What A Strong Reaction To The Fed Could Lead To

Last month I presented historical returns following days when there was a strong reaction (+1%) to a Fed (pictured at right) announcement. The results showed that the positive reaction was typically short-lived. Another highly anticipated Fed announcement is due tomorrow. Tonight I thought I’d present historical returns following a disappointment (just in case).



As you can see, a strongly negative reaction to a Fed announcement has typically been followed by a very positive next two weeks. So…if the Fed does something the market “likes” it will go up tomorrow, but over the next two weeks returns will likely be disappointing. If the Fed disappoints the market tomorrow we’ll see afternoon weakness. This disappointment could lead to a nice rise over the next two weeks. So the bulls should want the Fed to upset them tomorrow, and the bears should hope for a short-covering rally.

I find these tendencies to be quite interesting. My untested (as of yet) theory on why this occurs is that “good” news normally will come in the form of a rate cut or other stimulus. This kind of good news happens during times of economic and market weakness and the improvement for both can take time. “Bad” or “disappointing” news many times will come in the form of tightening. The Fed tightens normally when the economy and markets are strong. Just as they can’t fix it in a day, they can’t break it in a day either. Their “bad” decision won’t derail a rally right away and the market will typically continue to trudge higher for a while.

Whatever the reason, the point to remember is this: Don’t get too caught up in the reaction to the Fed tomorrow. The move likely won’t last longer than a day or two before reversing itself.

Edit note: Test was run back to 1982.

Bearish Bar But Fed Looming

Last week I showed how very low volume in a short-term uptrend is a negative. It happened again today along with some other action that hasn’t been constructive historically. Here’s a quick look at what happens when several negative all come together:

For those who would like to review the previous instances they were 6/2/94, 11/6/00, 11/13/01, 10/28/02, 11/29/02.

You don’t want to read too much into just 5 instances, but the formation has been quite bearish in the past. Of course as I mentioned last night, the Fed announcement Wednesday will likely have a larger influence on short-term direction than historical precedents.

Ten High Straight Up

I’ve previously discussed some of the findings in Larry Connors’ book “How Markets Really Work”. In the book Larry looks at certain market situations and determines whether the market has historically outperformed or underperformed when those situations arose. One I previously discussed was a 3-day rise in the market when it is trading under its 200-day moving average. Historically, the market has struggled to add further gains after this has occurred.

Another edge Larry discusses in his book is performance following a 10-day high. In the book he shows there has been a negative expectancy over the next 1-5 days following a 10-day high. I have personally examined 10-day closing highs and found a negative expectancy 3-5 days out when the market is under its 200-day moving average. When it is over the 200-day the expectancy is no longer negative.

On Friday the S&P 500 closed higher for the third day in a row. It also made a 10-day high and closed at a 10-day closing high. I ran some tests to see what happened when you combined some of these 10-high criteria with 3-straight up days. Results of the different combinations I looked at were similar. Below is one example:



A negative expectancy persisted up through 12-days out. The greatest part of it appeared in the 1st three days. Of course during the next three days there is going to be a Fed announcement. The reaction to that may have a larger affect on market movement than my little test. Still, it’s worthwhile noting the negative expectancy in these situations. Below is a chart showing all the recent instances with a 3-day exit strategy.

Are The Leaders Suggesting A Market Meltdown Or A Sector Rotation?

While the major indices faired well on Thursday, the IBD 100 got whacked. Only 28 stocks rose and the Index declined over 2%. (Hat tip to IBDIndex.) I noticed this has been an especially bad week for the IBD 100. While the S&P 500 is only down 2 points the IBD 100 is lower by almost 3.5%.

The IBD 100 is a group of 100 stocks compiled by Investors Business Daily that represent market leadership. Unlike more traditional indexes, it is updated weekly and turnover on the list is quite high. Since it is supposed to represent current market leadership, I was curious to see if the strong underperformance so far this week would be significant if the major indices actually managed to close positive. In other words, in a generally rising market, does a breakdown in leadership signify sector rotation, or is it a sign that the indices will soon follow the leaders south?

I looked back at weekly data to 3/12/2004, which is all I had available for the IBD 100. There have only been 3 times when the IBD has lost as much as 3% while the S&P has managed to finish the week positive. They were 3/10/06, 7/21/06, and 3/21/08. Below is a chart of all the instances where the S&P has had a positive week and the IBD 100 has dropped at least 1%.

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions, but I’m having trouble finding anything that would suggest a meltdown is imminent. It appears the next 3-4 weeks have often been positive following these instances.

Note: If anyone has or knows where I could find the daily IBD 100 Index values going back to its inception in 2003, please let me know. Thanks.

Intraday Extremes

The price action on Wednesday was quite interesting from an intraday perspective. I've posted a chart of SPY below. What sticks out to me it the fact that there were two extreme price moves in close proximity of one another. The chart is a five minute chart, which is the intraday chart I look at most often. Notice the two arrows with notes attached.


When you get a strong and steady move like was seen from 10:10 to 10:55 or in the opposite direction from 11:55 to 12:25, one indication that it may be nearing its end is if a large range bar is posted.

To help illustrate this concept I ran some historical studies. The first one looks to sell short any time there have been at least 6 up closes and the most recent bar makes the largest rise of any bar in the move. It then sells “X” bars later or at 4:00 – whichever comes sooner. No trades are taken before 9:50.

As you can see, selling into this extreme move has a positive expectancy from 5-50 minutes out.

The second study looks at exactly the opposite formation. It buys the SPY any time there have been at least 6 down closes and the most recent bar makes the largest decline of any bar in the move. It then covers “X” bars later or at 4:00 – whichever comes sooner. No trades are taken before 9:50.

Again you can see that the edge is for a counter-move rather than a continuation for at least the next 5-50 minutes.

The large bar after the steady trend many times signals a blowoff. It can be a good place to take profits if you are in a trade, or perhaps begin to look for a reversal. This is not a daytrading system by any stretch, but it does illustrate a concept that daytraders may want to keep in mind.

Mid-Sized Gaps Down

With little notable action today I thought I’d write up the next part of my study on gaps during uptrends vs. downtrends. Last week I looked at mid-sized gaps up. Tonight I will look at mid-sized gaps down. As a refresher, a mid-sized gap is defined as a an opening between o.25% and 0.75% away from yesterdays close. A long-term uptrned is defined as a close above the 200-day moving average and a long-term downtrend is defined as a close below the 200-day moving average.

I looked at 3631 trading days going back to 11/17/93. Of those there were 368 mid-sized gaps down in uptrends and 222 mid-sized gaps down in downtrends.

Buying at the open and selling at the close when the market was in an uptrend would have resulted in 177(48%) winners and in total gained 8.5% over the 368 trades. On a per-trade basis that’s 0.02% - basically break even. Of those gaps down 213 (57%) filled at some point during the day. (A fill in this case is defined as a move back up to the previous day’s close.)

Buying at the open and selling at the close when the market was in a downtrend would have been profitable 98 (44%) times and LOST you almost 32% over 222 trades. Per trade that’s about a 0.14% loss on average from open to close. Of those mid-sized gaps down, 152 (68.5%) filled at some point during the day.

I previously showed that large gaps down in downtrends typically represented an intraday buying opportunity as they had a large positive expectancy. Mid-sized gaps do not act the same at all. They contain a negative expectancy. Interestingly, although a good percentage of them fill, they also generally fail. Fading the open could be one play. Another could be looking for a short entry after the gap fills.

As I said last week, make sure you take the following two things into account when deciding how to approach a gap opening: 1) Long-term trend of the market. 2) The size of the gap. They both matter.

Edit note: SPY was used for the above test.

Is Buying Drying Up?

When looking at the market statistics today, the one thing that really stood out was the complete lack of volume. The exchange market volume was nearly the lowest of the year. The SPY and QQQQ volume WAS the lowest of the year.

Back in March I busted the old “light volume pullback after a short-term runup signals a healthy consolidation” myth. Today I’ll look at it a little bit differently.

Only 2 conditions – 1) Today’s volume is the lightest in at least 20 days, and 2) the market is trading above its 10-day moving average. I don’t care whether the market is pulling back or not for this test. I only care if we see exceptionally light volume during a short-term uptrend.

Using these conditions I ran tests on both SPY (back to 1994) and QQQQ (back to 1999). Results below:

It appears buying interest is drying up. In the past the market has not fared well under these conditions.

Some may point out that these results differ greatly from the breadth study I showed yesterday. It appears breadth and volume are currently giving opposite indications. Studies that conflict make analysis more difficult. In the Subscriber Letter each night I discuss my take on all the recent studies. In the blog in the near future I will write some detailed thoughts on how I go about doing this.