(click here if charts are not observable)

Category: Markets, Trading

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.

6 Responses to “Q1 U.S. Major Market Review”

  1. ByteMe says:

    “precipitated” indicates causation, which is not correct. The bear was overdue. And having a 20-year time window which only has part of one bull and part of one bear is not that useful to trying to determine a trend.

    Sorry, Dude. #FAIL.

  2. mathman says:

    Tremors shooting through the financial system as mini-shocks:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-usa-markets-etfs-idUSTRE72U4C420110331

    Not lookin’ too good . . .

  3. Rightline says:

    Amazing outperformance by the Russell. Last 2 times that happened was 2003 and 1991 which both saw good follow through and outperformance to the next year.

  4. MayorQuimby says:

    ***WHO CARES***

    It is all phony printed pumpage!!!

    QE = hail mary desperation.

    Do ANY PEOPLE HERE honestly believe USA can just print money to alter its trajectory into the black hole???

    It’s like putting water into your gas tank so that it reads full when you’re running low on gas. Guess what?

    DOING SO DESTROYS THE ENTIRE ENGINE BLOCK.

    And the amazing part of it all is that bulls are GIDDY!!!!

    Right before it all collapses.

    And it will.

    SOON.

    And it will be a complete surprise.

  5. mwfadil says:

    Barry –

    Love your site and pretty much read it daily but this post isn’t even really worth posting.

    Consider the following based on the S&P:

    1 – last 20 years saw 75% positive years and 25% negative
    2- any year that has first quarter positive is already starting with a positive boggie, so having enough loss in the next three quarters is actually worse than a negative year
    3- in the last 20 years, 12 had Q1 positive returns
    4- apply the statistics from #1 to #3 and a person’s null hypothesis would be that of the 12 positive Q1 quarters, 3 would be followed by negative cumulative subsequent 4 Qs (forgetting about the aforementioned boggie in #2 above)
    5- this compares to 1 observation where the next 3 quarters more than offset the positive Q1 returns
    6- give the thin data (20 observations) sounds a lot like noise to me.

  6. rootless says:

    @MayorQuimby:

    What is this alleged “black hole” where the US is heading? Why would everything just collapse, caused by what?

    Have you already stocked up food and ammo?