Going Long Volatility – Puts Vs Calls

As anyone who knows me knows, I’m a premium collector.  I primarily sell options short to collect their premium.  I also try to place directional plays when I do it.  Together, this means that the majority of my profits are from theta decay (premium) and delta (direction).

Because puts typically have higher premiums than calls, premium collectors tend to sell more puts.  When possible, we sell naked puts to maximize profits and the probability of profit by having a lower break-even point than if we sold verticals.

Thus, to play a rise in volatility, I waited for a rally to bring [stock_quote symbol=”UVXY”] below $26.  That happened yesterday.  On that trade, I hope to collect 75% of max profit for a 12% ROC in two weeks.

Being in a margin account, my maintenance requirement was lower than in a cash secured IRA.  In the IRA, even with max profit, the ROC is only 8.3% due to the increased capital requirement.  Note that being a 2x ETF, this has twice the maintenance requirement in a margin account that a 1x or stock.

So, when a friend said he was looking for a way to benefit from the rise of UVXY, while still enjoying the lower break-even point of the naked puts strategy, but with lower capital requirements, I came up with another call based strategy that uses a fraction of the capital to have nearly the same risk/reward profile.  Like short puts, your max profit is primarily derived from premium.

This strategy is especially beneficial in UVXY, because unlike most underlyings, long volatility derivatives tend to have more premium on the call side.  This is because many people are betting on volatility taking off when it is relatively low.  In August, for instance, UVXY spiked to $91.  Two weeks ago, it hit $43.  It was in the 20s before each of these spikes.  (Keep in mind, that due to contango loss, UVXY tends to lose 5% of its value each month, typically when the market is bullish.  Do not presume that the 20s will always be a good buy price, or that you can just hold it long-term.  UVXY is a terrible buy and hold, especially in a bull market like 2013.)

The key to this call strategy is understanding delta.  Delta is the amount an option is expected to change in value when its underlying changes by $1.  This value can range from 0 to 1. Far out-of-the-money (OTM) options approach 0.  Deep in-the-money options can have a delta at or near 1.  At-the-money options typically have a delta near 0.5.

It is also important to understand that premium is highest at-the-money.  An option with a delta of 1 has no significant premium, and acts like the stock.  Thus, if the stock goes up $1, the price of this option will typically go up $1.  This alone is a huge advantage in an IRA, as you can buy a delta 1 call to go long the stock at a fraction of the cost of buying the stock, while still having the same gain/loss as owning the stock.  Also, in an IRA, you can buy a delta 1 put, which has the same effect as shorting the stock, even though you can’t otherwise short stocks in an IRA.  Delta 1 options, in addition to using less capital than owning the underlying, have built-in loss protection.  You cannot lose more than the cost of the option.

Currently, UVXY is $26.80, and the strike 19 January call (expires in 16 days) has a delta near 1.  It’s bid/ask is 7.35/8.20.    Its intrinsic value is 7.80 (current price of UVXY minus the strike), which is right between the bid and ask.  This option has no premium, as its price is 100% intrinsic value.  Thus, you do not have to worry about time decay on this option, a normal con to buying options.

Buying this call requires 32.5% of the capital of buying the stock on a cash basis (no margin).  This alone provides an avenue to leverage in your IRA.  This synthesizes buying the stock, then buying a put at 19 to protect from loss, but without the cost of buying a put.  In UVXY, this isn’t that important today as we don’t expect UVXY to see $19 in the next 16 days.  In other stocks that could drop on news or a flash crash, this is an important benefit.

But, just buying the call doesn’t match the short put strategy with a lower cost basis.  If UVXY goes down $1 to $25.80, you are down $100 on 1 contract, the same as if you owned 100 shares.   This is purely directional with no collecting of premium.  So, how do you convert this to simulate a short put?

Simple, you create a long vertical spread by also selling a call nearer to the money, with a delta closer to 0.5.  Let’s consider selling a strike 25 call, currently trading for 3.80/3.90.

There’s one catch.  The vertical has a wide bid/ask spread and it’s hard to get the mid price on this because of the delta 1 option, as market makers only profit from the difference in the buy and sell prices for these options.  I was able to get a fill between the mid price and the ask on the vertical, or 75% between the bid/ask. When I put this in, I got a mid of 3.93, and a NAT or ask price of 4.40.  So, for the purposes of our analysis, we’ll consider obtaining this vertical for $4.15.  This means it will cost us $415 to buy this spread, and this is the most we can lose.  In order to lose $415, UVXY would have to be below $19 at expiration, which is very unlikely to happen in 16 days since it is tied to VIX futures.  In fact, unlike owning a stock, if UVXY did go to $19, but had, let’s say, 1 week to expire, being ATM, that option would have a premium and a delta of 0.50, meaning it still wouldn’t be worthless, yet.

The delta on the 25 strike is currently .65, above .5 because it is in-the-money.  Yet, because this is still near the money, it has a nice premium.  That premium is the difference between the strikes, and what we are paying for the spread.  In other words, the spread is 25 minus 19, or $6.  Yet, we are only paying $4.15.  This gives us a $1.85 premium on this spread.  That is our max profit.

Note that unlike naked puts, where we usually sell OTM options, we’re OK with this being ITM.  In fact, that lowers our break even point.  Our break even point is the strike of the short call, 25, minus the $1.85 premium, giving us a break even of $23.15.  Put differently, it is the lower strike plus what we pay for the vertical, $19 plus $4.15.  With UVXY at $26.80, this is still $3.65 below the current price of UVXY.  We can collect max profit if UVXY expires above our short call, or above $25, but can still potentially make a profit if UVXY is between $23.15 and $25.

You can see that this emulates selling a put with a strike of $25 for a premium of $1.85.  Currently, this put is selling for $2.10.  Thus, with the call spread, due to the lower premium, our break even is 0.25 higher than it would be with the put.  This gives the put a slightly higher probability of profit.  But, still, this difference is very small, and the capital requirement of $415 is much lower than the $2500 that would be required on a cash secured put.  Even with a margin account, where the maintenance requirement might be closer to $1600, $415 is still going to be a lot lower.

Because of the lower capital requirement, the return on capital (ROC) of this position if you make max profit is a whopping 44.5% in 16 days!  Even if you close this at 50-75% max profit, this is still a huge ROC, and might even be higher on a per day or annualized basis if you can close it quickly.

This only works because the long call has a delta of 1 and does not require you to pay a premium, while the short call pays a nice premium.  This means you collect premium on the short call, but don’t have to pay premium on the long call.  While this benefits from UVXY going up, you technically just need for it to stay where it is, above $25.  But, the higher UVXY goes, the quicker that extrinsic value of the short option disappears, permitting you to take profits sooner if your target is 50-90% max profit.

Because you are short an ITM option, you typically do not want to hold this to expiration.  Definitely close it at least a few days before expiration if UVXY is above 25, putting the short option ITM.  Only if it is OTM, that is UVXY falls below 25, does letting it expire worthless become an option.  This is ironically the opposite of a short put, where you could consider letting the put expire worthless if UVXY is above 25.

Typically, being short options ITM is not desired.  But, this one is covered by your long option being further ITM.  In other words, you could exercise your 19 call in order to provide the stock if the 25 call was exercised.  In this scenario, you are paying $1900 for stock you are immediately selling for $2500. That is why this position is relatively safe despite the ITM short call.

You can close the vertical by selling it, just like you opened it by buying it.  If you need to close the legs separately, always close the short call before closing the long call.  Otherwise, you’ll have a naked call.  If your broker has a ticket charge, you’ll save money closing it together in one order, as a vertical is typically treated as one order, and thus incurring only one ticket charge.

A scenario where you might close the short side without immediately closing the long side is if UVXY came down a lot, let’s say to $23, and the short call got cheap.  If you wanted to hold out in hopes that UVXY went up before expiration, you might buy back the short call, then let the long call ride on its own, hopefully going up.  If UVXY then jumps to over $25, your profit will likely be greater than the $1.85 max profit you originally calculated because you won’t suffer the loss of the short call then jumping back up in price as UVXY rises, nor will your profit be limited at that point.  One of the great things about options is it can be easy to turn a loser into a winner by adjusting the position when the opportunity presents itself.

To help you calculate the cost/risk, potential return on capital (ROC), and the break even price of the underlying, I created this Google spreadsheet.  Simply make a copy of the spreadsheet so you can edit it, and enter the strikes of the vertical, as well as the cost to purchase the vertical in the 3 yellow boxes.  It then calculates the rest.

To estimate the cost of a vertical, use your broker’s order system to create the order, then see what the estimate is.  You don’t actually have to place the order.

For instance, using TD Ameritrade’s Think or Swim (ToS) platform, you can see that it presents a mid price of 4.38, and a Nat (ask) price of 5.25.  Because this includes a delta 1 option, to ensure this gets filled, as mentioned earlier, I’d estimate this to be between these two numbers, or $4.85.  When I actually place it, I might try raise it a nickel at a time until it was filled, to try to get filled at the best price.  Note that this screenshot is after hours, so the spread is wider than it was during the regular trading hours (RTH).

Screenshot from 2015-12-30 18-10-28In this case, the values I’d enter in the spreadsheet would be 19, 25 and 4.85.

I originally estimated this trade earlier in the day before UVXY went up significantly.  You can see in row 2 of the table below that the ROC was nearly twice as high then at 42.86%, had a lower break even of 23.2, a higher max profit, all due to a lower cost.  After market close, that ROC was reduced to 23.71% (row 4).

Long Strike Short Strike Cost Risk Max Profit ROC Break Even
19 24 3.7 $370.00 $130.00 35.14% 22.7 Earlier
19 25 4.2 $420.00 $180.00 42.86% 23.2 Earlier
19 26 4.6 $460.00 $240.00 52.17% 23.6 Earlier
19 25 4.85 $485.00 $115.00 23.71% 23.85 After market close
Posted in Investing, Trading | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

July Nasdaq High Becomes POC

In yesterday’s blog post, I mentioned two points to watch on the Nasdaq 100 futures (/NQ), the blue downtrend line, and the yellow July high.  After it initially bounced off the trend-line, it made a 2nd attempt and pierced it.  Then, naturally, nothing was going to stop it from hitting the July high, with nothing in its way.

Consequently, nothing flew higher yesterday than the Nasdaq.  As its 100 cash index, the NDX, gained 1.51% yesterday, the S&P only gained 1.06%, and the Russell 2000 managed to pull off a 1.07% gain despite being up only 0% around noon.

Looking closely at this chart going back to the 17th, with each candle an hour, you can see how it just raced to the July high after it cleared the trend-line.  Once there, it slowed its ascent, only to finally gravitate back down to it, bouncing on it in after hours.  Europe managed to pull it down below it some, only to let it bounce back up over it.  This yellow line is acting like a magnet right now for the /NQ.  Generally, we refer to these magnets as Points of Control (POC), where the bulls and the bears battle fiercely for who will run with the flag next.

Nasdaq 100 futures - Hourly cancles

Nasdaq 100 futures – Hourly cancles

This chart includes the Dec 17th high, so you can see how it created the blue trend-line and how it barely missed the yellow July high.

Note that oil dropped around 5pm yesterday on an inventories report by the API, and remains lower as I post, off about $1 after reaching 37.9.  This could help put a damper on stock prices today.

The million dollar question today is will the Nasdaq 100 race higher towards its previous all-time highs, currently 4739.75 on NDX set 12/2, or will it drop lower, losing this support.  It’s all time high is only 1.04% above its close yesterday, so it is certainly within striking distance.

To put it in perspective, here is the big picture daily chart for the past year of the Nasdaq 100 futures.

Nasdaq 100 Futures - 1 Year Daily

Nasdaq 100 Futures – 1 Year Daily

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

Nasdaq Approaching Trend Line

The Nasdaq 100 futures (/NQ) is approaching a downward trendline.  Given recent lower highs, and the bearish environment today, there is a decent probability that this could reverse to send the Nasdaq down.

On this hourly chart, the beginning of the blue trendline begins 12/7.  In its middle is the peak on 12/17, where it quickly tumbled down.

Nasdaq 100 futures approaching trend-line.

Nasdaq 100 futures approaching trend-line.

Note that the yellow line it approached on 12/17 was its July high, a price line it seemed to ignore in November and the beginning of December, but has recently appeared to matter.  I have treated the points when it went above this line as “look-and-fail” rather than an outright breaking of it, which looks especially true when you consider its repeatedly large drop afterwards.

The bottom line is that today looks like a potential short market entry point.  I personally plan to accomplish this by going long volatility via UVXY options.

To provide some perspective, here is the 1 year chart of the /NQ.  You can see the same blue trend-line, and the yellow price line.

Nasdaq 100 Futures (/NQ) 1 year daily cahrt

Nasdaq 100 Futures (/NQ) 1 year daily cahrt

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

Sector Analysis – December 2015

Not a lot has changed fundamentally since the last sector analysis.  The cyclical flight to safety continues.  It has been hard to discern on the daily charts with the noise created by the interest rate hike via December sector changes.

A few key points outside the sectors to remember.  The Russell has continued to underperform this year.  That alone is a huge sign of a flight to safety, as the Russell is largely small cap growth, whereas the other major indices have more dividend paying recession proof large caps.  Gold has been turning its bottom into a cup, with a lift the past week in the gold miners following last week’s lift in gold.

The first big cyclical shift to safety is typical from risky stocks to less risky recession proof stocks.  Despite the rally this week, we did see a relative weakening of the tech giants.  Apple was down significantly two weeks in a row, and barely up this past week.  Google didn’t do much better.  Netflix was down all three weeks.  Ditto for Priceline.

S&P 500 Sectors - 3 Years - Weekly

S&P 500 Sectors – 3 Years – Weekly

All sectors were up this week, with Consumer Discretionary and Telecom, two “safety” sectors, performing exceptionally well, maintaining their uptrends.  Healthcare, still battered from its highs of the year, has been on a continued uptrend too.  The others that did well appear, more or less, to of recovered some of their recent losses, rather than showing continued uptrends.

Sectors that looked good this week, but are still showing a trend of lower highs on the weekly charts, include Energy, Materials, Industrials, Consumer Discretionary (still hasn’t broken long-term uptrend, yet, though), Financials, and, just beginning to break its uptrend, Information Technology.  Having 6 of the 10 S&P 500 sectors looking bearish on the weekly is consistent with the continued beginning of a bearish market, particularly since they are not the safety sectors.

A quick zoom into the chart, where each bar is still a week, shows the recent trends better.  View the previous chart to see which sector each chart is.

S&P 500 Sectors - Zoomed Weekly bars

S&P 500 Sectors – Zoomed Weekly bars

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

SEC Proposal Impairs Retails Investor Opportunity

ETFs, for the first time in history, created opportunity for retail investors that has, in many ways, leveled the playing field between them and large institutions.  Individual investors, with a simple purchase, like a stock, can hedge their portfolios to reduce market risk, benefit from opportunities in investment classes such as commodities or sectors, and otherwise choose a lower-cost alternative to traditional funds.

Leveraged funds permit an investor to allocate and risk a smaller portion of their portfolio.  By investing 5% of a portfolio to 3x ETFs, for example, an investor can allocate the other 95%, instead of 85%, towards other investments, creating a diverse approach to help weather the cycles in the market.

Now, the SEC, claiming to be protecting the consumer, threatens to remove this new tool from the retail investor.  As they exist today, many leveraged 2x and 3x ETFs will not be able to operate under the new rules if they are passed when the SEC votes in March.

To be sure, on the surface, the SEC goal looks noble.  By the wording of the proposal, it appears that it is trying to ensure that redemptions are protected in the unusual event their is a rapid withdrawal.   The only problem isn’t what the SEC is claiming to be trying to achieve, but how.

It has chosen to use a big net in a near admission that it does not understand the complexity of the derivatives markets.  The center of its proposal relies on cash accounting and current market value, instead of understanding the ability to build time-based safety into funds using the very tools the SEC is proposing to limit.

For instance, funds using near-term options could have a portion of the cash tied up until expiration of the contracts.  Liquidating at market value in certain volatile circumstances could prematurely decrease the net asset value of the fund.  However, a simple remedy that this SEC proposal prevents is including emergency redemption limits that simply permit these options to expire.  For short-term contract funds, this might impose a 30-60 day dilution limit to ensure that highest market value of the net assets; and, this redemption limitation would only be invoked in an emergency.  The prospectus should, of course, be required to make such scenarios clear, including how NAV is determined when a withdrawal request is made.

Yet, while this market driven solution could create the best-case scenario for investors, permitting them to take the risk of the leveraged fund, with the hope of maximum redemption value in the worst case crisis scenario with the trade-off that they might have to wait for redemptions for a short period of time, the SEC has chosen to limit the options of the fund to prevent this possibility.  In short, it will limit profit and hedging opportunities of retail customers in order to reduce the redemption time period in the case of dilution or rapid withdrawals.

The leaning of the SEC proposal towards cash and market value also precludes certain hedging opportunities the funds could take to protect the fund, hedging which technically increases total nominal exposure relative to cash, despite it being a hedge that protects the fund better than cash.  For instance, a fund might decide to use far out-of-the-money (OTM) option contracts with an underlying that has a negative correlation to the primary underlying to protect the fund from extremes.  Yet, this type of healthy hedging could be prevented due to the method of accounting that the SEC is proposing.  The SEC’s over-simplistic view of cash and current market value does not consider true stress testing scenarios and protection capabilities uniquely available in the derivatives markets.

In an era where an individual investor can use tools to beta-weight their portfolio to see how it will perform when the S&P 500 changes, you’d think the SEC could propose better stress testing than simply limiting notional value relative to cash and equivalents.  Does a gold fund really need to worry about gold becoming worthless overnight?  How does comparing the notional value of its gold exposure to its cash holdings really help?

What does matter with any notional exposure is the degree it can change, and whether a hedge is needed to handle extremes in its range.  If we are worried about the risks of being heavily weighted against the S&P 500, for instance, we can reduce that risk better by investing in something that will likely have a negative correlation to the S&P, and can do that best through leverage.  A high notional exposure to gold and volatility contracts can have a far greater risk reducing benefit for S&P 500 exposure than simply having a lot of underutilized cash available.  Where in the SEC proposal does it provide the opportunity for this type of protective hedging?

The real issue here is that if the derivative based funds use derivatives to diversify and protect their net asset value, they could have less liquidity in the short-term due to the need to permit contracts to either reach a desired market value or expire.  Yet, this is only limited by the length of their stated contracts, typically 30-60 days.  This is further reduced by the degree to which their hedge increases in market value relative to the decrease in market value of their primary investments.  In the case of volatility futures and options, their market value rises in sync with a rapid drop in S&P market value, thus providing much better NAV protection than cash.

Of course, hedging has a cost, notably in good times, when the fund’s primary investment strategy is working.  This cost would have to be considered, and like any, publicized in the prospectus.

The SEC should not pass this new proposed set of rules limiting leveraged funds as it is currently worded.  Rather, in the short-term, it should focus on investor education, improving prospectus reporting, and working with the markets to develop better stress protection using the free markets themselves to provide the solutions.  Then, when the SEC has demonstrated a competence for understanding the derivatives markets it is proposing to regulate, maybe then it can create rules that permit market based solutions instead of basic accounting concepts.  This would protect consumers in good times and bad, permitting them to make profits and hedge their portfolios with robust tools, while also permitting them to obtain the best possible redemption value should a crisis emerge.

Let the SEC know there is a better way that does not require crippling individual investors by commenting here on IC-31933 (S7-24-15), posted December 11th, titled Use of Derivatives by Registered Investment Companies and Business Development Companies.


Note that on 12/27, when I tried to submit a comment, I received this response from their server:

Access Denied

You don’t have permission to access “http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments” on this server.

Reference #18.b5a13d42.1451195263.421291e1

Also, this rule is missing when searching regulations.gov for open proposed rules.

Was able to get comment submitted by saving to a TXT file, entering “Comments attached” in the box, then attaching on the next screen.

You can view comments that miraculously made it through here.

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

Did Junk Bonds Tank The Market?

The news came out yesterday that a Third Avenue fund was liquidating, and putting a halt on redemption, locking up the deposits investors put in the fund, possibly for months.  Being important news, and possibly the only really bad news event to come out yesterday, it is only natural that people attribute the 300 point decline in the Dow to this.

The news didn’t come out until 12:30pm, though.  If you read yesterday’s early morning post, Volatility Spiking Ahead of FOMC, you knew that the market was already in a downward pattern before the market opened, and well before the Third Avenue news hit the streets.

So, how did the volatility do before 12:30?  Just look at this chart, where you see it rapidly climbing all morning.

2015-12-12-VIX-1m

VIX futures. Each tick is a minute. Hours are on the X axis.

While the news certainly gave it a lift, it was on an uptrend prior to that, and continued the same uptrend after that news gave it a spike.

Similarly, the S&P futures show a continued downtrend all morning, with virtually no change in the trajectory between 12 and 1.

2015-12-12-ES-1m

S&P 500 futures (/ES). Each tick is 1 minute. Hours are on X-axis.

The news can present a distorted view of why the market does what it does.  While the failure of junk bonds is a very important indicator of things ahead, understanding that there are larger forces here that trump a single news event is important for understanding the bigger trend the market is on.

What does correlate well with the rise in volatility is a corresponding drop in the price of oil.  While it would be nice for the price of oil if production decreased, the bigger issue here isn’t production, which has been relatively flat this year.  In supply and demand, when supply doesn’t change, but price goes down, what did change?  The only possibility is a drop in demand.  The drop in the price of oil is an indicator of a rapid drop in demand.

2015-12-12-CL-1m

Light Sweet Crude Oil Futures. Each tick is 1 minute. Hours on X-axis.

On top of oil and other industrial commodities being the canary in the mine, their drop is also part of the reason there are other dominos falling, such as junk bonds, as oil and other commodity producers who cannot pay their debts are on the rise.

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

Volatility Spiking Ahead of FOMC

As the market approaches the historic day next week when the FOMC decides whether to raise interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade, the market is heating up with volatility.  To put the VIX (or /VX for futures) in perspective, I included summer’s low and August’s high.

Screenshot from 2015-12-11 06-16-46

This morning’s rise in volatility is being helped along by a retest of recent lows by the market indices.  You can see the current drop in the Nasdaq 100 futures:

Screenshot from 2015-12-11 06-18-48

If those recent lows hold, look for a nice bounce in morning trading. Otherwise, it could continue to 11/16 lows. In this latter case, it could take days to get there, and perhaps bounce back up before reaching it.

 

 

 

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

The Weekly Dose – Pre-recession Cyclical Rally?

One of the early signs of a recession is a flight to relative safety by big money. When large fund managers want to continue to be in equities, yet want to be on solid ground in case the market tanks or a recession hits, they move from higher risk small cap growth towards large cap companies that have lots of revenue, cash, dividends and ideally growth.  These days, in addition to consumer staples, this large cap basket includes technology driven companies that are clear leaders in growing markets, such as Amazon [stock_quote symbol=”AMZN”], Facebook [stock_quote symbol=”FB”], Google [stock_quote symbol=”GOOG”] and Netflix [stock_quote symbol=”NFLX”].

With the Dow Jones [stock_quote symbol=”INDEXDJX:.DJI”] just surging 370 points yesterday and Amazon, Google, Netflix, Facebook and other companies hitting new all-time highs this week, how can this be anything but an unstoppable bull market?  Despite the lofty rally, let’s not lose sight that the DJIA just inched yesterday into positive territory for 2015.  This was after 6 years of stellar growth.

DJIA Flat in 2015Historically, consumer staples has been a leading sector when this cyclical flight to safety begins, as it is presumed that even in a recession, consumers need their bread and Pepsi [stock_quote symbol=”PEP”].  Thus, it is no surprise that has been one of the strongest this month, along with a big run up for Telecom, another safe sector.

Sector Charts

S&P 500 Sectors – 1 Month Daily – Dec 5, 2015

The obvious victim is Energy, due to falling oil prices.  The drop in commodities has been a very strong sign of slowing global growth; but, at least with oil, this could be partially explained with an increase in production in recent years.

Of notable optimism has been the Information Technology sector.  But, is this another tech run like 2000?  Or is this the result of large technology companies becoming the new consumer staples?  Can you live without Google and Netflix?  Indeed, they do seem to have found a sweet spot of being technology, growth and consumer staples.  This is one explanation of a decades old company like Amazon having a P/E ratio near 1000, albeit not the only possible reason.

The real evidence this rally is a cyclical shift away from small cap risk rather than an all out bull market, however, is in what didn’t do nearly as well yesterday, or this past month.  Comparing the heavy weight indices — the DJI and Nasdaq, with the mid and small cap filed Russel 2000 and Microcaps [stock_quote symbol=”IWC”] reveals the love has not been broadly received.

2015-12-05-TOS_CHARTS-Indices-1mDTo put it in perspective, here is how the tech leaders and indices performed yesterday and for the week:

Symbol Nov 27 Thu Fri All Time High Week 1 Day From High
Nasdaq NDX 4680 4607 4716 4716 -1.56% 2.37% 0.00%
Dow Jones DJI 17798 17478 17848 18133 -1.80% 2.12% -1.57%
S&P 500 SPX 2090 2050 2092 2107 -1.91% 2.05% -0.71%
Russel 2000 RUT 1202 1171 1184 1254 -2.58% 1.11% -5.58%
Micro Caps IWC 76.55 74.86 75.31 81.53 -2.21% 0.60% -7.63%
Netflix NFLX 125.44 126.81 130.93 130.93 1.09% 3.25% 0.00%
Google GOOG 750.26 752.54 766.81 766.81 0.30% 1.90% 0.00%
Amazon AMZN 673.26 666.25 672.64 672.64 -1.04% 0.96% 0.00%

With a combined market cap of nearly 1 trillion dollars, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Netflix took the Nasdaq to a new high this week, as they themselves hit new highs.  As we can see with the Russel 2000, down 5.58% from its high, this is not a broad rally.  Microcaps are down 7.63%, near correction territory.  Traditional growth companies are being left behind.  Combined with the performance of consumer staples, this is looking like a pre-recession cyclical rally.

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

All S&P 500 Sectors Down For Week

You can see from the last 5 daily ticks on the these charts that all 10 Sectors were down last week.

2015-11-16-Sectors-1mD

All sectors down for week (1 month daily charts)

Up until now, consumers were expected to hold the US economy up.  The lack of upwind in retail threw heavy doubts on that hope.  Some are hopeful that the poor performance in brick-and-mortar retails is largely due to the shift towards the online economy.  Internet retailers such as Ebay and Amazon have certainly performed well this year.

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment

S&P 500 Breaks Two Supports

A couple of days ago, concerned about the reversal pattern on the S&P 500, I drew 2 support lines and a resistance line at the top.  The first support is at 2060.  The 2nd one, because it was a more critical longer-term support going back to March, I displayed its value of 2015.

2015-11-13-TOS_CHARTS_beforeDaily

S&P Supports and Resistance – November 10, 2015

Yesterday morning, we watched the first support become breached in pre-market trading around 9 AM.  You can see how clearly the S&P recognizes this line, as it bounces back against it as its new resistance.  It then pops it, giving hope to the bulls, only to come back down one last time before beginning its trail towards the next more significant support.

2015-11-13-TOS_CHARTS_2b

S&P 500 Supports Broken

You can see that today, the 2015 support was repeatedly tested during the last 2 hours of regular trading hours (RTH), each time with a lower high.  This is a clear sign the support is about to be breached.  Then, the bell rang with the bulls able to take a sigh of relief that they protected the flag.

The bulls were too quick to celebrate the end of the week, though.  Just as the first support was violated in yesterday’s pre-market trading, the bears took advantage of the extra hour of futures trading. The breach of the critical support occurred in the /ESZ5 at 4:50 PM.

2015-11-13-TOS_CHARTS_1min-2nd-breach

Bears Capture The Flag

While the bulls ran to the pub at 4pm to celebrate protecting the 2nd support and begin the weekend, the bears hung around to win this week’s round and position the S&P for a very bearish looking time.

 

 

 

Posted in Investing | Leave a comment