"No man can become rich without himself enriching others"
Andrew Carnegie



Friday, January 18, 2013

Records Show Fed Wavering in 2007

End the Federal Reserve
End the Federal Reserve (Photo credit: r0b0r0b)

By JON HILSENRATHKRISTINA PETERSONMICHAEL S. DERBY and ERIC MORATH

Washington, Jan.19, stock investing .- Fed officials in 2007 seemed to underestimate risks in the financial system before shifting to a state of alarm,  according to newly released transcripts from the central bank's meetings that year. The transcripts, which are released with a five-year lag, provide the most complete view of decision making inside the nation's central bank at a time of historic crisis. That year proved to be a pivotal one as the crisis built and Washington began its move toward an aggressive intervention, which bore full fruit in 2008.
The Fed entered 2007 with interest-rate policies on hold and many officials comfortable about the economic outlook. By year-end, the U.S. was in recession and the Fed had begun an increasingly panicked campaign to cut interest rates and launch new programs to cushion financial markets from building dysfunction.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke often sought to stake out a middle ground as debates raged at the Fed about how to proceed. Early on he was often behind the curve in his economic outlook. In January, for example, he projected that the "worst outcomes" for housing had become less likely. In May, he said he saw "good fundamental reasons to think that growth will be moderate."
He began to see after midyear that strains in financial markets threatened to move beyond housing to the broader economy and financial system. Mr. Bernanke himself slowly took on a more interventionist stance, but appears to have embraced that position reluctantly.
In December, when the U.S. had already moved into recession, the Fed was considering a large, half-percentage point reduction in its benchmark interest rate to soften the blow of growing financial dislocation on the economy. Mr. Bernanke said he was sympathetic, but chose a modest path—a quarter percentage point reduction. He confided to his colleagues, "You can tell that I am quite conflicted about it."
The transcripts show some haunting declarations by Mr. Bernanke and others. In September 2007, the Fed had already taken steps to provide cheaper credit to banks. Mr. Bernanke declared to his colleagues:
"As the central bank we have a responsibility to help markets function normally and to promote economic stability, broadly speaking. We are not in the business of bailing out individuals or businesses." The coming months would be marked by Fed-funded bailouts of Bear Stearns and American International Group .
Then-New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, who would later became President Barack Obama's Treasury secretary, played down problems at two hedge funds controlled by Bear, which in retrospect were a turning point in the crisis. "Direct exposure of the counterparties to Bear Stearns is very, very small compared with other things," he said.
Meanwhile, Janet Yellen, then president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and now the central bank's vice chairman, became increasingly alarmed about the growing risks to the economy as the year progressed.
"I still feel the presence of a 600-pound gorilla in the room, and that is the housing sector," she said in June 2007. "The risk for further significant deterioration in the housing market, with house prices falling and mortgage delinquencies rising further, causes me appreciable angst."
By December, she was pushing the Fed for aggressive responses to the crisis. "At the time of our last meeting, I held out hope that the financial turmoil would gradually ebb and the economy might escape without serious damage. Subsequent developments have severely shaken that belief," she said in December.
Ms. Yellen, who is a potential candidate to succeed Mr. Bernanke when his term ends in January 2014, favored an aggressive half percentage point interest-rate cut to cushion the blow.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher also issued some early warnings about the building crisis.....

Enhanced by Zemanta

My New 2013 Target for the S&P 500


After breaking a five-month reverse head-and-shoulders pattern, a new high for the trend has been established

By Sam Collins, InvestorPlace Chief Technical Analyst

 New York, Jan.18, stock advice .- On Thursday, stocks opened higher on better economic news, a possible new stimulus plan in Japan, and apparent progress in reaching a debt-ceiling agreement. The early gains continued for most of the day as buyers were encouraged by better-than-expected housing starts and higher building permits in December. At mid-afternoon, a lower-than-expected Philly Fed regional manufacturing index for January cut into the rally but failed to have much impact on the close.
At Thursday’s close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 85 points to 13,596, the S&P 500 rose 8 points to 1,481, and the Nasdaq was up 18 points at 3,136. The NYSE traded 709 million shares and the Nasdaq crossed 389 million. On the Big Board, advancers beat decliners by 3-to-1, and on the Nasdaq, advancers were ahead by 2-to-1.
Trade of the Day Chart Key
We can finally say with supporting evidence that the S&P 500 has broken free of its five-month reverse head-and-shoulders pattern. The initial target of the break is the round number of 1,500, but as explained in our Jan. 10 Daily Market Outlook, “If the neckline at 1,466 is broken on a close, and with greater-than-average volume, a new high for the trend will have been established, and… the target would be at about 1,589.”
Therefore, my target for 2013 is S&P 500 at 1,589 or higher.
Since the breakout of the S&P 500, all eyes will be on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. On Thursday, it came very near to closing higher than its five-year closing high at 13,610, and even penetrated it with an intraday high of 13,634.
A break of the old closing high and the peak high at 13,662 would trigger a Dow Theory confirmed “buy,” since the transports broke to a new high several weeks ago (see Jan. 16 Daily Market Outlook).
 ...

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is That a Contrarian Bull?

The main trading room of the Tokyo Stock Excha...
The main trading room of the Tokyo Stock Exchange,where trading is currently completed through computers. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Rude Awakening

Chicago, Jan.18, hot stock picks .- I’ve got some beef with the definition of what the true contrarian stance should be in this market.

First things first: Contrarians ain’t always bears.

Next, a contrarian position gets you nowhere unless current trends are close to an important turning point. No use being short stocks in 1992 or anti-gold in 2000 — you’d have lost each time.

But right now, the market’s in a weird spot. Stocks have found a path higher (albeit with some twists and turns) since 2009. And you have two camps of thought here:

One says the market’s strong performance is an overextended bull rally that’s due for another serious correction right now.

The other tells you to forget about the last four years because it was a jumbled garbage rally in which average investors didn’t even participate.

Those who think we’re headed for disaster have some scary numbers for you. Take the first week of 2013:

About $19 billion flowed into stock funds. That’s the biggest one- week increase since 2008 (gulp) and the largest inflows since May 2001 (double-gulp).

Makes sense. Neither of these years brings up any warm or fuzzy feelings for any investor with a pulse who lived through the drama.

But you have to remember...

Crisis-dominated market conditions over the past several years.

Everyone has hated stocks since 2008.

“Gimme the bonds!” they said. “Heck, I’ll even go with that money market fund. I’d rather earn virtually nothing than risk losing a lot.”

That gives us more than five years of disgusted investors flipping the bird at the stock market in record numbers:

Stocks Vs. The World

But remember the $19 billion I just mentioned. The money that’s flowing into stock funds right now is an abrupt and important shift. For the first time in years, investors appear to be flocking toward risk. It’s early — but we could be looking at a tipping point here.

The contrarian bet is to ditch bonds. Then look to buy quality stocks.





It’s that simple.  ...



Enhanced by Zemanta

A Bullish Indicator for 2013

NASA Sunspot Number Predictions for Solar cycl...
NASA Sunspot Number Predictions for Solar cycle 23 and 24 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Matthew Carr, Investment U Senior Analyst

New York, Jan.18, trading stocks .- Can we know where the market is headed before the year even gets underway?

That's always the question, isn't it?

At the start of the year, there're all kinds of predictions about where the market is going to head. All the big, bold predictions come out. And we'll see articles that discuss indicators like "Where January goes, the market follows..."

But that's hogwash.

If we look at the S&P 500's returns going back to 2000, this January trend buckles.

For example, since 2000, January has yielded negative returns for the S&P seven out of 13 years... January is the start of earnings season, and it's typically volatile because of that.

But during that same span, the S&P itself has had negative full-year returns only four times... Three of those when the month of January ended in the red.

To summarize, looking at the entire month of January is a misdirected indicator for how the market will do the rest of the year.

Finding a More Dependable Indicator

But there's another January trend indicator that's a lot more successful. And it looks at a much smaller period of time... just five trading days.

The "first five days of January" indicator was the brainchild of Yale Hirsch back in the early 1970s. It was hailed as an early warning system.

The idea is fairly straightforward: Those first five days give you a barometer of investor sentiment. And this can show you where the market is likely heading over the next year.

Admittedly, I've been intrigued by this indicator...

But instead of just blindly following "If the first five days of January are positive, then the rest of the year will be positive, too..." I've found you get a clearer picture if you only look at two thresholds. The rest are sort of neutral - akin to a shoulder shrug.

If we just look at a small sample going back to 2000, we can see it's fairly accurate.

When the first five trading days in January on the S&P 500 yielded a gain of 1.73% or higher, the S&P returned double-digit gains for the year four out of five times. The fifth was a return of 8.99%.
 
Year
First Five Days of January Return
Full-Year Return
2012
1.73%
13.29%
2010
2.55%
12.64%
2006
3.35%
13.62%
2004
1.80%
8.99%
2003
3.42%
26.38%



Year
First Five Days of January Return
Full-Year Return
2008
-5.30%
-38.47%
2005
-2.12%
3.00%
2001
-1.85%
-13.04%
2000
-1.89%
-10.14%
In the last 13 years, the S&P has returned double-digit full-year gains five times. And this indicator predicted it right in four.

Now, on the other hand, if those first five days return a loss of -1.8% or larger, the S&P ended the year with a double-digit loss three out of four times.
 




The S&P has returned full-year double-digit losses four times in the last 13 years. And this indicator predicted it right three of those times.

So, this year, the S&P returned a gain of 2.17% during the first five trading days. Going all the way back to 1950, if the first five trading days of January returned a gain of 2% or more, the market ended the year positive. Better yet, only twice did it not result in double-digit returns...

One more reason to be bullish on stocks in 2013. ...






Enhanced by Zemanta

Gold...Buy the Dips!

English: Took the picture from the building of...
English: Took the picture from the building of the BCB. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Jeff Clark
Boston, Jan.18, swing trading .- The price of gold has been languishing in a trading range for several months, leaving some investors scratching their heads. But a few high-profile investors have been buying all along — and in some cases, really loading up.

It’s a tad puzzling that gold hasn’t broken into new highs, despite enough catalysts to move a herd of stubborn mules. But that’s the hand we’re dealt right now. We can’t get up from the table until the game reaches its conclusion. Besides, I think the stall in prices is giving us one last window to buy before prices break permanently into higher levels for this cycle.

And that’s how a number of prominent investors and institutions are viewing the price action right now. Here’s a sampling of this year’s “gold bugs” and what they’ve been doing about precious metals recently.

Jim Rogers, billionaire and cofounder of the Soros Quantum Fund, publicly stated two months ago that he plans to “sell federal debt and purchase more gold and silver.”

George Soros increased his investment in GLD by a whopping 49% last quarter, to 1.32 million shares. His stake is now worth over $221 million. Many investors don’t realize that he also placed call options on GDX worth $9 million. The most logical explanation is that he thinks gold equities are undervalued and that there’s big money to be made in them within a year.

Brent Johnson, a San Francisco hedge-fund manager, believed in gold so much that he started his own gold fund, Santiago Capital, earlier this year. His latest video points out that there have been “278 global easing moves in the last 14 months.” How does someone not own gold in that kind of environment?

Don Coxe, a highly respected global commodities strategist, stated at the Denver Gold Forum that “now is the best climate I have ever seen for an increase in gold prices.” He told fund managers, mining analysts, and mining executives to prepare for significantly higher gold prices and thus higher gold-mining-stock valuations. “The opportunities ahead are the best I’ve seen.” He thinks a new gold rush is ahead for gold stocks, and that a “lustrous” rally will occur within a year.

Jeffrey Gundlach, cofounder of DoubleLine Capital, predicts that deeply indebted countries and companies will default sometime after 2013. Central banks may forestall these defaults by pumping even more money into the economy — but at the risk of higher inflation in coming years. He recommends buying hard assets including gold, and also “gold-mining firms because we consider them to be bargains.”

These are only some of the individual investors who have made recent news with their bullion buying. But institutions, governments, and others are participating, too...

Breakthrough Fuel That Makes Oil Drilling Obsolete

It took the earth 300 million years to make the oil we burn.

Imagine if we could squeeze that whole process into just a few months... a few weeks... or even a few days. Because that’s exactly what could be happening.

At least a half-dozen labs and companies are working on this, right now.

If they get it right, we could literally “make” as much gas for your car as you need. We could make fuel for planes, trains, and diesel trucks this way too.

Find out more by clicking here.

Central Banks

  • Central banks around the world bought a total of 351.8 tonnes of gold (11.3 million ounces) in the first nine months of 2012, up 2% from a year ago.
  • Even Argentina added 7 tonnes last year (225,000 ounces), and Colombia 2.3 tonnes (almost 74,000 ounces).
  • And of course there’s China. While nothing official has been announced by its central bank, the size of its gold imports and buying habits are mind-boggling.
These data suggest in and of themselves that dips in the gold price are likely being bought — and will continue to be bought — by central banks. They’re not exactly short-term traders. Remember, central banks were net sellers as recently as 2009, so this reversal will likely play out for years.

And then there is India...

I tire of the reports that proclaim something like, “Indian buying dropped this month!” Let’s be clear about India and gold: Imports have more than doubled in three years (through 2011), and investment demand has climbed almost fivefold. And all this occurred while prices were rising and from a nation that already has a strong cultural predisposition towards the metal. Further, silver demand is taking off: sales have jumped 24% this year over last.

There is some government interference, but no slump in demand in India. This trend will continue and may even strengthen when inflation begins making front-page headlines.

Commercial Banks

  • Morgan Stanley’s preferred metal exposure for 2013 is gold, though the company expects silver to outperform it. The bank stated that it believes “nothing has changed with gold’s fundamental thesis: QE 3 (and 4...) and similar commitments from the ECB and BoJ; low nominal and negative real interest rates; ongoing geopolitical risk in the Middle East; and mine supply issues.”
  • ScotiaMocatta stated that it will “not be surprised to see prices reach $2,200/oz.” Why? “One of the main reasons we are still bullish is because of the mess the Western world is in. Europe has a debt problem that is proving all but impossible to solve, and all efforts to date have revolved around throwing more money at the problem to avoid the monetary system from breaking down... that should be reason enough to be bullish.”
  • Deutsche Bank released a new report essentially declaring that gold is money. “We see gold as an officially recognized form of money for one primary reason: it is widely held by most of the world’s larger central banks as a component of reserves. We would go further, however, and argue that gold could be characterized as ‘good’ money, as opposed to ‘bad’ money which would be represented by many of today’s fiat currencies.”
  • JP Morgan now accepts physical gold as collateral.
None of these parties think the gold bull market is over, nor that the price is too high. They recognize the implications of a world floating on fiat currencies, and that government “solutions” to debt and deficit spending will significantly — perhaps catastrophically — dilute the value of currencies, the fallout of which has yet to materialize. As for me, I think that the longer the malaise continues, the more likely the breakout is to be both sudden and dramatic.

We can all speculate about when the next leg up for gold will kick in, but the point for now is to take advantage of the weakness. When the price breaks out of its trading range, are you sure you won’t wish you’d bought a little more? ... Continue to read.
 


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Seeking Alpha With Commodities

Commodities trading
 (Photo credit: London Commodity Markets)

New York, Jan.18, stock trade .- I published an article on January 15th titled Insight Into Commodity Investing, and I have received interest from individuals asking me my opinion on adding commodities to a  portfolio. In this article I will go into further detail explaining the academic reason for investing in commodities and then provide you with my personal opinion/outlook on commodity investing both from an index investor's point of view and for those that want to actively invest in individual commodities. In writing this I am assuming readers have read my previous article and will not be expanding on those topics.
Before I start, I want to make clear that these are my opinions, specifically, my outlook and how to invest in commodities. Every investor has unique circumstances and should invest according to their risk and return objectives.
I will start with the academic reason for investing in commodities because it provides an educational perspective on why investors should include commodities into a portfolio. The numbers in this paragraph come from a study (source: CISDM (2005b)). This study is being used only for the purpose of demonstration. I am not implying it was the best study or the most accurate.
The study looked at the time period between 1990-2004. Portfolio one was split 50/50 into the S&P 500 and the Lehman Gov./Corp. Bond Index. Portfolio two had 40% in the S&P 500, 40% in the Lehman Gov/Corp. Bond Index, and 20% in the GSCI which is a long-only futures based commodity index. Annualized return was 9.64% for portfolio one and 9.51% for portfolio two with a standard deviation of 7.94% and 7.19% respectively.
The Sharpe Ratio was used to evaluate the two portfolios from a return/risk perspective and produces a result of 0.67 for portfolio one and 0.73 for portfolio two. These results suggest portfolio two is a dominate portfolio relative to portfolio one. Therefore, commodities should be added to a traditional stock and bond portfolio. This as well as other studies performed have persuaded many to add commodities to their portfolios. I agree with this perspective that investors of all ages should include commodities in their portfolios. However, I believe this allocation amount should vary given various circumstances. Currently, for index investors I believe, if you haven't already, that you should be increasing the allocation percentage in your portfolio to commodities. Three reasons for this are protection against unexpected inflation, supply/demand, and current Federal Reserve actions.
In that previous article, I provided insight into the misconception that commodities hedge against inflation. Again, this is incorrect. They hedge against unexpected inflation. I predict that between now and ten years we will have unexpected inflation and specific commodities will perform best in this scenario (again, for specifics on which commodities please see my previous article). For my reasoning I use the eyeball test. Yes, I understand scientifically and academically this isn't the most sound way to invest. What I look at to predict unexpected inflation are current bond yields. Specifically I look at zero coupon treasury bonds. Bond yields are based on performance risk and inflation risk. I use zero coupon treasury bonds because performance risk is removed and we are left with inflation risk.
Also, zero coupon treasury bonds do not have reinvestment risk unlike traditional treasury bonds. As of today (source: TDAmeritrade) zero coupon treasury bonds maturing on 5/15/2020 are yielding 1.157% and bonds maturing on 11/15/2022 are yielding 1.642%. Using the eyeball test, this suggest that expected inflation over seven years is expected to be 1.157% and over ten years 1.642%. Again, I know this isn't the best way to estimate unexpected inflation but I'm not trying to get an exact number. Rather, I am attempting to make this a binary event meaning either there will be or won't be unexpected inflation. I personally believe inflation will be higher than what is currently being anticipated, specifically more than the 1.157% implied by the seven year bonds therefore leading to unexpected inflation in which commodities will have positive returns.
In my previous article, I state one of the main drivers of returns for commodities is supply and demand. Over the years, one reason given for investing in commodities is that global market demand will continue to grow and supplies are limited, therefore price must go up. I believe that this relationship will hold true especially over the coming years because I believe we will experience a pick up in global growth which we have already began to see.
My last reason for increasing allocation to commodities is based on actions taken by the Federal Reserve. I spoke of the academic reasons for investing in commodities earlier in this article. Further studies have demonstrated that these benefits are almost exclusive to when the Federal Reserve is pursuing a restrictive monetary policy. I believe this happens because the Fed pursues restrictive monetary policy when inflation is above their targeted level meaning there is unexpected inflation. I anticipate the Fed will pursue a more restrictive policy (relative to current policy) sometime over the next ten years. (as a side note, I'm well aware of the Fed's dual mandate regarding employment goals as well as inflation goals)
RECOMMENDATION FOR INDEX INVESTORS
As I stated before, I believe index investors that actively change allocations should have an overweight position in commodities relative to their "normal" allocation. I believe investors should concentrate on indices that have a high concentration in energy commodities and also have exposure to metals. I also believe investors should add individual positions of commodities that may not be included in the index because of the increased correlation among indexed commodities. For example, the ETF Powershares DB Commodity Index Tracking (DBC) does not have platinum featured in the index. Platinum can be added to the portfolio through futures contracts or ETF's (PALL invests in Palladium and PPLT invests in platinum). For an explanation of my reasoning please see myprevious article.
As for investors that wish to seek alpha by investing in individual commodities, I will discuss how I personally invest in them and provide a few examples. I personally try to make it as simple as possible and invest based on various scenarios.
My first ever play in commodities was gold back in 2004. This was based on the outlook that the Fed would implement more restrictive monetary policies which they did in the preceding years and global increase in demand. In 2009 oil had an average price roughly around $53. When it was in the $40 range I went long simply on the belief that in the long run it would increase back into the $80 range again based on global demand. In June of 2012 I went long natural gas and gave a recommendation to go long platinum. Natural gas at that time was at all time lows. During the summer months much was written in regards to the platinum mines in South Africa (issues that still persist). These mines control much of the platinum supply so the thought was lower supply and increased global demand will increase the price. As of yesterday platinum surpassed the price of gold for the first time in 10 months. These are examples of circumstances that I personally look for. I have been asked about my opinion of Corn. One play would be to go long based on the increased ethanol use in the United States. However, Corn has soared in price much of which is attributed to the drought. I am currently staying away from corn because I think it's foolish to try and predict weather and if the drought is going to end or not.
I want to reiterate one important point in this article. These are my personal opinions and I understand that everyone will not agree with them. As always, I recommend that each investor develop their personal investment thesis based on their personal objectives. ... Continue to read.

Enhanced by Zemanta

VIX Hits Pre-Crisis Levels

Lehman Brothers Rockefeller centre
Lehman Brothers Rockefeller centre (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Chicago, Jan.18, stock tips .- Last year was one of the calmest years in terms of stock market gyrations and this year, thus far, is turning out to be the same.

Stock market volatility in 2013 has continued its downward trend toward levels experienced just before the onset of the 2008 financial crisis.
The CBOE S&P500 Volatility Index (^VIX) has been trading in the 13's, right near its 52-week low.
A depressed VIX can be interpreted as too much complacency or lack of fear in the market. It's frequently used as contrarian sell signal. Conversely, an elevated VIX infers a high level of fear and could be a good buy setup, depending on the circumstances.
Exchange-traded products (ETPs) that go long the VIX like the ProShares VIX Short-Term Futures ETF (VIXY - News)continue to make new lows. The iPath S&P VIX ST Futures ETN (VXX - News) is down -98.5% since its inception in 2009. The selling pressure in long VIX ETPs will continue until stock market volatility pops.  
As for VIX February and March call/put options, Russell Rhoads, CFA with the Options Institute at the CBOE observed the following:
"Typically at this point the trading focus would be on February options, however, this time it is different. Traders seem to be looking past February to March options. The next drama to come out of Washington, DC is going to be the debate over the debt ceiling which will probably come to a head after February expiration, but before March. Because of this March call options have been active."
 ...


Enhanced by Zemanta

Until the S&P 500 Breaks This Level, Don’t Expect Much


Stocks will most likely trade sideways until the September high at 1,474.5 is exceeded

By Sam Collins, InvestorPlace Chief Technical Analyst
New York, Jan.17, stock picks .- On Wednesday, stocks opened mixed, traded mixed, and ended mixed. Boeing (NYSE:BA) fell sharply as problems with its new Dreamliner 787 worsened, but Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) offset BA’s losses with a 4.15% recovery. However, the Dow backed off for the first time in six sessions.
Financial stocks rallied on strong earnings from Goldman Sachs(NYSE:GS), up 4.1%, and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM), up 1%. Genworth Financial (NYSE:GNW) headed the list of gainers on the S&P 500, jumping 8.9% after announcing that it would contribute $100 million to its mortgage-insurance unit.
Chipotle Mexican Grill (NYSE:CMG), which was on our list ofStocks to Sell in January, fell 5.5% after reporting that higher food costs would result in lower Q4 earnings.
At Wednesday’s close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was off 24 points to 13,511, the S&P 500 closed breakeven at 1,473, and the Nasdaq rose 7 points at 3,118. The NYSE traded 599 million shares and the Nasdaq crossed 365 million. Decliners led advancers on the Big Board by 1.2-to-1 and on the Nasdaq by 1.5-to-1.
Wednesday’s record low close on the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), sometimes called the “fear index” shows absolutely no fear. Investors are complacent — not selling, but only buying by a small margin. 

While U.S. investors are quietly buying stocks, the U.S. dollar has slipped due to the debt-ceiling issue, which could impact the rating of U.S. debt instruments. 
Note the possible head-and-shoulders forming on the PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bullish(NYSE:UUP). The MACD issued a sell signal Wednesday, but the neckline at $21.65 must be broken if the formation is to be confirmed. 
Warning: Do not anticipate a break of a head-and-shoulders neckline, since over 60% of possible head-and-shoulders formations fail to break down.
The reverse head-and-shoulders formation noted on the S&P 500 last week is still intact but not confirmed. Until the September high at 1,474.5 is exceeded, stocks will most likely trade sideways.
Note that momentum is falling and confirms that the formation has stalled. But the chances of a breakout are still high as long as the index can hold within its current narrow-ranging top. A breakout target for the S&P 500 is at around 1,500, but we are in desperate need of enough confidence from buyers to push ahead....

Enhanced by Zemanta