Traders Corner   30 comments

The S&P 500 levels to watch today:

UPSIDE: 1963 (June 20th’s high and the all-time high), and 1969 (top of the Bollinger Bands).
DOWNSIDE: 1959 (2 data points), 1957 (June 18th’s high), 1955 (June 9th’s high), 1949-1950 (3 data points), 1947 (June 9th’s low), 1940-1944 (7 data points), 1939 (June 18th’s low), 1937 (June 13th’s high), 1935 (20 day moving average), 1933 (June 17th’s low), 1924-1928 (5 data points and May’s high), 1922 (June 5th’s low), 1918 (2 data points), 1915 (June 2nd’s low), 1901 (bottom of the Bollinger Bands), 1897 (April’s high and the 50 day moving average), 1883 (March’s high), and 1869 (100 day moving average).

S&P 500 Daily Momentum: Bullish
S&P 500 Daily Overbought/oversold: Overbought
S&P 500 Weekly Momentum: Bullish
S&P 500 Weekly Overbought/oversold: Overbought
S&P 500 Futures: Flat
Overall: Overbought conditions versus bullish momentum? That is what the S&P 500’s technicals are looking at today. Of course, an overbought market can stay overbought for awhile. However, the flat futures are saying we might not be going up much further, at least not this morning. Mind you, that doesn’t mean we get a correction here. Until sentiment turns sour (watch the news), I would look for the market to flatten here.


30 responses to “Traders Corner

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Seems like margin debt peaked
    The last two times that happened, we had a crash.

  2. thanks for sharing. that appears to be a pretty good indicator of tops.

  3. Marshall, wondering if you had to pick 5 stocks that would be your core holdings for next 5 years what would they be?

    • Bobb – off the top of my head: BAC, CB, PFE, PPG and INTC.

      • Thanks Marshall, interested in your takes on PFE going forward and why you like them above other drug companies. Also I know you have liked INTC and said you sold to early, is there a price you would jump back into them?

      • Bobb – I am not putting money back into INTC purely for psychological reasons. We all have trouble admitting we made a mistake, and I struggle paying more for them than I sold (something around $24.50). I did re-buy some of the CSCO I sold. I think PFE is the most reasonably priced of the big pharmas, and I think a 5 year-type portfolio should have exposure to a big drug company.

  4. RIOM and other miners have been going crazy lately. What do our technicians, like Trader, think about the charts for these companies?

    • Looking at the daily chart RIOM looks overbought. Has more room to run on the weekly chart. Has strong resistance on the weekly charts in the 2.60-2.90 range. If I owned it, I would look to take some profits as soon as it started to show some technical weakness on the daily chart. If this is a long term holding at least sell part. I don’t see any weakness in the daily chart but as overbought as it looks I would be surprised to see it break through that resistance level without a pullback or at least leveling off for a bit.

  5. Adding to FEYE @ 38.45. Not selling calls yet.

  6. w-seattle, are you still trading BTU? It’s starting to gain some momentum. I’m considering for a trade. Your thoughts? Before you get into the whiskey please. 🙂

    • I would really look at the range. I’m away from the computer right now. I think you’ll see solid resistance in the $18 area. With today’s pullback, it may give you some room to play between here and resistance. Don’t get greedy and it should work for you.

  7. Anyone still in TC has to be liking today!

  8. Sold all my TC-PT at 17.60 With the divi’s gain was 17%. I will look to rebuy when it drops. I think TC is out of the woods and LT this could easily double .

  9. It is interesting that the counter argument is from a website which has declared Paul Krugman was bankrupt, Chuck Hagel was paid to speak at Friends of Hamas, etc. Both later removed from their websites and referred to now as hoaxes.

    Then there are the 200 plus International Scientific Organizations plus the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, American Meterological Society, American Physical Society, Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Research, and the list goes on of those who believe in climate change.

    I may not agree with how to stop or pay for the stopping of climate change but I don’t doubt its existence.

  10. If you do a little research you will find a half dozen scientific groups which won’t commit to climate change being cause by humans. The following is probably the strongest “maybe or no” you will find:

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists[edit]
    As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

    the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO
    2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases … Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[97]

    Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

    Members have threatened to not renew their memberships… if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change… And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position… The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[98]

    AAPG President John Lorenz announced the “sunsetting” of AAPG’s Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

    Climate change is peripheral at best to our science […] AAPG does not have credibility in that field […] and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: