The Hindenburg Omen?
08-16-2010, 08:18 AM
#1
The Hindenburg Omen?
What do you guys think about this? Any merit to this claim?
Just what the stock market didn't need: A Hindenburg sighting
August 16, 2010 | 5:30 am
"As if investors weren't feeling edgy enough about the stock market as economic fears mount again, now there's the "Hindenburg Omen" to worry about.
Or not.
The zerohedge blog brought this generally little-discussed market indicator to light late last week, and headlines about it followed far and wide on the Web over the weekend.
The omen was created by technical analyst Jim Miekka in 1995, according to a report by Dow Jones reporter Steven Russolillo. Miekka was looking for a formula to predict stock market crashes -- hence the moniker of Hindenburg, for the German zeppelin that suddenly exploded while docking in New Jersey in 1937.
The omen requires four market conditions to be satisfied, including that a significant number of New York Stock Exchange issues hit new 52-week highs on the same day that a significant number of other NYSE shares are hitting new 52-week lows.
Why should that be a bad thing? Market technician Robert McHugh explains it well in this blog post from Sunday, but basically the idea is that a market with a meaningful number of stocks simultaneously at new highs and new lows is badly confused, and is more likely to be at risk of heading lower than higher.
All four conditions for the omen were met in Thursday's trading session, the first time that's happened since June 2008. Three months after that last signal, of course, was the start of the market meltdown that followed the collapse of Lehman Bros.
But to have substantial predictive value, the omen's conditions must be met in another trading session within 36 days of the first occurrence, McHugh says. So the clock is ticking now.
As for the omen's track record in signaling a looming market crash, that may depend on your idea of what constitutes a "crash."
A true omen (meaning one whose conditions were met at least twice in a 36-day period) has been triggered fewer than 30 times since 1986, according to McHugh's calculations. He notes that the omen has foreshadowed every major stock market decline since '86, including the genuine crash of October 1987 and the deep, drawn-out bear market of 2000-2002.
But most omens have been followed by market losses of less than 15% in the Dow Jones industrial average, according to a chart McHugh includes in his blog post. And although the appearance of the omen has almost always signaled a slide in the Dow, some of those declines have been blink-and-you-miss-them affairs -- a 2.1% drop in 1993, for example, and a 2.2% loss in 2005.
A final caveat: The omen isn't always there when you really need it. It apparently was a no-show before the stock market's slump in May and June of this year, a sell-off that slashed 16% off the Standard & Poor's 500 index."
-- Tom Petruno
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...tor-crash.html
Just what the stock market didn't need: A Hindenburg sighting
August 16, 2010 | 5:30 am
"As if investors weren't feeling edgy enough about the stock market as economic fears mount again, now there's the "Hindenburg Omen" to worry about.
Or not.
The zerohedge blog brought this generally little-discussed market indicator to light late last week, and headlines about it followed far and wide on the Web over the weekend.
The omen was created by technical analyst Jim Miekka in 1995, according to a report by Dow Jones reporter Steven Russolillo. Miekka was looking for a formula to predict stock market crashes -- hence the moniker of Hindenburg, for the German zeppelin that suddenly exploded while docking in New Jersey in 1937.
The omen requires four market conditions to be satisfied, including that a significant number of New York Stock Exchange issues hit new 52-week highs on the same day that a significant number of other NYSE shares are hitting new 52-week lows.
Why should that be a bad thing? Market technician Robert McHugh explains it well in this blog post from Sunday, but basically the idea is that a market with a meaningful number of stocks simultaneously at new highs and new lows is badly confused, and is more likely to be at risk of heading lower than higher.
All four conditions for the omen were met in Thursday's trading session, the first time that's happened since June 2008. Three months after that last signal, of course, was the start of the market meltdown that followed the collapse of Lehman Bros.
But to have substantial predictive value, the omen's conditions must be met in another trading session within 36 days of the first occurrence, McHugh says. So the clock is ticking now.
As for the omen's track record in signaling a looming market crash, that may depend on your idea of what constitutes a "crash."
A true omen (meaning one whose conditions were met at least twice in a 36-day period) has been triggered fewer than 30 times since 1986, according to McHugh's calculations. He notes that the omen has foreshadowed every major stock market decline since '86, including the genuine crash of October 1987 and the deep, drawn-out bear market of 2000-2002.
But most omens have been followed by market losses of less than 15% in the Dow Jones industrial average, according to a chart McHugh includes in his blog post. And although the appearance of the omen has almost always signaled a slide in the Dow, some of those declines have been blink-and-you-miss-them affairs -- a 2.1% drop in 1993, for example, and a 2.2% loss in 2005.
A final caveat: The omen isn't always there when you really need it. It apparently was a no-show before the stock market's slump in May and June of this year, a sell-off that slashed 16% off the Standard & Poor's 500 index."
-- Tom Petruno
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...tor-crash.html
Last edited by skd2k1; 08-16-2010 at 08:22 AM.
08-19-2010, 12:03 AM
#2
Drifting
Just read up on the Hindenburg theory. I think if the Bullish-Percent for NYSE changes bearish: http://stockcharts.com/webcgi/Pnf.asp?S=$BPNYA, I would sell my long positions and establish more shorts and not wait for the 3rd occurrence of Hindenburg. I have found the BP to work pretty well the last 10 years, although it has been pretty volatile in 2010 so far.
I guess I'll hold off on buying anymore longs for a while and see what happens with these two indicators in the mean time.
I guess I'll hold off on buying anymore longs for a while and see what happens with these two indicators in the mean time.
08-19-2010, 08:53 AM
#3
Just read up on the Hindenburg theory. I think if the Bullish-Percent for NYSE changes bearish: http://stockcharts.com/webcgi/Pnf.asp?S=$BPNYA, I would sell my long positions and establish more shorts and not wait for the 3rd occurrence of Hindenburg. I have found the BP to work pretty well the last 10 years, although it has been pretty volatile in 2010 so far.
I guess I'll hold off on buying anymore longs for a while and see what happens with these two indicators in the mean time.
I guess I'll hold off on buying anymore longs for a while and see what happens with these two indicators in the mean time.
08-24-2010, 11:12 PM
#4
Drifting
Not sure about the Hindenburg triggering #3 today, but the NYSE Bullish-Percent and many others triggered bearish today. In fact, only Utilities industry group is mildly bullish of all the industries I track at the moment.
Time to add more short positions on this new trend change I guess. My big winners today were: SLV, QID, SKF, HOGS, SDS, and GLD so total portfolio losses today was just -0.2% .vs. the -1.45% drop on the SP500 today. If my TBT position wasn't down today, I would have had a gain. TBT should change soon enough when enough people figure out that Bonds actually are a bad investment if inflation is set to hit. As the world turns...
Time to add more short positions on this new trend change I guess. My big winners today were: SLV, QID, SKF, HOGS, SDS, and GLD so total portfolio losses today was just -0.2% .vs. the -1.45% drop on the SP500 today. If my TBT position wasn't down today, I would have had a gain. TBT should change soon enough when enough people figure out that Bonds actually are a bad investment if inflation is set to hit. As the world turns...
08-24-2010, 11:19 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Considering Uncle Sam just blew nearly a trillion dollars on a 'stimulus' package that didn't increase exports, didn't improve or modernize the manufacturing base of the nation.. I'm forced to agree.
A trillion dollars that went down the rat hole to unions and pork.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
