Haven't been on in awhile since the majority of topics were non sports related or some political bitch slap back and forth.
This kind of topic while not being sports is still financial driven.
If you have read some of my posts regarding the stock market years ago and saw the results they gave a lot of people a lot of money and are still doing so to this day.
There is never a need to panic sell, there is never a need to take yourself totally out of the market unless it is retirement time.
The market goes up, the market goes down, nobody know what the top will be nor will they know what the bottom will be.
The best stocks to get into as I have said in the past are those that have a long history of paying dividends and have a history of increasing dividend payouts along the way.
Gaming stocks such as MGM, WYNN, BYD and CACQ are the spots to be. All I will say is Macau is going to bring these stocks along for a high tide and BYD will benefit with the strong downtown revenues. A side note about CACQ owners of the stock will receive 1.625 shares of the new Caesar's once they have fully completed their bankruptcy reorganization later this year.
MO - (Altria) you can't go wrong with this stock. Do a search and you'll find I've talked about this stock and recommended it over and over and over. It has been a cash cow and they aren't all about cigarettes. I have made a killing in this stock alone and WILL NOT sell it under any circumstances barring something crazy happens. I wouldn't be surprised if they are bought out by PM which is actually the UK version of MO. They split years ago. I bought MO for $15.75 long ago and nope won't take a dime off the table.
CSX - It's not too late to get aboard this train even though it has done extremely well this year. The new CEO is going to make them lean and mean. They are going to have blowout numbers over the next few quarters.
A sector that has been overlooked but will go a little sideways the next few months is the airlines. The ones with a lot of room to move up are DAL and AAL. I would watch these closely.
I'd stay away from telecom right now, too much competition and with the cut throat prices it is hurting their bottom line. Even T is going to struggle with revenue over the next few quarters. Nice dividend but you won't make a lot of money but likely won't lose much either.
History has shown us that when there has been a correction, the market has roared to higher highs. You have to be willing to stomach the ups and downs or don't get involved. It's really that simple.
Good Luck.
This kind of topic while not being sports is still financial driven.
If you have read some of my posts regarding the stock market years ago and saw the results they gave a lot of people a lot of money and are still doing so to this day.
There is never a need to panic sell, there is never a need to take yourself totally out of the market unless it is retirement time.
The market goes up, the market goes down, nobody know what the top will be nor will they know what the bottom will be.
The best stocks to get into as I have said in the past are those that have a long history of paying dividends and have a history of increasing dividend payouts along the way.
Gaming stocks such as MGM, WYNN, BYD and CACQ are the spots to be. All I will say is Macau is going to bring these stocks along for a high tide and BYD will benefit with the strong downtown revenues. A side note about CACQ owners of the stock will receive 1.625 shares of the new Caesar's once they have fully completed their bankruptcy reorganization later this year.
MO - (Altria) you can't go wrong with this stock. Do a search and you'll find I've talked about this stock and recommended it over and over and over. It has been a cash cow and they aren't all about cigarettes. I have made a killing in this stock alone and WILL NOT sell it under any circumstances barring something crazy happens. I wouldn't be surprised if they are bought out by PM which is actually the UK version of MO. They split years ago. I bought MO for $15.75 long ago and nope won't take a dime off the table.
CSX - It's not too late to get aboard this train even though it has done extremely well this year. The new CEO is going to make them lean and mean. They are going to have blowout numbers over the next few quarters.
A sector that has been overlooked but will go a little sideways the next few months is the airlines. The ones with a lot of room to move up are DAL and AAL. I would watch these closely.
I'd stay away from telecom right now, too much competition and with the cut throat prices it is hurting their bottom line. Even T is going to struggle with revenue over the next few quarters. Nice dividend but you won't make a lot of money but likely won't lose much either.
History has shown us that when there has been a correction, the market has roared to higher highs. You have to be willing to stomach the ups and downs or don't get involved. It's really that simple.
Good Luck.
Macau Tops Expectations With 16.3% April Revenue Growth
In addition to the 16.3 percent growth in Macau’s market in April, taxable revenue from the Las Vegas Strip was up 7.8 percent in March and is now up 2.0 percent year-to-date. Historic Downtown Las Vegas logged an impressive +14.1 percent growth to start 2017.
If I was forced to pick two, I would recommend MGP which is MGM Growth Properties which is paying out 5.42% dividend and I would tell you to give BYD a strong look.
However, WYNN, MGM and CACQ as mentioned earlier are all good candidates. The news out of Macau this morning was great and they go against some weak numbers from last year when Macau had some tremendous struggles due to the Chinese governments overreach. Today would be a good day to look at picking up some MO on a down day.
One other stock I failed to mention is Wells Fargo (WFC) don't let the account scandal scare you, they will overcome this and it will be long forgotten about soon enough. This bank will score big when the next rate hike hits and they are well positioned in the majority of the country to overcome any economic headwinds that may come up.
In addition to the 16.3 percent growth in Macau’s market in April, taxable revenue from the Las Vegas Strip was up 7.8 percent in March and is now up 2.0 percent year-to-date. Historic Downtown Las Vegas logged an impressive +14.1 percent growth to start 2017.
If I was forced to pick two, I would recommend MGP which is MGM Growth Properties which is paying out 5.42% dividend and I would tell you to give BYD a strong look.
However, WYNN, MGM and CACQ as mentioned earlier are all good candidates. The news out of Macau this morning was great and they go against some weak numbers from last year when Macau had some tremendous struggles due to the Chinese governments overreach. Today would be a good day to look at picking up some MO on a down day.
One other stock I failed to mention is Wells Fargo (WFC) don't let the account scandal scare you, they will overcome this and it will be long forgotten about soon enough. This bank will score big when the next rate hike hits and they are well positioned in the majority of the country to overcome any economic headwinds that may come up.
[ Informative and interesting article about buying into the market during market peaks ]
[h=1]On Stock Market All-Time Highs and Planting Trees[/h][FONT="]by Felipe Garcia, CFA and Aaron Byrd, CFA[/FONT][FONT="]Two Plus Two Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 5[/FONT][FONT="]Can you believe it? The stock market ended March 2017 at another all-time high for the end of a month. The S&P 500 Total Return index stood at 4,538 on March 31, the highest it had ever been at month-end.
(As you may be aware, the S&P 500 index referenced on the nightly news was actually lower on March 31 than it was on February 28, but that oft-cited figure ignores the effect of dividends, which is why we prefer to focus our attention on the Total Return version of the index.)
We know we are probably beginning to sound a bit like a broken record (no pun intended), because we first started writing about this topic in June 2014 in our article entitled “The Stock Market is Hitting New Highs: Now What?” Then we wrote “Is The Stock Market Over-Valued? (parts 1 and 2)” in June and July 2015. Now here we are in early 2017, and we’re still writing about all-time highs.
But March 2017 was the fifth consecutive month for which the U.S. stock market hit a new all-time high, and it was the twelfth time in the previous thirteen months. If you look back over the previous three-year period, about two-thirds of the months ended at an all-time high.
Is this recent flurry of new highs indicating that we may finally be due for a correction? Rather than speculate on an answer, we’ll allow the historical record to speak for itself.
[h=2]What Follows All-Time Highs[/h]We looked at the monthly data for the S&P 500 index’s returns back to 1940, which was the year Congress passed the landmark Investment Company Act of 1940, capping off a series of laws intended to protect investors from similar events as 1929’s great crash and ensuing decade-long depression.
The first new all-time high after 1940 came in January 1945, and there have been 867 months since then. In 295 of those 867 months, or 34%, a new all-time high was reached. Here is how the U.S. stock market performed following those 295 months:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
There are four columns in the graph above. The leftmost column shows the returns in the first twelve months following an all-time high. The highest twelve-month return after an all-time high was 47.4%, which happened from January 1954 to January 1955. The lowest twelve-month return was -36.1% and is still a fresh memory for most of us as it occurred from October 2007 to October 2008. Half of the twelve-month periods following an all-time high saw returns of at least 13.3%, which is shown by the gray dot indicating the median.
As the graph shows, the longer the time period, the lower the volatility for each metric. For example, the minimum annualized return for all the 3-year periods following an all-time high (-16.1%) is lower than the minimum for all the twelve-month periods (-36.1%), and the maximum annualized return for all the 5-year periods (+26.8%) is lower than the maximum for all the 3-year periods (+32.8%).
This implies that holding on for the long haul is the correct strategy for stocks, because the lowest return one would have experienced by buying at an all-time high and holding on for 10 years happened in March 1999. If an investor had bought into the market at that time, near the height of the Internet mania, and held on for 10 years, they would have found themselves in March 2009 at the very bottom of the recent Global Financial Crisis. Buying in at such an elevated level and holding on until such a depressed level still produced an annualized loss of just 3.0%.
In at least half the cases, buying at an all-time high and then holding on for 10 years would have produced a total annualized return of at least 10.9%. That’s nearly tripling your money in a decade, and that comes after buying in at an all-time high. Not too shabby.
Let’s look at one more stat related to these returns following all-time highs:
<tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 12.0012px;">
</tbody>source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
As we said earlier, there have been 295 months in which the S&P Total Return index hit a new high. Ten of those 295 have occurred in the last year, so we don’t yet know how those one-year returns will pan out. That leaves 285 instances, and we know that 55 of those 285 saw negative returns in the following year. That means that an investor would have lost money 19% of the time in the twelve-month period following an all-time high.
As you can see, the odds of experiencing a negative return go down for each successively longer holding period, which means that stocks can be a pretty good place to be invested for long time frames, even when those time frames begin at what were—at the time—all-time highs.
[h=2]What Follows Non-All-Time Highs[/h]The preceding analysis is all well and good, but we have so far only described how the market performs following all-time highs. We should look also at the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods following months that did not experience an all-time high. If those returns are appreciably higher than the ones we looked at above, then we should have an open-shut case against buying into the market at an all-time high.
Let’s do our analysis in reverse order. First, we’ll compare the numbers in the table immediately above to similar numbers for the months that did not see an all-time high:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
Two interesting points jump out from these four graphs. First, the percentage of non-all-time high months with negative returns is almost exactly the same as the percentage of all-time high months with negative returns. We confess that we would have expected the percentage to be much lower for the returns following non-all-time high months.
The second point is that the relationship does not hold across the board. While the 3-, 5-, and 10-year returns do have a lower chance of being negative, it’s actually more likely to have a negative return over the twelve months following a non-all-time high.
[h=2]All-Time Highs vs. Non-All-Time Highs[/h]Now let’s put the returns head-to-head. We’ll compare the returns following an all-time high against the returns following a non-all-time high:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
You’ll notice that the left column in each of these four charts was taken directly from the first graph up above. In three of the four charts, the minimum negative return is actually lower (i.e., the loss was smaller) following all-time highs, and the median returns are nearly identical whether they follow all-time high months or non-all-time high months.
The bottom line conclusion we take away from these four charts is: the stock market has nearly the same risk at its all-time highs as it does at any other time.
[h=2]What Now?[/h]Now for the payoff: what should we expect following the latest all-time high in March 2017? Will 2017 finally be the year in which U.S. stocks experience a bear market (that is, decline by at least 20%)? We have no idea.
Could stocks go down 20% or more? Yes. They very easily could.
Could they go up 20% instead? Again, yes. That's possible, too.
And we really don't know what will happen.
What we can say is that the historical record seems to indicate that investing in the stock market does not appear to be any riskier at the times when the market is hitting all-time highs than it is at other times. This is a surprising conclusion, to say the least, but it’s all right there in the data.
One important caveat, though: this analysis completely ignores every outside force acting on the stock market. Prevailing interest rates, expected GDP growth, valuation criteria, geopolitical activities, and many additional variables influence the stock market, and this analysis conveniently ignores all of them.
The market in 2017 is wholly unique in the condition of these external parameters, and therefore perhaps this analysis has no bearing whatsoever on what returns one may expect in the next decade. But if history is any guide, the best time to invest in the stock market may be akin to that old Chinese proverb about planting a tree.
The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today.
Felipe Garcia, CFA and Aaron Byrd, CFA are co-founders of Inkwell Capital LLC ([url]www.inkwellcapital.com[/URL]), a registered investment adviser which provides discretionary portfolio management services to individuals and institutions.
[/FONT]
[h=1]On Stock Market All-Time Highs and Planting Trees[/h][FONT="]by Felipe Garcia, CFA and Aaron Byrd, CFA[/FONT][FONT="]Two Plus Two Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 5[/FONT][FONT="]Can you believe it? The stock market ended March 2017 at another all-time high for the end of a month. The S&P 500 Total Return index stood at 4,538 on March 31, the highest it had ever been at month-end.
(As you may be aware, the S&P 500 index referenced on the nightly news was actually lower on March 31 than it was on February 28, but that oft-cited figure ignores the effect of dividends, which is why we prefer to focus our attention on the Total Return version of the index.)
We know we are probably beginning to sound a bit like a broken record (no pun intended), because we first started writing about this topic in June 2014 in our article entitled “The Stock Market is Hitting New Highs: Now What?” Then we wrote “Is The Stock Market Over-Valued? (parts 1 and 2)” in June and July 2015. Now here we are in early 2017, and we’re still writing about all-time highs.
But March 2017 was the fifth consecutive month for which the U.S. stock market hit a new all-time high, and it was the twelfth time in the previous thirteen months. If you look back over the previous three-year period, about two-thirds of the months ended at an all-time high.
Is this recent flurry of new highs indicating that we may finally be due for a correction? Rather than speculate on an answer, we’ll allow the historical record to speak for itself.
[h=2]What Follows All-Time Highs[/h]We looked at the monthly data for the S&P 500 index’s returns back to 1940, which was the year Congress passed the landmark Investment Company Act of 1940, capping off a series of laws intended to protect investors from similar events as 1929’s great crash and ensuing decade-long depression.
The first new all-time high after 1940 came in January 1945, and there have been 867 months since then. In 295 of those 867 months, or 34%, a new all-time high was reached. Here is how the U.S. stock market performed following those 295 months:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
There are four columns in the graph above. The leftmost column shows the returns in the first twelve months following an all-time high. The highest twelve-month return after an all-time high was 47.4%, which happened from January 1954 to January 1955. The lowest twelve-month return was -36.1% and is still a fresh memory for most of us as it occurred from October 2007 to October 2008. Half of the twelve-month periods following an all-time high saw returns of at least 13.3%, which is shown by the gray dot indicating the median.
As the graph shows, the longer the time period, the lower the volatility for each metric. For example, the minimum annualized return for all the 3-year periods following an all-time high (-16.1%) is lower than the minimum for all the twelve-month periods (-36.1%), and the maximum annualized return for all the 5-year periods (+26.8%) is lower than the maximum for all the 3-year periods (+32.8%).
This implies that holding on for the long haul is the correct strategy for stocks, because the lowest return one would have experienced by buying at an all-time high and holding on for 10 years happened in March 1999. If an investor had bought into the market at that time, near the height of the Internet mania, and held on for 10 years, they would have found themselves in March 2009 at the very bottom of the recent Global Financial Crisis. Buying in at such an elevated level and holding on until such a depressed level still produced an annualized loss of just 3.0%.
In at least half the cases, buying at an all-time high and then holding on for 10 years would have produced a total annualized return of at least 10.9%. That’s nearly tripling your money in a decade, and that comes after buying in at an all-time high. Not too shabby.
Let’s look at one more stat related to these returns following all-time highs:
1 Year | 3 Years | 5 Years | 10 Years | |
| Total Instances | 285 | 276 | 262 | 257 |
| Negative Returns | 55 | 36 | 21 | 10 |
| Negative % | 19% | 13% | 8% | 4% |
<tbody style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-size: 12.0012px;">
</tbody>
As you can see, the odds of experiencing a negative return go down for each successively longer holding period, which means that stocks can be a pretty good place to be invested for long time frames, even when those time frames begin at what were—at the time—all-time highs.
[h=2]What Follows Non-All-Time Highs[/h]The preceding analysis is all well and good, but we have so far only described how the market performs following all-time highs. We should look also at the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods following months that did not experience an all-time high. If those returns are appreciably higher than the ones we looked at above, then we should have an open-shut case against buying into the market at an all-time high.
Let’s do our analysis in reverse order. First, we’ll compare the numbers in the table immediately above to similar numbers for the months that did not see an all-time high:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
The second point is that the relationship does not hold across the board. While the 3-, 5-, and 10-year returns do have a lower chance of being negative, it’s actually more likely to have a negative return over the twelve months following a non-all-time high.
[h=2]All-Time Highs vs. Non-All-Time Highs[/h]Now let’s put the returns head-to-head. We’ll compare the returns following an all-time high against the returns following a non-all-time high:
source: Robert Shiller, Yahoo! Finance, MarketWatch, Inkwell analysis
The bottom line conclusion we take away from these four charts is: the stock market has nearly the same risk at its all-time highs as it does at any other time.
[h=2]What Now?[/h]Now for the payoff: what should we expect following the latest all-time high in March 2017? Will 2017 finally be the year in which U.S. stocks experience a bear market (that is, decline by at least 20%)? We have no idea.
Could stocks go down 20% or more? Yes. They very easily could.
Could they go up 20% instead? Again, yes. That's possible, too.
And we really don't know what will happen.
What we can say is that the historical record seems to indicate that investing in the stock market does not appear to be any riskier at the times when the market is hitting all-time highs than it is at other times. This is a surprising conclusion, to say the least, but it’s all right there in the data.
One important caveat, though: this analysis completely ignores every outside force acting on the stock market. Prevailing interest rates, expected GDP growth, valuation criteria, geopolitical activities, and many additional variables influence the stock market, and this analysis conveniently ignores all of them.
The market in 2017 is wholly unique in the condition of these external parameters, and therefore perhaps this analysis has no bearing whatsoever on what returns one may expect in the next decade. But if history is any guide, the best time to invest in the stock market may be akin to that old Chinese proverb about planting a tree.
The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is today.
Felipe Garcia, CFA and Aaron Byrd, CFA are co-founders of Inkwell Capital LLC ([url]www.inkwellcapital.com[/URL]), a registered investment adviser which provides discretionary portfolio management services to individuals and institutions.
[/FONT]
"This implies that holding on for the long haul is the correct strategy for stocks, because the lowest return one would have experienced by buying at an all-time high and holding on for 10 years happened in March 1999. If an investor had bought into the market at that time, near the height of the Internet mania, and held on for 10 years, they would have found themselves in March 2009 at the very bottom of the recent Global Financial Crisis. Buying in at such an elevated level and holding on until such a depressed level still produced an annualized loss of just 3.0%.
In at least half the cases, buying at an all-time high and then holding on for 10 years would have produced a total annualized return of at least 10.9%. That’s nearly tripling your money in a decade, and that comes after buying in at an all-time high. Not too shabby."
In at least half the cases, buying at an all-time high and then holding on for 10 years would have produced a total annualized return of at least 10.9%. That’s nearly tripling your money in a decade, and that comes after buying in at an all-time high. Not too shabby."
Idisagree
I disagree, I'm speaking from first hand experience. I've seen many people venture into trading, from doctors to lawyers to engineers to educators to IT professionals, I've seen young kids try it and I even had a couple of stockbrokers trading for a while. they all lost money, they all quit, a few of them lost a lot of money.
I actually believe some sports gamblers or table gamblers do better, not slots. I know sports gamblers who have had good winning years, I can't say that about active traders.
I would equate day trading to playing slot machines, the chance for success is just as good (read bad)
I agree that everyone that tries trading will lose at first. I also agree that most have zero chance to ever win in the future. But I couldn't disagree more with the slots comparison. Trading is the ULTIMATE game of skill in all of life, and it has very little to do with intelligence.
I think he just means most people shouldn't fuck with it, unless you wanna spend thousands of hours learning how. And even then, that's probably not the best use of those thousand hours.
Obviously tons of $ is made in trading, it just all flows to the top (hedge funds, HFT units in banks, prop shops, etc)
Obviously tons of $ is made in trading, it just all flows to the top (hedge funds, HFT units in banks, prop shops, etc)
I like history to help guide the future but to a certain degree it is like back testing a set of data in sports gambling. It is easy to find correlations that seem to predict the future. Reality is that it is not easy. Just like in sports gambling ....the world changes.
Dumb analogy. In football betting the home favorites on totals above 44 in the 70's. Say that was a good measure of picking 55% winners. The game and rules changed and now almost all of the totals are 44 or above and would no longer be valid.
The stock market is the same thing. It has become more global. To look back at the US stock market and look at how it did during probably the greatest growth the USA has seen or will ever see ....right after world war II and use that as a predictor of the future seems to have some flaws in the theory. If I read the article correctly taking a month that was an all time high was one event. So if February was a high and March was a high then the next 11 months of data count towards two of the highs.
I think more logical approach would be to look at value and outside factors which could result in a stock going up. Which the article did say. If the price to earnings ratio of the market 8 years ago was 10 and the historical average is 15. Then 8 years ago there was value. Doesn't mean it will go up. On the other hand if the P/E 8 years later is at 20 and above the historical average of 15 .... the little voice in your head should be saying watch out. Like sitting at a black jack table and just killing it and your $100 is now up to $3,000. You might want to think about putting some of those profits in your pocket and walking away. The run is not going to continue forever. The question would be is that stock that you bought with a P/E of 8 still a good value today with the current market conditions at 20 P/E?
I think the average guy is behind the 8 ball in investing because of data, resources, time and allot of other variables. Consistently saving and living under your means will be their best way to obtain wealth.
I agree and think there will be some sort of correction. I sold one of my biggest holdings and it is up 10% since I sold. Hate that but I still think a significant correction is coming. In the 20 to 30% range. So like the black jack table I grabbed my winnings and got up from the table.
Willie99 I totally disagree with your comments surrounding day trading. Perhaps the people you mention that you know doctors/lawyers, college kids had no experience and got their ass handed to them or you know the wrong people. However there are way more successful day traders (everyday joes) than there are successful sports bettors. We won't even talk about the professional day traders, you'd be amazed at what they do and how it's done.
To use the slot machine analogy to day trading is way off base. Slot Machines equates to true gambling, there's no way you can effect the outcome, you pull a handle or push a button and pray to win. Day traders that are worth their salt know how to manipulate the prices and they aren't looking for a jackpot. A few cents here, a few cents there. Hundreds turn to thousands turn to tens of thousands and on and on. It's a matter of not getting greedy.
Pigs eat but hogs go to the slaughter.
To use the slot machine analogy to day trading is way off base. Slot Machines equates to true gambling, there's no way you can effect the outcome, you pull a handle or push a button and pray to win. Day traders that are worth their salt know how to manipulate the prices and they aren't looking for a jackpot. A few cents here, a few cents there. Hundreds turn to thousands turn to tens of thousands and on and on. It's a matter of not getting greedy.
Pigs eat but hogs go to the slaughter.
I don't know the wrong people, I do know a lot if people. My post is about the first hand experience of an experienced man.
Having said that, you seem to have different experiences, I can respect that.
I believe some people may find success trading, but the overwhelming majority will not.
Having said that, you seem to have different experiences, I can respect that.
I believe some people may find success trading, but the overwhelming majority will not.
sincerely hope you didn't pull the trigger. Curious, not trying to be an ass-- why were you loving gold/silver for a run up? the chart? purely gut feeling?
GLD
1 yr daily
the precious metals follow technical analysis VERY WELL. This is gappign down, and gaps get filled. Patience as to wait for the bottom and hopefully get an end of the day attractive candlestick for an entry point, preferably waiting a day for confirmation. From mid-late Dec this up-leg has not been broken..BUT IT MUST NOT break 114. There's a small gap that it is destined to fill from march at around 116.75ish- once a gap fills, 80% of the time it reverses. Will be interesting to see the day's end volume- think it'll be ugly
France's election is may 7th. The first stage had Le Pen not win, the markets rejoiced. France's market was up over 4%!! Gold tanked. However, she is a close second. If she wins? logically, the markets to tank and Au to rejoice. Taking a position before May7th is , well, VERY VERY high risk.
the above rubbish is my 2-cents. GL
The EU likely lay in the balance; all done in France.......Le Pen, the populist nationalist got slaughtered . Takin' to the woodshed. France follows Holland.
Europe markets shall continue with positive momentum. ytd they are comfortably beating N American markets. Looks like the beating in precious metals already priced in Macron's win.
tomorrow's candlestick on gld, slv is a must 3:45 pm watch...
VIX
decade, monthly
the VIX is a leading indicator, negatively correlated with the S&P. It is forming a DECADE low
here's is its 3 month dailly
the VIX always fills its gap. Matter of time.
Europe markets shall continue with positive momentum. ytd they are comfortably beating N American markets. Looks like the beating in precious metals already priced in Macron's win.
tomorrow's candlestick on gld, slv is a must 3:45 pm watch...
VIX
decade, monthly
the VIX is a leading indicator, negatively correlated with the S&P. It is forming a DECADE low
here's is its 3 month dailly
the VIX always fills its gap. Matter of time.
