There is this bizarre media fixation on “round numbers” in the market place. How many times have you heard the phrase the “psychologically important” number? (Too many).
Let’s clarify this right now, once and for all: These numbers are meaningless — Dow 10,000, Nasdaq 2000, when women turn 30 or when Grandpa hits 100. The derivation of all these round numbers is a function of a mere evolution oddity: We have 10 fingers and 10 toes. Because of that, we have a base 10 system. If we lived in the world Homer Simpsons inhabits, we would have a base 8 system. Some idiot would write an erroneous study on how women stand a greater chance of being kidnapped by terrorists than getting married after 32, instead of 30.
|sigh| Ain’t no cure for stupid.
The obsessive fixation on 10,000 is more a function of filling airtime than anything significant to investors. In actuality, Nasdaq 2098 is a far more significant number than 2000, as that was the high reached at the start of 2002. Regarding the Dow Jones Industrials, we’ve already penetrated to the upside the prior resistance of 9850. Previously, this level was the lower band of multi-year support for the Dow. That finally cracked in May 2002; Also of significance is 10,663 — where the Dow topped out in March 2002.
But 10,000? Meaningless.
Some other stats of interest: The Dow first crossed over 10,000 on March 29, 1999. Over the next three years (1999-2002), the Dow would drop below 10k, and cross back over it 18 times. Most recently, the large cap blue chip 30 stock index was over 10,000 in the last week of May of 2002.
Dow 10,000, weekly 5 year chart
click for full size chart
Source: Big Charts
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.