Home » Most Recent Stories, Strategy Lab

THREE REASONS WE’VE SEEN THE MARKET BOTTOM

30 May 2010 by Cullen Roche 9 Comments

JP Morgan thinks we’ve seen the market bottom.  They cite three different factors that lead them to believe this:

1. Analysis Paralysis: Proxy for Buy-Side Capitulation. For the first time since the correction started (April 23rd), we saw demonstrable “analysis paralysis” from our clients. That is, despite rationally saying valuations are attractive, they were unable to find any stocks they were willing to buy at any price.

2. AAII Diffusion Index (% Bulls less % Bears) fell into negative territory. This fell to -21% this week, reflecting a broad-based decrease in investor confidence. As shown in Figure 1 below, a push into negative territory is historically associated with past correction lows.

3. In past intraday Crashes (a la 5/6’s “Flash Crash”) markets stabilize average 30 days later. It has been 21 days since the intraday decline of 9%. Since 1900, in the 6 prior instances of 9%-plus intraday crashes, markets tend to bottom by day 32.

Source: WSJ

Disclosures - Unless otherwise noted, authors have no positions in any securities mentioned and readers should never consider this to be investment advice. Always consult your financial advisor before acting on any ideas. Comments Guideline - Readers who denigrate authors or other readers will be banned without warning. This site does not tolerate any sort of reader abuse. The goal of this site is to create an environment that is conducive to learning and better understanding of the monetary system and the investment world. We expect readers to behave maturely and responsibly. We welcome and encourage intense and intelligent discourse, but the site adheres to a strict 1 strike policy. While it is your right to speak freely, it is not your right to behave childishly. Above all else, please enjoy the site. It is intended to be used as an educational tool and we hope the intelligent and mature debate will further that purpose. We hope readers will make an effort to respect that goal. Comments with excessive linking or foul language will be moderated before posting.
Comments
  • brian

    I can’t believe this is the kind of commentary investors gets from supposedly smart bankers over at JP Morgan. The above info is nothing but gobbledygook that passes for analysis these days.

    The problem with most analysis is even if they get the earnings projection correct it says nothing about what kind of multiple that investors are willing to place on those earnings.

    Historically, the earnings multiple ranges from 10 to 20 which means that even if the S&P500 earns $90 next year the market valuation spread is 900 to 1800. Although it seems that now that we are at 1090 the market may seem cheap, there is no guarantee that future stockholders will be willing to mean revert the multiple upward and let current stockholders profit by unloading their shares to them in the future at that higher price.

  • Steve

    Old Chinese proverb say: People who pick bottoms get smelly fingers

    • Cabaret Voltaire

      Alright… June 23rd is The Bottom.

      The market will drop fast, so don’t blink.

  • I wonder if anyone ever reads these strategy reports.Some of the data/facts they collect is sometimes interesting but interpretation are generally not worth the paper they are written on . 99% of the times the commentary is bullishly biased.
    http://Greenworldinvestor.com

  • If analyst knew they would not be Analyst.
    I love to look at past predictions. Same people still predicting.
    Most big moves have not been predicted.

  • AWF

    The Banks ability to conduct business (Lending) is based on the collateral it has on hand.

    Cosequently the Banks are the “Best Source” of Positive comments one can find.

    If I owned an “Underwater Bank” I would be talking up my collateral

    There would be a “Bottom in the Markets” Daily

    Ask yourself “Why did the Banks need a “Bailout”?

  • Re: ” In past intraday Crashes (a la 5/6’s “Flash Crash”) markets stabilize average 30 days later. It has been 21 days since the intraday decline of 9%. Since 1900, in the 6 prior instances of 9%-plus intraday crashes, markets tend to bottom by day 32.”

    It really irks me when analysts put out stats with subjective comments like this; “stabilized”. What does that mean?

    I have this data, and running a quick check cannot find where or how they came up with such a conclusion. Obviously the 9% is data mined. There are a number of 8.80 to 8.90% that contradict their conclusion. They are obviously and possibly intentionally misleading.

    Consider these (recent) days with powerful intra-day declines and the market performance over 30 calendar days

    09/29/ 2008: -8.8% intra-day Market 23.72% next 30 days
    10/06/2008 : -8.8% intra-day Market down 13.46% next 30 days
    10/15/2008: -9.40% intra-day Market down 8.76% next 30 days

    Other than the above cluster, there is October, 1987 that had a large intra-day swing, the rest are all pre 1960. I consider the market to be too mechanically different then to be directly comparable to now. But still question their conclusion.

    Sadly, there have been other popular abuses of stats lately that have made the press (including WSJ front page). Caveat Emptor

  • Noone knows where the bottom is and it does not even matter. YOu can trade your way to the top or the bottom. etf-gold-stocks.com