Thursday, July 18, 2019

Dow Theory Update for July 18: Primary bull market reconfirmed for Gold, Silver and their ETF miners




Trends unchanged for US stock indices


I have no time to blog. However, please be advised that yesterday SIL finally broke up above its last recorded primary bull market highs, and hence confirmed GDX which had done so some time ago. Since the primary trend was already bullish, the new confirmed breakout merely signals:

a)     The end of the secondary (bearish) reaction against the primary bull market.

b)     That the primary bull market continues in force.

Nonetheless, the new highs are not a “buy” signal, as the primary bull market was signaled months ago.

The same applies to SLV (Silver ETF) which today, July 18th, has confirmed GLD by breaking up above its primary bull market highs. Hence the primary bull market has been reconfirmed.

All in all, both the metals and their miners are moving quite in tandem, which also is cross confirmation (the stocks confirm the metals).

Let’s see if by the end of next week I can produce a proper post.

Sincerely,

The Dow Theorist.

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Dow Theory Special Issue: Capitulation. The ultimate bottom indicator (V)



Measuring the risk when catching falling knives. So great?


As a reminder, I have been writing about capitulation in the following posts.




Since capitulation is a mean reversing tool, and, by definition, we don’t wait until the trend shows signs of reversing, we are catching the proverbial “falling knife”. This means that there is always the risk of further declining prices after the initial long commitment has been made following the capitulation signal.

However, as we will see in this post, if the past is to serve us as a guide, in most instances there is very little further falling left.

In this post, I explained the time-wise accuracy of capitulation in signaling bottoms. It suffices to be reminded here that the median time from the signal to the actual bottom is just 2.5 days. In other words, as far as time is concerned, capitulation tends to be very close to the actual day of the bottom, which suggest that, in good logic, percentage-wise the knife should not fall very much after the capitulation signal.

That post also dealt with the extent requirement. That is, the further decline that follows capitulation.

In this post I will further elaborate the extent aspect under the perspective of risk. How deep tends to be the further decline following a capitulation signal?

The median decline from the signal to the actual bottom is -1.4%, whereas the average decline to the bottom is 4.4%. The noticeable divergence between the median and the average is due to the fact that most of the capitulation signals are given very close to the market bottom. 9 out of 16 signals have been given within 3 days or less to the actual bottom, and hence, the subsequent decline was muted. However, there have been some other instances where the final bottom was more distant in time and, even though time does not directly correlate to extent, the subsequent decline was larger. So we could say that in most instances there is a very negligible subsequent decline, but exceptionally (2002: -8.4%; Oct 2008: -20%, Nov 2008: -8.8% and Feb 2009: -8%) there have been more sizeable declines. Such rare occurrences increase the average further decline to the bottom but, since most of the signals are close to the bottom, the median remains small (-1.4%). Therefore, the median is more representative of the accuracy of the indicator than taking the average. However, what happened in 2008 and 2009 (three capitulations all of them far from the actual bottom) warrants a specific post. The 2008-2009 period was so nasty to investors that it is worth to devote one specific post to analyzing how Schannep did navigate through this turbulent waters. As an appetizer it suffices to be said now that Schannep lost much less than buy and hold.

If we take out the October 2018 further decline of -20%, we see that in no instance there has been a market decline exceeding -10% following capitulation. Hence, we can reasonably assume that the odds favor a decline of modest proportions. Most of the time a very small one (in the vicinity of -1.4%) some other rare times around -9% or -10%.

However, Schannep does not recommend to go long 100% after a capitulation signal. Depending on the way you apply Schannep’s Dow Theory either a 25% or 50% position is opened at the close of the capitulation day (or next day’s open). This is the subject for the next post. Hence, if you are likely to undergo in a very extreme worst case scenario a further nominal loss of -10% but you only have committed 25% of your trading capital, your actual loss is quite muted, just -2.5% In other words, even in those rare instances where catching the falling knife results in sizeable declines following the signal, the total loss is well contained.

Even if we take the -20% further decline following the October 2018 signal, a 25% long commitment would have result in a loss of just 5%, which is bearable and does not put you out of the game (the key issue is to survive the storm in order to have powder dry when future good times come).

You can find all the data concerning capitulation on Schannep’s website:


All in all, following the capitulation signal the “knife” has little left to further fall. In most instances we are calling the exact bottom or we are in the vicinity of it percentagewise. Even when further declines ensue, the loss incurred is well contained.
  
Hence, it is important to know the intricacies of the sizing of each long commitment after capitulation. When do we buy 25%, when do we go to a full or total invested position? What is the risk when we transition to a full position? This will be the subject of the next post.

Sincerely,
The Dow Theorist

Monday, July 8, 2019

Dow Theory Update for July 8: Primary and secondary trend for US indices bullish

Primary trend for gold, silver and their ETF miners bullish. Secondary trend remains bearish



US STOCKS

The primary trend as per Schannep’s Dow Theory is bullish since March 1st, 2019 when both the Industrials and the S&P 500 closed at +19% from the 12/24/2018 bear market closing lows.


However, “capitulation” suggested the opening of a partial commitment to stocks on the very day of the market bottom (12/24/2018). More about that partial commitment here.

  
And more about “capitulation” in general in the following links:






The secondary trend turned bullish (official end of secondary reaction) on 06/20/2019, when both the Industrials and the S&P 500 broke up their respective primary bull market closing highs, and, hence, the secondary reaction which was signaled on May 9, 2019 as explained here. and here was ended.

Here you have an updated chart. 
End of secondary reaction displayed by the blue arrows


As per the Rhea/classical Dow Theory, the secondary reaction has not changed. Since the Classical Dow Theory uses only two indices (Industrials and Transports) and the Transports, and the Transports have not bettered their primary bull market closing highs, the secondary reaction remains in force, and, hence, the setup for a primary bear market has not changed.

Here you have an updated chart as per the “Rhea/Classical” Dow Theory.

As per the "Rhea/Classical" Dow Theory the secondary reaction remains in force

 
GOLD AND SILVER


The primary trend is bullish since 12/24/2018 as explained here. No changes. We finally got a secondary reaction on 4/16/2019 when GLD violated its 03/07/2019 closing lows (and confirmed SLV which had done so some days ago). More about the entrails of such a secondary reaction here and here.

Furthermore, currently SLV and GLD setup for a primary bear market signal as was explained here.

On June 18th, 2019 GLD managed to break up above the closing highs of the primary bull market unconfirmed by SLV. Hence, we cannot declare the end of the secondary reaction. However, since the primary trend has been bullish (we only have a secondary reaction), the primary trend remains bullish. However, the longer it takes for SLV to confirm the more suspect the higher highs made by GLD will look.


SLV weaker than GLD refuses to confirm. Secondary reaction remains in force. Primary trend is bullish, though

  
GOLD AND SILVER MINERS ETFs


The primary trend is bullish since 12/18/2018 as explained here. No changes. 


The secondary trend is bearish (secondary reaction) since 4/18/2019 when GDX violated its previous 03/06/2019 closing lows (and confirmed SLV which had done so several days before), as was explained here. and here

Furthermore, currently SIL and GDX setup for a primary bear market signal as was explained here.

On June 17th, 2019 GDX managed to break up above the closing highs of the primary bull market unconfirmed by SIL. Hence, we cannot declare the end of the secondary reaction. However, since the primary trend has been bullish (we only have a secondary reaction), the primary trend remains bullish. However, the longer it takes for SIL to confirm the more suspect the higher highs made by GDX will look.

Here you have an updated chart  The blue horizontal lines display the last primary bull market highs. As you can see, SIL is seriously lagging behind GDX. 

SIL much weaker than GDX refuses to confirm. Secondary reaction remains in force. Primary trend is bullish, though

 

Sincerely,
The Dow Theorist