enigmaman

Why Lower Volume Could Mean Higher Prices

Seems to me that you have fleshed out what many have suspected, the big money changers are quietly leaving the building through the back door at the same time they are signally to the rest of us " all clear" and worst of all they have use holding the door open as they leave with their money in hand. Business as usual.


On Dec 30 09:52 AM Northern Dancer wrote:

> I've done a fair amount of volume analysis myself recently and have
> more or less come out of the exercise with about the same amount
> of uncertainty and questioning as I had originally. But it hasn't
> been a totally wasted effort. In a past discussion with logicalthought,
> he pointed out that it's worth while to compare volume characteristics
> of the recent 9 month rally with those of the rally of 2004-2007.
> That's a great point because the reality is that the recent rally
> has actually been on greater volume than the rally that peaked in
> 2007. I think that would surprise a lot of people, myself included.
> Nonetheless, the volume on this rally has been declining since the
> end of March, more or less in a straight line except for one period.
> And of course, that period was July when we saw the market make it's
> only meaningful correction... on lower volume.
>
> So I began to focus a bit more on volume momentum and came up with
> what I think *might* be an important revelation. In looking at the
> broadest measure available, the Wilshire 5000, I discovered that
> in October there was a glaringly obvious change in pattern. It appeared
> that somebody flipped a switch on the first trading day of Oct. because
> it was after that point when every single thrust in the index came
> on decreasing volume and every single leg down came on increasing
> volume... without fail. Prior to Oct. 1 that had not been the case.
>
>
> So taking that exercise to other key indices, I discovered that the
> S&P and the Nasdaq (using QQQQ), financials, real estate... all
> of them showed the same switch had been flipped *on the same day*.
> I don't know what you think, but it sure looks to me that there are
> greater powers out there who seemingly had sent a signal to start
> the distribution process. I also discovered that the exact same phenomenon
> happened in currency trading (using UUP as a proxy for the dollar).
> On the exact same day, the volume characteristics for the dollar
> switched from decidedly bearish to decidedly bullish.
>
> I can't honestly say that this phenomenon is really has any predictive
> value, or that the technical methods I use are the best way to go
> about it, but there's just enough coincidence that it's worth monitoring.
> It'll be very interesting to see if what happens after the new year.
> The market could very well blow my suspicion out of the water. Maybe
> it had something to do with the simple fact that we entered Q4 on
> Oct. 1, and in that respect, maybe fund managers all began to make
> portfolio adjustments on the same day. But if that's the case...
> I'm wondering why the dollar shows the exact phenomenon. Time will
> tell.
>
> .

5.5% Plus Yields on 2010 Treasuries? No Way!

It appears that the author sees no risk that future treasury sales, needed to finance our debt will come under pressure out of concerns of yes our rising debt, if that happens wouldnt treasury rates have to rise to encourage buying, so isnt it possible for rates to rise without a V shaped recovery, even if the Fed Reserve doesnt want to raise rates, can outside forces be a factor that can cause rates to rise, seems to me that forces outside our borders have major leverage over our economy going forward,

Why Lower Volume Could Mean Higher Prices

What we are seeing now is that contrary to decades of proof to the otherwise the gradual rationalization and adjustment to lower volume rallies is justified because " it just is" better yet lets say "its different this time"

Bond Investors Beware - Don't Underestimate Current (Escalating) Risks

Investors have run to the safety of treasuries out of fear, they only require return of capital in stead of return on capital, M managers are more then happy to oblige, its all money to them and bonuses, but as you say with rates at effectively 0% the only place for rates to go is up, for every 1% rise in rates investors lose 15% of their bond investment, What we are looking at is the final nail to be driven into the coffins of boomers investment, the markets will take what little money investors have left because in their run for safety they have jumper out of the frying pain and right into the fire, very cruel ending of the hopes and dreams of many boomers.

GMAC will likely receive another $3.5B injection, adding to the $12.5B the feds have already used to stabilize the ailing auto lender. Sources say the additional money will help GMAC absorb losses related to its mortgage operations and return to profitability by Q1 2010. The Treasury previously predicted GMAC could require another $5.6B; the lower figure is in part because impact from the bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler has been less severe than originally projected.

Sources say the additional money will help GMAC absorb losses related to its mortgage operations and return to profitability by Q1 2010

Talk about a non nonsensical statement, "help absorb losses" & "return to profitability" after government infusion of an additional 3.5 billion, amazing anybody can actually write this stuff with a straight face

Positioning for 2010: 10 Seeking Alpha Contributors Ready Their Portfolios

Didnt Bernanke &Geithner both recently say that the liquidity floating around the economy would eventually need to be reigned in to forestall a surge of inflation, it was not a matter of if only when, Bernanke went as far to say the Fed Gov needed to get its financial house in order, that the Fed reserve would have to make its move pre-emptively, well in advance of inflationary signs, both agree that the status quo would eventually cause the economy severe problems that could cause an economic relapse into double dip. If the Republicans are just parroting what both these Obamas appointees are stating albeit more forcibly why do you clearly imply that this a partisan issue, how can what the Rep and many Dems, as well as a myriad of economists, WS pundits and Americans say and believe be construed an attach on Obama (as you say, the real target of Rep)

I do not disagree with you that if the Fed Reserve tightens and or admin drains liquidity to soon that there will be serious economic ramifications, if this happens why point the finger at Republicans who currently walk the halls of Congress talking to themselves, they are powerless, this is 100% Obamanomics,


On Dec 30 12:19 AM E Nuff Sed wrote:

> For 2010 just watch the Fed. The Fed is in a middle of a credit
> infusion cycle but is coming under increasing pressure from the republicans
> to tighten. If the Fed succumbs and tightens too early - the market
> and the economy is screwed (so is Obama - who is the Republican's
> real target).
> See my post here on the relationship of the yield curve to the stock
> market.
> seekingalpha.com/insta...

Select the Top 10 SA Contributers

my votes go Enuff Sed, Trader Mark and David Frey

S&P Case Shiller's Home Price Index Concerns Me

You said "when under employment starts to decline in earnest towards the later part of 2010 then housing will turn up decisively."

But then wouldnt the underemployed only then be fully employed, and the real unemployment would still be around 10%, what real affect would these just fully em[ployed have on housing, if they were able to hold on to their home what makes you think they would be willing to upgrade or would quailfy, if they lost there home they would not be able to buy another, if they only rented they would be hard pressed to qualify, unless they have been able to rebuild there saving, credit and work history.

The key for housing is not the under employed working more hours its the real unemployed being able to find good paying jobs. This would have a net net affect on the economy more so then those finally working a full work week.


On Dec 29 05:20 PM E Nuff Sed wrote:

> Apart from affordability you also have to look at "replacement value"
> of the house, i.e. what will it cost to build a similar new house
> in a similar neighbourhood with similar lot etc. This entails factoring
> in labour, material costs etc. By those measures many markets are
> now very attractive. My personal experience is based on a housing
> mania and bust I went through in the early 90's in Canada is that
> House prices are sticky on the way down but slipperly on the way
> up.
>
> Net I think the bulk of the declines are behind us though it is hard
> to be certain for the last 10% or so. However the economy is clearly
> improving when unemploument starts to decline in earnest towards
> the later part of 2010 then housing will turn up decisively.

'We're on the Path for Fireworks in 2010'

AS a debtor nation we owe our future to those who buy our treasuries, it would seem that American consumer inability or unwillingness to borrow will keep inflation at bay the wild card will be those countries that we look to buy our debt, Ive not seen anybody address this during this session because these investors would have the same risk reward motivation, if they see buying our treasuries and there is any perceived risk they would expect higher rates in return, so it would seem possible to have inflation via rising rates without without consumer participation

Case-Shiller: U.S. Home Price Recovery Flattened Out in October

You said "As of October 2009, average home prices across the United States are at similar levels to where they were in the autumn of 2003" none of the stats you provide really mean anything because the economy is not as strong now as it was in 2003 so prices will need to fall further to bring home prices in line with the economic conditions we face today

S&P Case Shiller's Home Price Index Concerns Me

you imply that the average home owner should have known better then to believe his home was worth what the market said it was, you give more credit to the average citizen then is warranted, if anybody should have know it should have been Fannie and Freddie, the mortgage insurers, realtors, appraisers and the government, but they were all to busy making money off the stupid homeowners who believed what they were being told, that they not only deserved to own a home but they qualified for it as well, compliments of the American tax payer. Yep the stupid homeowner should have known more then all those who were the so called experts. Did some take advantage of the system, yes they did, but they diod not take down the economy the experts did.

On Dec 29 03:11 PM eyetaliano wrote:

> housing prices are propped to bailout ABSs and their related CDS
> exposure...nothing more....the trillions of dollars pumped into the
> system are not designed nor will they help the common man. That
> said, individuals are to blames as well -- for thinking that the
> value of their homes warranted a 250% rise. And, drawing out equity
> on those values - never once thinking there might be something wrong
> with that picture.

Team Obama's Crisis Solutions - What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

dont be so sure, take a few minutes to read this great piece about our Democracy and how it is used or abused by those in power
mises.org/daily/3849
You should be able to see some very clear comparisons between FDR and Obama


On Dec 29 05:40 AM Homer II wrote:

> obama is a one-trick pony. He will not be around in 2013.

Crony Capitalism: On Obama's Economic Policies

for your answer read the paper at this link
mises.org/daily/3849


On Dec 29 09:18 AM Pcatlow wrote:

> The very fact that the Health Ins Stocks are rising rapidly is what
> supports my position that the results are in: the Bill is crooked,
> benefits the Oligarchy (Health Care/Insurance Industries) and was
> not aimed at the "change we can believe in" at all.
>
> I would also like to challenge folks here to a Google search: try
> to find anything out there that summarizes the Health Care "reform"
> Bill. I cannot seem to find anything. The White House link was
> broken just a couple of days ago.
>
> NO ONE WANTS US TO KNOW what is contained in there. All I can find
> are snippets about certain aspects of the Bill. My search was motivated
> by my need to know what my Premiums WILL BE under the new proposal
> as it stands now from the Senate. Naturally, the House "Version"
> needs to be negotiated.
>
> This tells me that most Americans are in the dark and that this is
> intentional. Certainly not the Man of Change that many voted for!
> This is simply criminal.

Crony Capitalism: On Obama's Economic Policies

Excellent article though your thoughts the whys about Obama are now quite obvious, Obama understood that once elected, with control of both houses he could do whatever he wanted to and he did just that, he was safe to play the game he wanted to play until 2012. Robert Higgs has a great article about exactly this situation, about how Democracy has really worked mises.org/daily/3849

Its just a facade, Obama learned very quickly that " it is easier to ask for forgiveness then permission" the Higgs piece really drives that message home

4.4% GDP Growth Predicted for 2010 - Goldman Sachs

GDP estimates are relative to the cost, compared to where it was, wouldnt it?

If you had $1, lost 50% of it then grew it 50% would you say you gained 50% or be under water 25%, Your investment advisor would tell you to look at the glass half full instead of half empty as your would, depending on the point of view both would be correct.

So is GS estimate of 4.4% GDP a good representation of a strong economy, I guess it all depends on ones point of view