- Joined
- 31 March 2015
- Posts
- 477
- Reactions
- 865
To answer your question I have run the charts on the day after the peak in the market. Do they repaint? In this instance: NO. Do they ever repaint: YES but not by much, and I have done a statistical analysis and they repaint approx 14% of the time. As you said, no one can predict the future. Thes indicators are cycles based, and I have used the lowest lag filter I can find for ther Trend Indicator the Hull. Having said that, the Hull is not actually a zero lag filter and I used an 8 period offset to centre it. That's still 8 periods of lag which is much better than 43 periods when using a simple MA for an 86 period average. From the remaining 8 data points I have created an estimate by way of an algorithm.Something is suspicious about the attached graph you posted. Does the indicators re-paint ? Surely they cannot predict the future ? !
View attachment 101521
To answer your question I have run the charts on the day after the peak in the market. Do they repaint? In this instance: NO. Do they ever repaint: YES but not by much, and I have done a statistical analysis and they repaint approx 14% of the time. As you said, no one can predict the future. Thes indicators are cycles based, and I have used the lowest lag filter I can find for ther Trend Indicator the Hull. Having said that, the Hull is not actually a zero lag filter and I used an 8 period offset to centre it. That's still 8 periods of lag which is much better than 43 periods when using a simple MA for an 86 period average. From the remaining 8 data points I have created an estimate by way of an algorithm.
The signal FT I am using a weighted MA but it's offset by only 3 bars, so it's even better. Both these are not the holy grail, and they don't always time the market as well, but in this intance the maket had reached +3 standard deviation from the nominal pink line which is statistically an extreme point on the daily chart and coupled with the signals it was obviously as sell, especially when the same conditions where apparent on the weekly chart. The trend indicator suggests the trend, the signal FT is for entries and exits within that trend. So I just follow the buys and sells that are generated...
It's not always ahead of price, it can lag by in sync or be ahead. The weakness in the approach is in slow grinding markets. It's also very important to run the data 15 to 20 mins before the daily bar closes. You will notice on the frst chart I posted the Trend indicator has not given a trend change signal yet, but the signal FT is on a buy. This suggests the downtrend still persists, and that is not to say it will not change next week, but for now I am under the assumption the current rally is a counter trend until proven otherwise. The MM strategy for this is take 50% profit when the price moves to what the ATR value was when I took the trade, and then move the SL to break even for the remainder.I think it's the offsets you use with the indicators that seems to give the illusion that the indicator is ahead of the price. Nevertheless I am impressed by how you have constructed those indicators
Found the US comparison I was mentioning earlier:
What is the forecast of gdp fall for this one??Matching US GDP losses to Stock losses:
Year: GDP Loss = Stock Loss
1929: 26% = 86%
1937: 18% = 54%
1945: 12% = 26%
2008: 5% = 56%
1973: 3% = 48%
1958: 3% = 20%
1980: 2% = 17%
1953: 2% = 14%
1981: 1% = 27%
1949: 1% = 20%
1990: 1% = 20%
1960: 1% = 13%
2001: 0% = 49% (But valuation at highest Shiller PE ever)
1969: 0% = 36% (But valuation at highest Shiller PE since 1929 at the time)
So 1 main factor with 1 secondary to explain outliers.
According to media reports Goldman Sachs is currently forecasting a 24% GDP loss for the US.What is the forecast of gdp fall for this one??
Looking at the Australian market I note the low on an intraday basis in early 2016 was just under the low seen on Thursday this week.Some of these lines on these charts go back 33 years. If we slice through them next week we are well and truly in unchartered territory.
Matching US GDP losses to Stock losses:
At the risk of causing some alarm, if the 24% GDP loss forecast is correct then looking at 1929 and 1937 suggests an S&P500 bottom of about 745. That's 745, three digits there's nothing in front of it.
Incidentally that isn't far from the lows seen post-GFC.
I think this is the best option but I can't quite grasp how financial markets an in particular debt market are going to cope with this. I can see thousands of debts and rollovers unable to be paid. Perhaps a suspension of these payments for the time of the crisis ?
They can't cope, taxpayers will be picking up the bill. I really hope governments take equity as part of their bailout packages. But I doubt it.
Can you explain why this will happen?They can't cope, taxpayers will be picking up the bill. I really hope governments take equity as part of their bailout packages. But I doubt it.
At some point there needs to be a real economy producing things not just government printing money.why cant stimulus be 20,30,40% gdp
Maybe it is designed to keep those businesses that are viable going, while those that are not viable, do not reappear after this is over.Can you explain why this will happen?
1) Aus gov stimulus is now at 10% of gdp
2) why cant stimulus be 20,30,40% gdp
3) The aim is not to bail out but to keep the economy going around
4) why will policy makers let this happen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?