StockCharts.com - Blogs

There has been clear technical damage on the major indices as a result of concerted selling. The NASDAQ 100, which has led the market higher for most of 2007, has been treated rather rudely over these past few weeks and that's never good. The reason? During periods of economic expansion, the higher growth technology stocks tend to outperform because of their ability to grow earnings more rapidly. The stock market, for the first time in a long time, is sending a message that the economy is much worse off than was originally forecast. The good news is that inflation is dormant per the tame PPI and CPI numbers released last week. A sudden increase in inflation would put the Fed in a box, but since inflation remains contained, the Fed has ammunition to continue lowering rates. That should, in turn, lead to a strengthening economy in 2008.

The bond market is already pricing in the next interest rate cut and as you can see from the chart below on the 10 year treasury bond we appear to be heading to the 3.80-4.00% area. That should keep downward pressure on the dollar and produce continuing gains for the gold sector.

The Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) shows the beginnings of long-term downtrend. In stark contrast to QQQQ, IWM forged a lower low in August and a lower high in October. The inability to move above the summer highs showed relative weakness on the way up. The ETF is already testing support from the 2007 lows and relative weakness continues. The pattern at work looks like a large double top with a ton of support around 74-76. A break below the 2007 lows would confirm the pattern and the downside target would be to the support zone around 64-66.

Two weeks ago I stated that market strength was mixed, and that I thought that the correction had several more weeks to go before it was over. Since then further breakdowns of support have occurred, most notably on the Nasdaq 100 Index chart, which experienced a major break of its rising trend line, eliminating the one area of strength that supported a "mixed" assessment for the overall market.

Currently, a correction is in progress that is affecting all major indexes, and my opinion is that it is likely to continue into mid-December. One of the reasons I believe this is that, while the market is approaching oversold levels, it is not as oversold as it needs to be, and more technical work is needed before we can have confidence that a solid bottom has been made.

On the first chart below we can see that the three primary indicators of price, breadth, and volume are well below the zero line, but they have not yet hit the bottom of their normal ranges. Even after they hit bottom, a lot of work is needed to put in a solid bottom. I have put a box around previous bottoming actions. Note how several weeks and more than one indicator bottom is normally required to get the work done.



Also note how the August bottom differs from the others. It is what we call a "V" bottom, and there was no retest to make the bottom more solid. From a technical viewpoint, I believe that is why the rally ultimately failed.

Another reason for my assessment is that the 9-Month Cycle is projected to make a trough around mid-December. As you can see by the cycle chart below, cycle projections are somewhat subjective, and cycle lows don't always appear where we think they should, but current market action and technical factors as described above make me believe we have a good chance of being right about the current cycle projection.



Bottom Line: While the market is becoming oversold, I believe that it will take several weeks before the decline is over and a solid bottom is in place. This belief is supported by what we can observe as historical norms for corrections, and by our 9-Month Cycle projection. Any rally that emerges before the proper amount of work is done is likely to fail.

Hello Fellow ChartWatchers!

Last month I had the pleasure of sitting in on several local Technical Analaysis User Groups and seeing how they used many different tools to do group stock analysis. It was a very educational experience for me and I strongly recommend that everyone reading this newsletter join your local technical analysis user group. (If there isn't one in your area, why not start one?) Doing technical analysis with other people is probably the best way to improve your investing success - period.

But as I was sitting in the back of one of the classes, I watched them fall into one of the more insidious "traps" in technical analysis these days. See if you can spot it as I tell the tale:

The group was looking at an ETF for one of the more interesting market sectors these days. The person running the meeting pulled up a chart of the ETF on the screen for everyone to see (I was happy it was a StockCharts.com chart!). Someone in the group commented that the chart had a possible "double top" pattern and they were right - it certainly looked like a double-top. Someone else chimed in that the volume bars appeared to confirm that double-top hypothesis (I thought to myself "Yea! They are using volume to confirm chart patterns!") The group leader then suggested that they add some indicators to the chart to see what they showed - so they added a MACD and a Chaiken Money Flow plot to the chart. The MACD looked weak, but the CMF looked bullish. This caused the group to pause and check out a couple of other CMF plots with different parameters. Hmmmmm. Most of the CMF's were bullish. Eventually, the group decided to ignore the CMF data and move on.

Anyone spot the problem yet?

First off, the problem was NOT that the group ignored conflicting information from the CMF plot - it is very common that some indicators will be bullish while other ones are bearish. You need to think about which indicators you trust more and why. In this case, the group discussed it and decided that they trusted the MACD signals and the double-top chart pattern more than the CMF and that was a good decision.

The problem comes from the nature of ETFs. ETF stands for "Exchange Traded Funds" and they are all the rage right now. These are financial vehicles that are designed to track some index very closely and can be traded just like a stock. They are very useful to investors and the number of ETFs has increased dramatically in the past couple of years.

A typical example of an ETF is SPY which tracks the S&P 500 ($SPX). If the S&P 500 index goes up, SPY goes up. If $SPX goes down, SPY goes down. You can buy and sell SPY much easier than you can buy and sell the 500 stocks that make up $SPX and so SPY is a very useful tool in many investors' arsenals.

Have you spotted the trap yet?

Before I reveal the problem, let's look at two charts. Here is a chart of $SPX and one of SPY. See if you can spot the key difference:

Look at the On Balance Volume indicator line. Notice the difference in the direction of those lines? I've added a moving average line to each plot to help you see that the OBV for $SPX is going up while the OBV for SPY is going sideways/down.

Have you spotted the trap yet?

The price plots for $SPX and SPY look extremely similar - just as they should. When $SPX goes up, SPY goes up and vice-versa. But now look at the volume bars. They don't look identical do they? First off, the volume scales are very different - $SPX ranges from 2 Billion to 6 Billion while SPY's volume ranges from 200 Million to 600 Million. But the bigger problem is that the "shape" of the volume bars aren't exactly the same. They are similar - but there are subtle differences in the position and magnitudes of the taller volume bars. Those differences are what caused the OBV plots to be different. But why would the volume plots for $SPX and SPY be different? Could this be the trap? Will Chip ever get to the point!?

ETFs are different from stocks because of this fact: While the price of an ETF closely tracks the underlying index's value, the volume of an ETF only reflects the popularity of the ETF itself - NOT THE SUPPLY OR DEMAND FOR THE THING THE ETF TRACKS.

Consider the following hypothetical example: Let's say that for some reason an amazingly rich Jillionaire decides that they wants to invest in the market - so they buy 1 Billion shares of SPY in a single day. What would SPY's chart look like?

Despite all of this new demand for SPY, SPY's price chart would continue to mimic the value of the S&P 500 index. It would go up and down in the exact same way as before, just like $SPX does. Of course SPY's volume would have a HUGE spike in it, but that volume spike would have no impact on the price of SPY.

Now consider what would have happened if our hypothetical Jillionaire had invested in a real stock instead of an ETF. In addition to a huge spike on the volume chart, there would also be a huge jump in the price of the stock since the price of a stock is directly related to the demand for that stock's shares.

The key point here is that many kinds of technical analysis make an assumption that is not always true for ETFs. Any form of T/A that relies on studying both price and volume - including chart pattern analysis and price/volume indicators like the CMF - assumes that volume and price are directly related. Since there is no direct relationship between price and volume for an ETF, those analysis techniques should be used very carefully when looking at ETFs.

(Note: The volume for popular ETFs like SPY actually do a pretty good job of mimicking the demand for the underlying index, but that is due to indirect factors. As shown in the charts above, sensitive indicators can be thrown off by those differences. In the case of less popular ETFs, the differences are even greater.)

As I sat in the back of the class observing the give and take around their study of the ETF, I thought about speaking up. Unfortunately the class was almost over and I was late to my next appointment. Fortunately for you, I made a note to myself to write about it in the next newsletter.

Even though the Nasdaq and the NY Composite hit new closing highs earlier this week, Net New Highs did not keep pace and this could become a problem. Net New Highs equals new 52-week highs less new 52-week lows. I apply a 10-day moving average to smooth the data series and look for crosses above or below the zero line for a trend bias. The bias is bearish when the 10-day SMA for Net New Highs is in negative territory and the bias is bullish when the indicator is positive. On the charts below, the indicator is shown in area format and the underlying index is shown as a red line.



The 10-day SMA for Net New Highs on the Nasdaq moved into negative territory last week. This is quite surprising because the Nasdaq hit a closing high at 2859.12 on 31-October. Despite this new high, there were more new lows than new highs and this undermines the current advance. Something is not quite right. There should be more new highs than new lows when the Nasdaq is trading at or near at 52-week high.



The 10-day SMA for Net New Highs on the NYSE dipped into negative territory last week, but recovered and moved back into positive territory this week. The NY Composite recorded a new closing high at 10311.61 on 31-Oct, but the indicator remained well below its early October high and was barely positive. Net new highs are not keeping pace. There are still plenty of new lows and this reflects bearish undercurrents in the NYSE.

Two weeks ago I stated that a correction had begun, and that the initial selling had resulted in an initiation climax – a technical condition that indicated that the initial down pressure was probably near exhaustion, but that signaled the beginning of a new down trend. My expectation was that there was going to be a bounce (reaction rally), but that more selling would follow after that rally was finished.

This week the rally ended and the selling resumed. It is still my opinion that the selling will probably continue into mid-December where my 9-Month Cycle projection calls for a price low for the correction. A reasonable price target for that low would be 1375 on the S&P 500 Index, but the market segments are very mixed in terms of strength, and there is not conclusive evidence that the market is just going to fall apart.

In spite of the dramatic price moves of the last several weeks, we can see on the chart below that the S&P 500 Index is only about 5% off its all-time high, and strictly speaking a declining trend has not officially been established – it needs to make a lower low.



While the S&P 500 Index is slipping, the Nasdaq 100 Index remains in a rising trend and fully in the bullish mode. We can see on the chart below that it has recently failed to rise to the top of its rising trend channel, indicating some weakness; however, while a correction is virtually assured, there is no reason to expect this segment of the market to enter a bear market.



There are, however, market sectors that are officially in a bear market – Consumer Discretionary and Financials to be specific – and weakness in these sectors is the reason the S&P 500 is struggling.. The chart below is of Financials, but the Consumer Discretionary chart is very similar. Note that a long-term sell signal was generated when the 50-EMA crossed down through the 200-EMA. This signaled the beginning of a bear market for this sector. Once the bear market background had been established, a medium-term sell signal was generated the next time the 20-EMA crossed down through the 50-EMA.



Bottom Line: Technically, the condition of the market is neither overbought or oversold. This leaves room for movement in either direction; however, I am inclined to think that the correction will continue for several more weeks. While there is strength the NDX and in certain sectors, there are a few sectors that are unusually weak. It is not clear which side of the mix is going to prevail.

The bull market in commodity has extended beyond what many had believed it would in such a short period of time; be it crude oil prices or gold prices or even wheat prices - the bull market has surprised in its violence. The question before all traders and investors alike is whether the "risk-reward" of holding on to or adding to such positions is tenable. We don't believe it is in any of the aforementioned cases, but we'll only discus the gold market today, for it clearly has a "larger-than-life" following given it bottomed in earnest in 2001.

Quite simply, the rising gold market, and especially given its sharply rise over the past 6-years - has tended to increase the sponsorship of the metal from the engrained "gold bug base" to that of more main stream traders and investors. This is the manner in which bull markets evolve - they increase bull sentiment to the point where the contrarian point-of-view should be considered. We'll posit that point is "now", and while gold prices may very well have residual short-term upside remaining - it pales in comparison to an intermediate-term decline that could carry prices sharply lower from its current perch around $800/oz to somewhere near $600-$650. This wouldn't destroy or harm the bull market in any way whatsoever; however, it would bring sentiment back to more neutral levels upon which the bull market mete out the late longs and therefore can resume its upward trajectory to much higher levels.

Technically speaking, we find the distance above the 20-month moving average is at overbought levels and into trendline resistance that suggests the attendant "risk" is quite high; while potential "reward" is quite low. We need not understand any more than this from a technical perspective. Those who trade aggressively can "pick their places" in which to become short - for the backstop risk of the recent highs serves to limit losses. However, those preferring to "buy" at this juncture - we would simply say "wait", for there is little in the way of support until much lower levels at $675. For our money, we believe in "reversion to the mean", and ultimately in the next several years we are likely to see the 50-month moving average tested as it always it. The burning question is what level that test materializes? We'll further note this moving average is rising on average at $80/oz per year.

Therefore, while we like gold over the longer-term - we're looking for a sharp correction that will shake many late longs to the core. And once this happens - the gold market will be poised to rise farther and further than anyone now believes possible.

Earlier today I showed the Bank Index on the verge of hitting a new low for the year. By day's end, it had fallen to the lowest level in two years (Chart 1). This puts the BKX on track to challenge its 2005 low. In case you're wondering what that means, the BKX has fallen more than 20% from its early 2007 peak. That qualifies as an official bear market in bank stocks. That 5% daily drop helped make financials the day's weakest group. Consumer discretionary stocks came in second worst. Other large losers were small caps and transports. Those are the same market groups that have been lagging behind the rest of the market since mid-year. Although all sectors lost ground, groups that held up a bit better than the rest of market were healthcare, energy, industrials, utilities, and consumer staples. Bonds also had a strong day.

Hello Fellow ChartWatchers!

I'm pretty busy this weekend and just have time to mention the following things:

• We've just released John Murphy's entire 2006 collection of articles in CD-ROM format. The CD includes a new video intro from John as well as a private search engine that makes searching all of these articles a breeze! Be sure to check it out.

• Don't forget to grab a copy of the 2008 Stock Trader's Almanac now so you can plan the start of 2008. John and I both love this thing and recommend it highly.

• When the Fed lowered interest rates last week, we set a record for outgoing bandwidth - over 100 megabits! Things held up well though (knock on wood).

• We're halting John's Video Updates until we can find a better solution for the "fuzziness" problems that YouTube creates. Look for JohnTV () to return in a couple of weeks. Until then, John will continue to do Audio updates just like before.

• We are continuing to upgrade our data infrastructure. The paperwork is all signed and now we are waiting for the teleco companies to install our new private data circuits. Hopefully they'll have that done before the end of the year (sigh).

And now, here's John!