Aug

1

There has been much talk about the market having been due for a decline, i.e. it hadn't had a big decline like 1% in a day, or 10% from a high, or a big x day minimum of some.

The drs on this list, and those who study numbers rather than mumbo jumo know when a long time has elapsed since a calamity, the more likely it is that the calamity will not happen. That's why after 5 or 10 years from onset of the terrible disease, most patients like to tell their friends they are free of the disease. Most components on the other hand, including the artificial hip, have a uniform hazard rate, i.e. the prob of calamity each subsequent year is constant. Compare this to the bath tub distribution which the fake Dr. is particularly prevalent to.

How about some stats on the table. There are a number of good ways to do this, and those that have gained access to such a program developed here by Mr. Downing and myself to do such things can easily do it to their own satisfaction. But here's one. The last 10 point decline occurred on 7/17, 10 trading days ago. The probability of a 10 point decline occurring on any day is at a maximum at 27% after there was a decline the previous day. That's called the hazard rate. The duration to the next such decline is at a minimum at 5.2 days after that event. The hazard rate declines and the duration continually expands to 11 days after 20 days without such an event. The expectation after 10 days without such a decline is about 0.4% a day.

Here's another one. We went 60 days from the last 20 day minimum which occurred on 4 14. After 60 days the average duration to the next 20 day minimum of 37 days. The expectation is positive for all subsequent days of remission at about 0.2 % a day. The hazard rate for a 20 day minimum to follow the previous one once it occurs is 0.5, and it drops as it should by randomness to about 10% after 10 days.

In short, no matter how you define it, the longer a period has gone by without a big decline or a big minimum, the better it is. I have the numbers in front of me, and the gist of what I said is completely true, but I haven't fact or spell checked everything here as one is more concerned with the trade of the day than the good throwing today.

Gary Rogan writes: 

I'm sure the numbers are what they are, but why is that? Hopefully, if you are free from a terrible disease for a long time, it is not doing further damage, but a market that goes up becomes more and more expensive. Other than the human life span, while you living disease-free it's not true that in any fashion you are getting more biased towards getting it again, but the more expensive the market becomes the more it seems that it is biased to regress towards the mean historical P/E or some other metric. A person who's been disease free for 30 years seems qualitatively different than a market with a P/E of 30.
 


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search