“Unprecedented methodology of analysis”

Given that the S&P 500 has ral­lied more than 42 % since its March 23 low that loico was the first to pub­licly iden­ti­fy as the like­ly mar­ket bot­tom,1 that the index has regained in a con­vinc­ing man­ner its 200-day mov­ing aver­age and that the NASDAQ 100 has even touched its pre-COVID-19 high, we can now declare with a good con­science that loico’s first mar­ket call, some­thing we said in our “Welcome” text we would make from time to time so as to show­case the pre­dic­tive pow­er of actu­al log­ic, was correct.

After being briefly out of the mar­ket because of a clear­ly over­bought con­di­tion, we just re-entered the S&P 500 futures a frac­tion of a point below our exit lev­el of 3120.25. 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 we aban­doned our plan, for now, to re-enter about two per­cent low­er. We would not be entire­ly sur­prised if the S&P 500 were to rise anoth­er 200 points, to about 3325, fair­ly quick­ly from here. 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. Gain – or no loss, result­ing, on aver­age, in gains over time. Trading is that “sim­ple” in the end. As always, loico does not give invest­ment advice. What we write about finan­cial mar­kets serves two pur­pos­es only: to help our read­ers improve their log­i­cal think­ing in gen­er­al, and the way in which they cog­ni­tive­ly approach finan­cial mar­kets in par­tic­u­lar, and to demon­strate that log­i­cal think­ing can bring about extra­or­di­nary success.

With regard to the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion, we found the fol­low­ing view expressed by John Stoltzfus, chief invest­ment strate­gist and man­ag­ing direc­tor at Oppenheimer Asset Management, some­what cor­re­spon­dent to our view that we have in part already expressed on March 24, and we share it here:

“When we look at this week, we’re remind­ed very much of the ral­ly that start­ed in March 2009 … .

What we’re see­ing is the mar­ket is look­ing … ahead, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months out …

We’ve nev­er seen a sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the largest econ­o­my in the world shut­tered as well as oth­er economies around the world shut­tered, and what that would look like com­ing out … I think it almost calls for an unprece­dent­ed method­ol­o­gy of analy­sis look­ing forward.”

Which lat­ter sug­gests the gen­er­al question:

Does sci­ence stop where the “unprece­dent­ed” and pos­si­bly non-repro­ducible starts? Or is sci­ence not called upon, in emer­gen­cies such as the one COVID-19 has appeared as for months, to derive action plans ad hoc direct­ly from log­ic instead of wait­ing for stud­ies to obtain “direct” evi­dence in addi­tion to the indi­rect evi­dence that log­ic draws its con­clu­sions from, when wait­ing risks or even out­right accepts that the stud­ies will be com­plet­ed when the emer­gency is over and the dam­age done? The dead from COVID-19 we sought to pre­vent with our arti­cle on March 16 will not wake up again, and the biggest stock mar­ket gains from the recent bot­tom have now been made – or not, by those choos­ing “to wait for (direct) evi­dence” instead of rely­ing on log­i­cal thinking.

Addendum June 5, 5:14pm CET

So now it appears we know what was “brew­ing” in the market’s micro-behav­ior we had observed: 2.5 mil­lion US jobs gained ver­sus a con­sen­sus expec­ta­tion of 8.3 mil­lion lost, the biggest upside sur­prise in his­to­ry. It seems, thus, that in oth­er than triv­ial mat­ters, it rarely pays to lis­ten to the “main­stream” – just as it does not pay to lis­ten to the WHO in a health emer­gency, it like­wise does not pay to lis­ten to Wall Street ana­lysts. We shall find out, over the com­ing months and years, whether it con­tin­ues to pay to lis­ten to loico.

_____
  1. https://loico.com/why-we-have-likely-seen-the-bottom-of-the-corona-crash-in-the-us-stock-market/[]
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on vk
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print
“The delta vari­ant is like a com­mon cold, but …”: Matteo Bassetti, noto infet­tivol­o­go tele­vi­si­vo: “La vari­ante Delta è come un sem­plice raf­fred­dore ma sono con­tento se si usa per fare ter­ror­is­mo per vac­cinare la gente!” Un medico che sposa la strate­gia del ter­rore deve essere denun­ci­a­to e radi­a­to dall’Albo dei medici. pic.twitter.com/YnPEvv0Mhe — RadioSavana (@RadioSavana) August 3, 2021 Why would one want to get vac­ci­nat­ed against the com­mon cold (which coro­n­avirus­es have caused prob­a­bly since humans exist)? A pro­fes­sor of med­i­cine who states such illog­i­cal­i­ty vio­lates his hip­po­crat­ic oath, and not only. He is respon­si­ble for phys­i­cal harm that vac­ci­na­tion caus­es
What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.

Leave a comment / join the discussion

What is the essence of someone pretending not to notice the essential aspect of the central allegation with respect to an essential matter to which he is an interested party, implicitly saying A while stating B? A refusal to engage in rational dialogue, which in turn is the only way to ultimately avert violence: an implicit declaration of (civil) war.