusion of responsibility. It's lame to say no one understood "the complex models," I'm sure they did. The individual models simply didn't consider the possibility of bubble creation through aggregate macro economic effects -- garbage in garbage out. Anyone that stood back and looked at the big picture was likely drowned out by idiots saying, "hey home values have never gone down before."

This is pretty rough, but you get the idea. I'm sure some individuals will get pilloried, that always seems to happen. But really the blame is diffused among so many actors, alot of pain has already been doled out, and now we all need to share in the pain to keep the system functioning.

I don't see how any one of the above parties is necessarily being rewarded here. No one that lost a home is going to get it back (unless they repurchase it for pennies on the dollar from the TARP! Maybe they should be disqualified to bid!) Equity values have plummeted and jobs have been lost, and none of those are coming back overnight. One could even argue that those who didn't sell out months ago or go short the financials should be rewarded with a small bounce. Again, if there was outright fraud or collusion proven, that's a different story.

What do you think?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96344-conditions-ripe-for-a-possible-stock-rally?source=feed#comment-260058 260058 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:46:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96380-why-is-the-dow-outperforming?source=feed#comment-260057 260057 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:44:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/89910-trading-energy-complex-pairs?source=feed#comment-226466 226466 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:56:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/77376-mid-cap-etfs-why-the-middle-is-creaming-small-and-large-cap-etfs?source=feed#comment-168084 168084 Thu, 15 May 2008 11:16:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61977-when-bearish-sentiment-hits-an-extreme?source=feed#comment-113445 113445 Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:38:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59063-etfs-cointegrate-in-2008?source=feed#comment-108509 108509 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:46:57 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/59063-etfs-cointegrate-in-2008?source=feed#comment-108508 108508 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:46:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58499-sharpe-ratios-on-2007-etf-returns?source=feed#comment-107238 107238 Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:08:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58091-stocks-down-volatility-down-historically-a-bearish-sign?source=feed#comment-106404 106404 Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:39:38 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/57331-what-do-falling-profit-margins-say-about-the-market?source=feed#comment-105361 105361 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:11:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/56707-on-the-qqqq-s-strong-leg-up-where-to-from-here?source=feed#comment-104682 104682
EDITOR'S NOTE: Author's comment was on piece's original title "QQQQ Set to Cool Off After Strong Leg Up."]]> Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:10:48 -0500
EDITOR'S NOTE: Author's comment was on piece's original title "QQQQ Set to Cool Off After Strong Leg Up."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/53722-nasdaq-100-update-3-days-down-7-now-what?source=feed#comment-101787 101787
As of the time of this mid-day post, the NASDAQ 100 is down more than 10% from recent highs, including four successive down days cumulatively exceeding -9.75%. Again, going back through 1998 (2,480 market days) looking to see what happens the next day when:

(a) The index is down four days in a row; and,
(b) The sum total is less than (more negative than) -9.75%.

We find that of the 15 instances (note how this is becoming increasingly rare), 11 days were positive (+73%) for a cumulative next day gain of +37% or an average of +2.5%. The maximum next day gain was 10.0%, while the maximum loss was -9.7%. The specific instances and next day index change close-to-close (and VIX) are shown in the table below:

04/13/2000 -9.7% (29)
09/20/2001 -3.4% (44)
11/10/2000 -1.9% (29)
12/15/2000 -0.0% (27)
06/18/2001 +0.6% (23)
02/22/2001 +1.2% (27)
11/30/2000 +1.7% (30)
06/21/2002 +2.1% (27)
08/05/2002 +5.2% (45)
09/21/2001 +5.7% (43)
07/23/2002 +6.1% (45)
10/08/1998 +6.1% (46)
08/31/1998 +6.6% (44)
11/13/2000 +7.2% (29)
04/14/2000 +10.% (33)

Max. 10.0%
Min. -9.7%
Med. 2.1%
Ave. 2.5%

Today's VIX is straddling 30. Looking at just four successive down days irrespective of degree, there were 49 next day gains (+60%) averaging about +0.8%. I'm sure that I'm dating myself with this link, but remember this b-movie? The five-day MA is proving resistance here for the S&P 500; that taunt link is as good a jinx as any for another downside "outlier"!

NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE
]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:06:05 -0500
As of the time of this mid-day post, the NASDAQ 100 is down more than 10% from recent highs, including four successive down days cumulatively exceeding -9.75%. Again, going back through 1998 (2,480 market days) looking to see what happens the next day when:

(a) The index is down four days in a row; and,
(b) The sum total is less than (more negative than) -9.75%.

We find that of the 15 instances (note how this is becoming increasingly rare), 11 days were positive (+73%) for a cumulative next day gain of +37% or an average of +2.5%. The maximum next day gain was 10.0%, while the maximum loss was -9.7%. The specific instances and next day index change close-to-close (and VIX) are shown in the table below:

04/13/2000 -9.7% (29)
09/20/2001 -3.4% (44)
11/10/2000 -1.9% (29)
12/15/2000 -0.0% (27)
06/18/2001 +0.6% (23)
02/22/2001 +1.2% (27)
11/30/2000 +1.7% (30)
06/21/2002 +2.1% (27)
08/05/2002 +5.2% (45)
09/21/2001 +5.7% (43)
07/23/2002 +6.1% (45)
10/08/1998 +6.1% (46)
08/31/1998 +6.6% (44)
11/13/2000 +7.2% (29)
04/14/2000 +10.% (33)

Max. 10.0%
Min. -9.7%
Med. 2.1%
Ave. 2.5%

Today's VIX is straddling 30. Looking at just four successive down days irrespective of degree, there were 49 next day gains (+60%) averaging about +0.8%. I'm sure that I'm dating myself with this link, but remember this b-movie? The five-day MA is proving resistance here for the S&P 500; that taunt link is as good a jinx as any for another downside "outlier"!

NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/53722-nasdaq-100-update-3-days-down-7-now-what?source=feed#comment-101786 101786
As of the time of this mid-day post, the NASDAQ 100 is down more than 10% from recent highs, including four successive down days cumulatively exceeding -9.75%. Again, going back through 1998 (2,480 market days) looking to see what happens the next day when:

(a) The index is down four days in a row; and,
(b) The sum total is less than (more negative than) -9.75%.

We find that of the 15 instances (note how this is becoming increasingly rare), 11 days were positive (+73%) for a cumulative next day gain of +37% or an average of +2.5%. The maximum next day gain was 10.0%, while the maximum loss was -9.7%. The specific instances and next day index change close-to-close (and VIX) are shown in the table below:

04/13/2000 -9.7% (29)
09/20/2001 -3.4% (44)
11/10/2000 -1.9% (29)
12/15/2000 -0.0% (27)
06/18/2001 +0.6% (23)
02/22/2001 +1.2% (27)
11/30/2000 +1.7% (30)
06/21/2002 +2.1% (27)
08/05/2002 +5.2% (45)
09/21/2001 +5.7% (43)
07/23/2002 +6.1% (45)
10/08/1998 +6.1% (46)
08/31/1998 +6.6% (44)
11/13/2000 +7.2% (29)
04/14/2000 +10.% (33)

Max. 10.0%
Min. -9.7%
Med. 2.1%
Ave. 2.5%

Today's VIX is straddling 30. Looking at just four successive down days irrespective of degree, there were 49 next day gains (+60%) averaging about +0.8%. I'm sure that I'm dating myself with this link, but remember this b-movie? The five-day MA is proving resistance here for the S&P 500; that taunt link is as good a jinx as any for another downside "outlier"!

NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE
]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:06:05 -0500
As of the time of this mid-day post, the NASDAQ 100 is down more than 10% from recent highs, including four successive down days cumulatively exceeding -9.75%. Again, going back through 1998 (2,480 market days) looking to see what happens the next day when:

(a) The index is down four days in a row; and,
(b) The sum total is less than (more negative than) -9.75%.

We find that of the 15 instances (note how this is becoming increasingly rare), 11 days were positive (+73%) for a cumulative next day gain of +37% or an average of +2.5%. The maximum next day gain was 10.0%, while the maximum loss was -9.7%. The specific instances and next day index change close-to-close (and VIX) are shown in the table below:

04/13/2000 -9.7% (29)
09/20/2001 -3.4% (44)
11/10/2000 -1.9% (29)
12/15/2000 -0.0% (27)
06/18/2001 +0.6% (23)
02/22/2001 +1.2% (27)
11/30/2000 +1.7% (30)
06/21/2002 +2.1% (27)
08/05/2002 +5.2% (45)
09/21/2001 +5.7% (43)
07/23/2002 +6.1% (45)
10/08/1998 +6.1% (46)
08/31/1998 +6.6% (44)
11/13/2000 +7.2% (29)
04/14/2000 +10.% (33)

Max. 10.0%
Min. -9.7%
Med. 2.1%
Ave. 2.5%

Today's VIX is straddling 30. Looking at just four successive down days irrespective of degree, there were 49 next day gains (+60%) averaging about +0.8%. I'm sure that I'm dating myself with this link, but remember this b-movie? The five-day MA is proving resistance here for the S&P 500; that taunt link is as good a jinx as any for another downside "outlier"!

NEVER INVESTMENT ADVICE
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/52332-october-2007-market-rewind-the-fed-beat-rolls-on?source=feed#comment-100519 100519 Thu, 01 Nov 2007 08:27:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/49699-china-rebalancing-etf-pair-trade?source=feed#comment-100322 100322
a) Since Posted (10/11):

> Short CAF/ Long EWH +14.9%
> Short FXI/ Long EWH -00.1%

b) Since First FXI 3-Day MA Down Turn (10/22):

> Short CAF/ Long EWH +8.0%
> Short FXI/ Long EWH +5.4%

A proposed change by the Chinese government to allow share classes to float together no doubt helped significantly. A couple "comments on the comments:"

1) Note how the use of the long/short combination reduced the risk of "being early" with this trade idea (FXI is actually higher since the 11th).

2) It is true that the CAF is a closed-end ETF trading below its NAV. It has been my observation, however, that such NAV mispricings often persist for extended periods of time and shouldn't necessarily preempt a short-term trade backed by a well thought out rational.]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:59:35 -0400
a) Since Posted (10/11):

> Short CAF/ Long EWH +14.9%
> Short FXI/ Long EWH -00.1%

b) Since First FXI 3-Day MA Down Turn (10/22):

> Short CAF/ Long EWH +8.0%
> Short FXI/ Long EWH +5.4%

A proposed change by the Chinese government to allow share classes to float together no doubt helped significantly. A couple "comments on the comments:"

1) Note how the use of the long/short combination reduced the risk of "being early" with this trade idea (FXI is actually higher since the 11th).

2) It is true that the CAF is a closed-end ETF trading below its NAV. It has been my observation, however, that such NAV mispricings often persist for extended periods of time and shouldn't necessarily preempt a short-term trade backed by a well thought out rational.]]>