On Wednesday, advancing issues beat declining issues by a 4.8-to-1 ratio on the NYSE. It’s worth noting that such a positive skew is very rare.
Tony Dwyer of FTN Midwest Research decided to see what that ratio meant over the history of the S&P 500. Dwyer, working with Jason Goepfert of SentimenTrader.com, they observed that there’s been
“54 occurrences since 1965 of NYSE advancing issues beating declining issues by 4.5-to-1 or greater ratio. If you strip out those high ratio days that were within 3 months of the first instance, there were only 29 Initial occurrences. Taking it a step further, we looked for only those initial occurrences in the context of a market trading above the 200-day moving average (most similar to Thursday’s occurrence). There were only 11 instances of such positive breadth when the SPX was above it’s widely followed long-term moving average. The following are the results of all three ways to study it and what took place 90 days after”
Using a benchmark of NYSE 4.5-to-1 A/D (or greater), they broke the stats down as follows:
Total Occurrences: 54 instances, with the S&P 500 (SPX) up 3 months later 77% of the time; Average gain = 8.3%. Note this includes closely located significant breadth days.
Total Initial Occurrences: Out of 29 instances, 69% of the time, the SPX was up 3 months later with an average gain of 6.4%.
Total above 200-day moving average Initial Occurrences: Out of 11 instances, 10 were positive and 1 was negative with an average gain of 8.3%, a maximum gain of 19%, and the one loss of 4.4% in the signal of 11/26/79.
All told, a very significant set of correlations. This is not unlike simlar price/volume studies done by Ned Davis Research in the 80s, and the 90/10 volume/price day work by Paul Desmond of Lowry Reports. (Discussed in our contrary indicators piece).
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.