We apologize to all those of our readers who could not care less about the stock market for writing once again about – the stock market. We do so because, today, our second if much less far-reaching market call turned out to be correct.
We had said on very early June 5, EST, at a time when the S&P 500 futures were hovering at 3120 points, that we had reentered the market because the “short-term balance of risks, in our view, judging by the market’s observable micro-behavior, continues to be tilted towards the upside”, so that we “would not be entirely surprised if the S&P 500 were to rise another 200 points, to about 3325, fairly quickly from here.” We had added: “This kind of assessment by a trader is a prediction in the following sense: Either the market will quickly move in the hypothesized direction, or, if it does not and possibly even does the opposite, the entire constellation will still prove such that we will be able to exit the position taken without a loss, because the market will revisit the point at which we entered.”
The market did move very quickly in the hypothesized direction, as we have previously noted, yet made it only a little over half-way to the indicated price target, at which point, after the FED statement last Wednesday, we observed unfavorable market micro-behavior, prompting us to take profits and, eventually, reenter somewhat lower. The market has since slumped – when calculated from its high – by about 9 percent, only to then do exactly what we had said it would do in case the positive case would not (fully) come to fruition: It comfortably revisited our officially stated (re)entry point of 3120 points during today’s trading session, enabling us to take those chips off the table that we wanted removed. We are left with some profit, less than we had aimed for, but an additional profit nonetheless. “Gain – or no loss, resulting, on average, in gains over time”, we had said: “Trading is that ‘simple’ in the end.”
Why do we keep coming back to this subject?
To an extent, because it is a common belief in the academic community that “the stock market cannot be profitably timed” and that stock market behavior, especially in the short term, be unpredictable. By repeatedly talking in predictive terms about financial market behavior we wish to demonstrate that true science, relying on logical reasoning to determine likely causes of observed phenomena – instead of merely “observing phenomena” and willfully disregarding related such phenomena – , and to then make predictions from the entirety of observed phenomena, can – and must – be cleanly distinguished from pseudo-science that has taken a strong hold in recent years in the two formerly leading scientific journals, “Science” and “Nature”.
For those who are not also subscribers to “Science” – and we know that some of you are – , or who may have missed it, here is the recent declaration of intellectual bankruptcy by the “Science” editor:
“The evidence of systemic racism in science permeates this nation. Why are so few Science authors from historically black colleges and universities? Why are the scientific areas studied more frequently by people of color continuously underfunded by the government? Why do students who are people of color have to remind society that they are almost never taught by someone who looks like them? Why has the United States failed to update its ways of teaching science when data show that people of color learn better with more inclusive methods?”
We refuse to even consider the possibility that those who are subscribers to loico might not notice the complete absence of any logic in this paragraph, a paragraph that commences with an extremely far-reaching claim and continues – and concludes – with rhetorical questions containing statements about observations, questions that would first have to be thoroughly answered, pondering all available information, in order to be able to support the initial claim – let alone that one would certainly be at a loss to come to terms with, for example, a demand that students be “taught by someone who looks like them”.
And then the “Science” editor outright “outs” himself as what would appear as an entirely irrational racist:
“The first step is for science and scientists to say out loud that they have benefited from, and failed to acknowledge, white supremacy.”
Again, no evidence provided (in case this were possible with regard to an undefined concept, of course). The science editor seems to assume that everyone “knows” that the statements contained in his rhetorical questions be true. Yet everyone (and his dog) also knows that “yellow” people – people of Asian descent – are significantly over-represented in science. And, at least to our knowledge, “yellow” is not “white”.
There is something seriously awkward in invoking skin color when talking about human beings, of course, but even more so when it’s being done in an illogical way.
One has a very hard time imagining that the “Science” editor has ever made a single cent in the stock market, at least by employing scientific methods of analysis. Because a “scientist” he clearly is not. What he is, we do not know, but we harbor a suspicion (or two), nurtured by what he goes on to say after effectively calling “scientists” “white supremacists”, whatever the latter expression may mean, entirely undefined as the “Science” editor leaves it:
“And then … scientists finally need to … make space for … people of color to lead laboratories that publish great science and produce influential scientists”.
Note that “scientists” need to, in the words of this individual, “make space” for “people of color”. This individual, we have to conclude, in his subconscious mind that produces logical structures called phrases, not only supposes but sees fit to publish in one of the formerly most eminent scientific publications this world possessed that “scientists” and “people of color” fall into non-overlapping categories.
While the true answer to all “race”-related questions can only be given by chaos theory, not by abstract either/or-reasoning, the wording employed by the “Science” editor clearly matches even the most thought- and clueless definition of “racist”.
“Science”, it appears, is stone-dead.
Long live science.
