Indeed, like the NY Knicks, the Markets have finally pieced together two consecutive winning days.
Since the decline that began on October 30th, the
S&P 500 has gone 19 days without having more than one winning session in a
I have been following this ever since my friend Paul first asked about what the failure to have two consecutive back-to-back winning days actually means. I was speaking with Mike Panzner about this earlier in the week. Mike noted:
• The longest such streak (since 1999) was the 24-day run that ended
on 9/21/01. The second longest streak was 22 days, which ended on 3/21/01. There
have been two other streaks of 21 days each, ending on 10/3/00 and 4/29/02,
• Except for the post 9/11 streak, which marked a climactic
V-bottom low in the equity market, other spans seemed to define the first
leg of a downdraft that "paused" for anywhere between 4 and 14 days before it
• Visually speaking, the pattern that developed when those prior
one-day-wonder streaks ended was a "flag," which in technical analysis terms,
often implies that a move — in this case, the downtrend — is about half-way
• For what it’s worth, the same also holds true for the two shorter
streaks of 16 days that ended on 1/28/03 and 4/1/05, respectively.
on past history, then, it seems that once the current streak ends ( i.e., we see
two or more winning sessions in a row), the risk is that it won’t be long before
the market begins another push lower.
I would add one item to Mike’s comments: The wild swings in the markets, +/- 2%, with violent up 200 or 300 point days don’t typically come in healthy Bull markets — these spasms are symbolic of Bear markets.
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.