Aug
16
The Hindenburg Omen, from Pitt Maner III
August 16, 2010 |
The solemn and ominous sounding bear cultists are bringing out the flaming hydrogen ballons. Several mentions today of the Hindenberg Omen– not talked about on this site since an April 18, 2006 mention (at a time when the market found helium and moved up roughly 20% over the next year). Nattering nabobs of negativism…
The traditional definition of a Hindenburg Omen requires that:
The daily number of NYSE new 52 Week Highs and the daily number of new 52 Week Lows must both be greater than 79. (Source) The daily number of NYSE new 52 Week Highs and the daily number of new 52 Week Lows must both be greater than 2.2 percent of total NYSE issues traded that day. The NYSE 10 Week moving average is rising. The McClellan Oscillator is negative on that same day. New 52 Week Highs cannot be more than twice the new 52 Week Lows (however it is fine for new 52 Week Lows to be more than double new 52 Week Highs). This condition is absolutely mandatory.
Paolo Pezzutti comments:
More about it on this chronically bearish site. To me it looks like a nostradamus prediction more than a pattern. Bears are trying to find new ammunitions…and last week was encouraging.
Victor Niederhoffer comments:
I can't tell if everyone is kidding or not about Hindenberg. But in edspec, I show how a run of 25 in one direction is not inconsistent with randomness, and Birinyi turning points and come up with an infinitely better indicator than Hinden.
Marlowe Cassetti replies:
But The Chair should admit that Hindenberg Omen has such a funereal appeal, an air of foreboding. Rather like the Mayan 2012 Prophesies.
Russ Sears comments:
But could you come up with a better marketing name? It has great name recognition and implies that they know something that others do not, but will soon after the fact think it should have been obvious. It would seem the splashier the name of this or that indicator in the media, the more desperate their position and need to bring in the masses to offload their positions. May be profitable if one could quantify such an inverse correlation.
Comments
Archives
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
