Confirmed Hindenburg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
Lbill
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Somewhere between Up and Down

Confirmed Hindenburg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby Lbill » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:03 am

The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence. The Omen has appeared before all of the stock market crashes of the past 25 years. The first observation was August 12, and this has been confirmed by a second Omen on Friday, August 20. On July 6, the Death Cross appeared, in which the 50-day moving average crossed below the 200-day. After a brief rally, the market is now again on a downtrend and the 200-day moving average is rolling over. Is anybody getting scared yet?
Last edited by Lbill on Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jeff1949
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:43 am
Location: Salem, OR

Postby jeff1949 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:10 am

That reminds me......whatever happened to Sudhi? :oops:

viewtopic.php?p=525647&highlight=

User avatar
Sheepdog
Posts: 4626
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Indiana, retired 1998 at age 65

Postby Sheepdog » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:12 am

jeff1949 wrote:That reminds me......whatever happened to Sudhi? :oops:

viewtopic.php?p=525647&highlight=

I miss Sudhi.
However good or bad a situation is, it will change

neverknow
Posts: 2392
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:45 am

Postby neverknow » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:17 am

..
Last edited by neverknow on Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lbill
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Somewhere between Up and Down

Postby Lbill » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:25 am

I'm tired of being scared, and angry, and pessimistic. Life is too short.

Heh, heh. Now Mr. Market finally has you in his clutches! He first wears you out until you no longer have the will to fight - then he mugs you and takes your wallet. :twisted:

User avatar
englishgirl
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: FL

Postby englishgirl » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:33 am

Well, at least the name made me giggle. That and "death cross." :roll: There are clearly some overactive imaginations out there. Or, at least, people who reeealllly want you to pay attention to what they're saying.

No, I'm not following it. My plan is to continue to fund my retirement accounts and stay the course, as I don't see any better alternative. Unless I can turn on my psychic abilities and get ahead of all the expert predictions, of course.
Sarah

Tristrex
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:10 pm

Postby Tristrex » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:34 am

Interesting description on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_Omen

The requirements seem entirely too specific; I'm inclined to agree with the article's statement "the phenomenon may be simply a case of overfitting."

Also, while every crash may have been preceded by one, there certainly doesn't seem much correlation between severity and number of signals, as shown in the chart on this page: http://www.safehaven.com/article/3880/t ... -1985-2005

I'm not sure how they measure drops after confirmed signals; they have 12/22/98 listed as a 0.2% drop after 2 Omens. Not exactly the most scary thing. Granted, the page does have a footnote indicating that was a "skin-of-the-teeth" signal.

At the very least, it has a cool name :D.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby nisiprius » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:37 am

One of Wikipedia's sources, http://www.safehaven.com/article/3880/t ... -1985-2005 says that in fact there have been "only 22 confirmed Hindenburg Omen signals over the past 21 years" (ending 2005).

I am not impressed by the word "only," since I do not remember 22 stock market crashes having occurred between 1984 and 2005.

As I suspected, it is clear from Wikipedia's article that there are several different definitions--none matching LBill's. This means that two different technical analysts would not agree on what the list of omens had been, making it difficult assess the predictive power of "the" omen.

As I also suspected, the first article above refers to the Omen as having an "evolution." We can see an example of this in the article itself. The writer says that "Critics have taken this definition and pointed rightly to several failed Omens," and then goes on to add "But if we add two more filters, the correlation to subsequent severe stock market declines is remarkable." In other words, the writer looks at the Omen's predictions, doesn't like them, and says "but if," in hindsight, the definition of the Omen were different than it was, then the predictions would have been much better.

So when someone says it has appeared before every stock market crash, one must ask:

a) Is "it" the original Omen, version 1.0, circa--is it 1985? Or is it a new, improved Omen that has been tweaked using hindsight?

b) How many times was a Hindenburg Omen not followed by a stock market crash?

c) What's the shelf life of a Hindenburg Omen? How soon must the crash occur for it to count? After all, if a Hindenburg Omen had occurred, let's say, once in 1937, then a literalist would say it had appeared "before" every stock market crash since then.

d) The Hindenburg Omen is said to be based on an indicator developed by one Norman Fosback in 1970. But it was "an indicator that differed from the one we have now." Why? A cynic might suppose that whenever an indicator is falsified, a new, improved-with-hindsight indicator is created to replace it.
Last edited by nisiprius on Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

User avatar
dnaumov
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby dnaumov » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:39 am

Lbill wrote:Is anybody getting scared yet?

No. Technical analysis exists to make astrologists look good. I really wonder if people who describe the stock market using expressions like head and shoulders formation, hindenburg omen, waves, oscillations, etc etc ever stop for a minute and realize how ridiculous they sound.

YDNAL
Posts: 13774
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Biscayne Bay

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby YDNAL » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:42 am

Lbill wrote:The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence.

Why not 2% or 3% or ______?

The 2.2% number makes it look like a precise calculation and it makes me laugh! :lol:
Last edited by YDNAL on Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Landy | Be yourself, everyone else is already taken -- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Toons
Posts: 11660
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Postby Toons » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:43 am

Getting Scared?No way ,Im getting excited ,I wish I knew the exact day the event was going to happen.
When has the occurrence of Hindenburg Omen not been a buying opportunity? :D :D
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

User avatar
Lbill
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Somewhere between Up and Down

Postby Lbill » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:49 am

From Wikepedia:
From historical data, the probability of a move greater than 5% to the downside after a confirmed Hindenburg Omen was 77%, and usually takes place within the next forty days. The probability of a panic sellout was 41% and the probability of a major stock market crash was 24%. Though the Omen does not have a 100% success rate, every NYSE crash since 1985 has been preceded by a Hindenburg Omen. Of the previous 25 confirmed signals only two (8%) have failed to predict at least mild (2.0% to 4.9%) declines.

OK - I may delay any new stock purchases and rebalancing into stocks. But, when will I know the Omen has passed and it's safe to come out of hiding?

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby nisiprius » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:56 am

YDNAL wrote:
Lbill wrote:The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence.

Why not 2% or 3% or ______?

The 2.2% number makes it look like a precise calculation and it makes me laugh! :lol:
This cynic supposes that 2.2% was a number chosen because it gave the best fit in backtesting.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

User avatar
dnaumov
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Postby dnaumov » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:57 am

Who/what is the authority that gets to officially "confirm" a Hindenberg Omen?

User avatar
gotherelate
Posts: 845
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 6:57 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby gotherelate » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:07 pm

Lbill wrote:Is anybody getting scared yet?


I don't know. Is Warren Buffett getting greedy yet? ;-)

-Grandpa
-Grandpa | I'd rather see where I'm going than see where I've been.

User avatar
bob90245
Posts: 6511
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:51 pm

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby bob90245 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:19 pm

Lbill wrote:The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence... Is anybody getting scared yet?

Nah, I'm waiting for Jack to give the signal to reduce equity exposure. :P
Ignore the market noise. Keep to your rebalancing schedule whether that is semi-annual, annual or trigger bands.

neverknow
Posts: 2392
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:45 am

Postby neverknow » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:22 pm

..
Last edited by neverknow on Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
woof755
Posts: 3085
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: Honolulu

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby woof755 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:27 pm

nisiprius wrote:
YDNAL wrote:
Lbill wrote:The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence.

Why not 2% or 3% or ______?

The 2.2% number makes it look like a precise calculation and it makes me laugh! :lol:
This cynic supposes that 2.2% was a number chosen because it gave the best fit in backtesting.


It's the Omen. 2.22% is one-third of 6.66%.

(obviously)
"By singing in harmony from the same page of the same investing hymnal, the Diehards drown out market noise." | | --Jason Zweig, quoted in The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing

User avatar
fluffyistaken
Posts: 1435
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:32 pm

Postby fluffyistaken » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:31 pm

Are there happy counterparts to the Death Cross and the Hindenberg Omen that predict bull markets instead of crashes? And if so, do they have names like, say, the Joyous Reunion and the Unicorn's Wish? Just wondering...

kenbrumy
Posts: 394
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:13 pm

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby kenbrumy » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:50 pm

dnaumov wrote:No. Technical analysis exists to make astrologists look good. I really wonder if people who describe the stock market using expressions like head and shoulders formation, hindenburg omen, waves, oscillations, etc etc ever stop for a minute and realize how ridiculous they sound.


You only realize how silly they sound when you realize how useless technical analysis is. I'm a "math person" and a reformed technical analyst. "Math people" are easily suckered into TA because it plays to our strength and we know most other people "don't get it." We think we have an advantage.

I eventually learned that TA was a wonderful way of describing what happened and sounding very intelligent about it. Unfortunately, it never seemed to definitively predict on a reasonable percentage basis of what actually will happen.

I get a chuckle listening to one weekend radio financial talk radio guy going into Elliot Wave theory in excruciating detail. I used to do it and this guy loses me. I do notice that he hedges almost everything he says to the point where he predicts a major collapse in the market any day now but it could have a "short" counter trend rally. He's been predicting "our decent into a vortex of despair" for about the last 2 years. When the DJIA goes under 1000, you heard it from him first.

matt
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Postby matt » Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:56 pm

Here's a cut and paste of my comments on a Morningstar thread (see full discussion at http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/265139/2880538.aspx#PageIndex=1)

Post 1:
Sorry, I don't think there's an Omen here. I'm not sure about last week (but I'm guessing it wasn't either). You can see the actual new highs and lows here:

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... highs.html

The new highs are almost all fixed income securities, not stocks. This indicator should be based on stocks only. I believe Ned Davis Research tracks highs and lows, advancers and decliners, by stripping out all of the non-stock issues on the NYSE. Perhaps someone can find current data from NDR.

Other evidence of this matter is the non-confirmation on the Nasdaq. The 24 highs/139 lows there is much more representative of what actually happened with stocks today.

If the market goes down on the HO, I'm a buyer. Just like I was with the death cross.


Post 2:
The HO is clearly derived from backtesting; the "logic" for why it is supposed to work was generated after the criteria were discovered. The mathematician who came up with it used the easiest, not the best, dataset that he could get access to for a long period of time: NYSE highs and lows (pros like NDR and Leuthold figured out long ago that you need to strip out non-stocks from these lists to get meaningful data). But the analysis is intended to be about stocks, not whatever securities happen to be trading on the NYSE (which becomes arbitrary as more non-stock securities are traded). The NYSE list may be a good proxy for the stock market some of the time, but not all of the time. I didn't imply that a confirmation on the Nasdaq was needed, only that it was telling you what actually happened in the stock market on Thursday, because it does not have the fixed income pollution: most stocks were down and very few were hitting new highs.

The argument that "it is what it is", so you have to go with it is problematic and non-objective. Let's assume that there actually is a meaningful signal from the HO, but the pollution from these other securities is actually decreasing it's accuracy. You know that the HO is not 100% reliable; it has false signals. Isn't it possible that one source of the false signals is the exact issue I'm presenting? Maybe the true HO, corrected for this issue, is much more accurate. That would make an HO, adjusted to include only stocks, a better indicator, not worse.

As for the HO in 2008, I don't have the data to analyze it. But I don't dispute that those high/low signals were accurate. The reason is that there were a group of stocks hitting new highs (commodity and materials sectors) while most other sectors were hitting lows. Credit spreads were also widening, so most of the NYSE fixed income issues were well off of their highs. Thus, as far as I know those were valid, un-polluted signals.

So my answer is that the calculation for new highs and lows is flawed, but in the past it was good enough to get some positive hits, but also generated a lot of false positives. The inventor is a mathematician who crunched a lot of data and found a relationship. But he didn't bother to question whether he was using the best data, he just used the easiest data he could find. Large research shops that use technical analysis do the extra work to correct for these data impurities, but he didn't. So the question for technical analysts here is would you put more faith in the methods of TA firms that have been around 50 years or the sloppy method of some guy that you've otherwise never heard of?


Post 3:
I found this article from an apparently respected TA professional regarding last week's Omen. I ended up making pretty much the same points that he did, but he's got more data and more clout.

http://www.tradersnarrative.com/hindenb ... #more-4558

So obviously I agree with his view that these HO's are false signals. My view is actually stronger in that they shouldn't be considered HO's at all. But as he points out, and I agree, the market could go down anyway. That's one of the three things it does, other than going up or sideways.

So do what you will. My view is that sentiment is overly pessimistic and I'm buying stocks and corporate debt on weakness.

One oddity that came about with yesterday's HO was that Bank of America common stock hit a 52-week low, while many of it's trust preferreds were hitting 52-week highs. Does that make any sense in this indicator? As someone primarily concerned with valuation, that many company's bonds are flying while their stocks are sinking tells me that stocks are now too cheap relative to bonds. I suppose they can both go down, so I won't use my cash all at once.

dkturner
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:58 pm

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby dkturner » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:01 pm

Lbill wrote:The Hindenberg Omen occurs when both new 52-week highs and 52-week lows exceed 2.2 percent of NYSE traded issues, indicating large divergence. The Omen has appeared before all of the stock market crashes of the past 25 years. The first observation was August 12, and this has been confirmed by a second Omen on Friday, August 20. On July 6, the Death Cross appeared, in which the 50-day moving average crossed below the 200-day. After a brief rally, the market is now again on a downtrend and the 200-day moving average is rolling over. Is anybody getting scared yet?


I believe that dark clouds, wind and rain have appeared before every tornado and hurricane over the past 25 years as well. Has the Hindenberg Omen ever preceeded a non-crashing stock market during the last 25 years? Hey, what was the score before 1985? Did The omen work in the olden days as well?
Last edited by dkturner on Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Beagler
Posts: 3442
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Postby Beagler » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:02 pm

Lbill wrote:
I'm tired of being scared, and angry, and pessimistic. Life is too short.

Heh, heh. Now Mr. Market finally has you in his clutches! He first wears you out until you no longer have the will to fight - then he mugs you and takes your wallet. :twisted:


Only if you're heavily invested in equities. Other than that, Mr. Market serves only as a mildly amusing side show.
Last edited by Beagler on Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The only place where success come before work is in the dictionary.” Abraham Lincoln. This post does not provide advice for specific individual situations and should not be construed as doing so.

User avatar
dratkinson
Posts: 3832
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Centennial CO

Postby dratkinson » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:36 pm

So... we should be saving our money to go on a buying spree when stock prices fall?

Do I have time to send a check to Vanguard, or should I ACH the money there immediately?

According to the omens, when will the fall happen?

And bond prices are high right now. Oh boy, oh boy, time to rebalance big time!

atomiclightbulb
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:45 pm

Postby atomiclightbulb » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:49 pm

Omens? Death Crosses?

This makes about as much sense as the Divination classes in Harry Potter :lol:

I only follow the mad :x money $ slogan when times are bad: buy! buy! Buy! :x $

Scottner
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:50 pm

Postby Scottner » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:00 pm

A wise man once told me: "With hindsight there are always correlations."

Thanks Taylor.

FafnerMorell
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:27 am

Postby FafnerMorell » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:19 pm

I was born under a Black Swan,
with death eaters crossing in the sky.
When I hear Hindenberg omens chanted
in the wind, all signs point to buy.

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Postby nisiprius » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:22 pm

matt wrote:Here's a cut and paste of my comments on a Morningstar thread...
Sorry, I don't think there's an Omen here. I'm not sure about last week (but I'm guessing it wasn't either).
I found this article from an apparently respected TA professional regarding last week's Omen...I agree with his view that these HO's are false signals.
If two competent technical analysts can disagree about whether there is a Hindenburg Omen or not, what good is it?

If people can agree that there is a Hindenburg Omen but cannot tell whether it is whether it is a "true signal" or a "false signal", what good is it?

A signal that conveys different information to different people is no signal.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

User avatar
SSSS
Posts: 1888
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:50 am

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby SSSS » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:01 pm

Lbill wrote:The Omen has appeared before all of the stock market crashes of the past 25 years.


How many times has the "Omen" appeared without a crash, though?

Or does nobody keep track of inaccurate prophecies?

matt
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Postby matt » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:12 pm

nisiprius wrote:If two competent technical analysts can disagree about whether there is a Hindenburg Omen or not, what good is it?

If people can agree that there is a Hindenburg Omen but cannot tell whether it is whether it is a "true signal" or a "false signal", what good is it?

A signal that conveys different information to different people is no signal.


First, let it be known that my only interest in technical analysis is of an intellectual nature.

When it comes to charting, it is very common for different people to have different viewpoints depending how they "interpret" the charts. You could logically conclude that many of these chart signals are arbitrary.

The Hindenburg Omen, on the other hand, is based on a few specific calculations, not on the reading of a chart. So some TA folks believe that makes it valid and more reliable. Following kenbrumy's comments, "math people" can be dazzled by the seemingly high probabilities of success of the signal, but they fail in the reasoning aspect that the indicator was identified after the fact; of course we would never heard of it if it hadn't worked! It's the simple story of data mining that we've seen so many times.

My view on this particular incidence of the Omen is even more nuanced. I'm saying that even if we assume it has meaningful content (which I don't), these current signals are not matching up with what the indicator is supposed to be identifying as the problem. The problem is supposed to be an indecisive market where a large number of stocks are hitting new highs at the same time as new lows. That is not what has actually happened over the past week. Instead, the indicator's proxy for stocks, the NYSE new high and new low list, includes a large number of securities that are not common stocks at all, such as preferred stocks and bonds. The new highs have been dominated by these securities, thus the failure of the "story logic" to support the indicator is being ignored by the overwhelmingly bearish TA community in favor of the flawed data telling them the market will crash. It is what they want to believe, so they discard reality for confirmation bias.

beammeupscotty
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby beammeupscotty » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:15 pm

nisiprius wrote:b) How many times was a Hindenburg Omen not followed by a stock market crash?
According to http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU ... 13384.html only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes.

newport1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:37 am

Postby newport1 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:46 pm

Also, I believe many of the new highs were from bond ETFs, which would seem to contradict the underlying premise that the HO is the result of marketplace confusion. There appears to be little confusion--people were selling stocks and buying bonds (and bond ETFs).

dumbmoney
Posts: 2242
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:58 pm

Postby dumbmoney » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:47 pm

This is off topic, but the 1937 Hindenberg disaster was less disastrous than its fame suggests: 62 out of 97 people on board survived. You would never guess that from watching the "oh the humanity" video.

The worst aviation disaster in history was the 1977 collision of two 747s, which killed 583 people (100% dead on one plane and 85% on the other).
I am pleased to report that the invisible forces of destruction have been unmasked, marking a turning point chapter when the fraudulent and speculative winds are cast into the inferno of extinction.

newport1
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:37 am

Postby newport1 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 4:49 pm

matt wrote:
nisiprius wrote:That is not what has actually happened over the past week.[/u] Instead, the indicator's proxy for stocks, the NYSE new high and new low list, includes a large number of securities that are not common stocks at all, such as preferred stocks and bonds. The new highs have been dominated by these securities, thus the failure of the "story logic" to support the indicator is being ignored by the overwhelmingly bearish TA community in favor of the flawed data telling them the market will crash. It is what they want to believe, so they discard reality for confirmation bias.


Just noticed that you made the same point as my last post. My apologies.

SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby SP-diceman » Sun Aug 22, 2010 6:51 pm

Lbill wrote:The Omen has appeared before all of the stock market crashes of the past 25 years.


So has a decline of 5% from the most recent high.
I love it when folks are scared.


(by the way, I heard a guy on CNBC say it requres 30 days
to see if the signal is true/false)



Thanks
SP-diceman

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 16582
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Postby VictoriaF » Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:10 pm

Financiers have always had physics envy. They should have their own Heisenberg/Hindenberg principle. On the second thought, let's call it the Victoria Principle ;).

VictoriaF wrote:In quantum investments, the VictoriaF uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of portfolio properties, like equities and fixed income, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision.


Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Postby nisiprius » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:12 pm

dumbmoney wrote:This is off topic, but the 1937 Hindenberg disaster was less disastrous than its fame suggests: 62 out of 97 people on board survived. You would never guess that from watching the "oh the humanity" video.
By the way, "Hindenburg" is spelled with a u...

I have always felt that the line has been misinterpreted. The announcer is waxing lyrical about the majestic ship and its big propellers and so forth, and makes repeated references to a "mass of humanity" on the ground all going about their complicated business with precision:
Lining the sides of the deck are the observation windows. Now they're slanted, so that uh, it would give anyone in the interior a fine view downward. And no doubt as the ship went over another time where people were looking down at the great mass of humanity assembled here on the field....

The mass of humanity on the field has turned into a moving mass of cooperative action. The landing crews have rushed to their posts and spots, and orders are being passed along, and last-minute preparations are being completed, for the moment we have waited for so long.

He uses the word "humanity" simply to mean the huge ground crew. As he sees the flaming dirigible descending, I believe he is expressing his concern for "all the humanity"--that is "all the people" trapped underneath. I think he's saying "all the humanity," not "oh, the humanity."

I think it's more likely that he said "all the humanity and all the passengers," rather than "Oh, the humanity and all the passengers."

Wikipedia's article does transcribe it as "oh," but they link to several online audio recordings and you can listen and judge for yourself.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

User avatar
Index Fan
Posts: 2471
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: The great Midwest

Postby Index Fan » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:57 pm

The original post here is all things to all people. It is a Rorschach image for our current market anxieties. To some, it is a smirking wink, confirming the absurdity of predicting the future. To others, it is a Cassandra-like warning, a possible indicator of market performance to come. What do you see in the augurs? Perhaps you see what you fear or wish to see. Me, I'm going to bed now.
"Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis." | -Seneca

bhmlurker
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:16 pm

Postby bhmlurker » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:12 am

In order to strike sufficient fear into the heart of investors, I motion to rename the Hindenberg Omen, to reflect a truly disastrous event:

1) 1918 Influenza Omen
2) Black Death Omen
3) Meteor impact of Earth Omen

Valuethinker
Posts: 31722
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am

Postby Valuethinker » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:47 am

bhmlurker wrote:In order to strike sufficient fear into the heart of investors, I motion to rename the Hindenberg Omen, to reflect a truly disastrous event:

1) 1918 Influenza Omen
2) Black Death Omen
3) Meteor impact of Earth Omen


I vote 'The Omen Omen'

A really scary movie.

User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 16582
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Postby VictoriaF » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:03 am

Valuethinker wrote:
bhmlurker wrote:In order to strike sufficient fear into the heart of investors, I motion to rename the Hindenberg Omen, to reflect a truly disastrous event:

1) 1918 Influenza Omen
2) Black Death Omen
3) Meteor impact of Earth Omen


I vote 'The Omen Omen'

A really scary movie.

Black Swan Omen?
Unified Financial Omen (UFO)?

Victoria
WINNER of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)

FredPeterson
Posts: 1025
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby FredPeterson » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:43 am

matt wrote:he problem is supposed to be an indecisive market where a large number of stocks are hitting new highs at the same time as new lows. That is not what has actually happened over the past week. Instead, the indicator's proxy for stocks, the NYSE new high and new low list, includes a large number of securities that are not common stocks at all, such as preferred stocks and bonds. The new highs have been dominated by these securities


The past usage of actual stocks was the result of stocks being much more prone to being overpriced - ie a bubble of sorts.

The talk these days is whether there is a 'bond bubble'

Could it be that the Omen has shifted to the new party on the block?

If people can't rely on bonds to maintain value...how can anything be?

Ed 2
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Postby Ed 2 » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:47 am

bhmlurker wrote:In order to strike sufficient fear into the heart of investors, I motion to rename the Hindenberg Omen, to reflect a truly disastrous event:

1) 1918 Influenza Omen
2) Black Death Omen
3) Meteor impact of Earth Omen


You forget to mention a Swine flu Omen. :wink:
"The fund industry doesn't have a lot of heroes, but he (Bogle) is one of them," Russ Kinnel

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Postby nisiprius » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:11 am

bhmlurker wrote:In order to strike sufficient fear into the heart of investors, I motion to rename the Hindenberg Omen, to reflect a truly disastrous event:

1) 1918 Influenza Omen
2) Black Death Omen
3) Meteor impact of Earth Omen
By the way, Hindenburg is spelled with a u, like "hamburg" I have to ask why anyone would bother paying attention to people who give emotive and exaggerated names to weak numerical indicators. The "Hindenburg Omen" occurred, by at least one scorekeeper's count, 22 times from 1985 to 2005. The phenomenon might or might not be an interesting predictor of stock market dips, but the stock market did not crash and burn in a Hindenburg-like inferno 22 times.

The Hindenburg Omen is poisoned by its name, which all by itself makes a prima facie case for its being propaganda. What reason, other than propagandizing, could there be for anyone to call it anything more dramatic than "Miekke dip predictor" or "modified Fosback dip indicator?"
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

User avatar
Lbill
Posts: 4997
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Somewhere between Up and Down

Postby Lbill » Mon Aug 23, 2010 8:17 am

Now, you all remember when you were a kid and your parent said the bogeyman was hiding in your bedroom closet. You knew it really wasn't true, but you still couldn't help peeking during the night could you? You better watch out for that Hindenburg Omen - heh, heh. Now we've got the Death Cross, the Hindenburg Omen, plus a lot of fundamental concerns making noises:

10 Reasons a Market Crash May be Coming

User avatar
goggles
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:38 am

Postby goggles » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:36 am

This makes me want to start a death metal band called Hindenburg Omen. All the songs will use the language of financial metaphor. Our biggest hit will be "DEATH CROSS!" Although the true fans know that the best songs are "Contango" and "Buffett's Greed."

User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 33379
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Postby nisiprius » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:28 pm

Why aren't "technical analysts" and "quants" the same thing? What do "technical analysts" think of "quants?" What do "quants" think of "technical analysts?"
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.

greenwaves
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:38 pm

Postby greenwaves » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:45 pm

....Not to pour fuel on the fire but during the same time the Hindenberg was threatened by the Death Cross, the S&P 500 passed above/then below the 1096 mark during a 3-month period in which Justin Bieber performed on no less than 4 distinct continents. This is known as the "Bavarian BackSplash" and portends likely, but not always certain, doom for anyone who recognizes the pattern.

Really, this thread is as entertaining as the Chuck Norris spiel. Thanks for lightening my day. (quants schmants)

Mr_Efficiency
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:35 am

Re: Confirmed Hindenberg Omen on 8/20 - anybody watching?

Postby Mr_Efficiency » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:58 pm

...
Last edited by Mr_Efficiency on Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Postby SP-diceman » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:29 pm

nisiprius wrote:Why aren't "technical analysts" and "quants" the same thing? What do "technical analysts" think of "quants?" What do "quants" think of "technical analysts?"


I don't know if your question is serous. (maybe just sarcasm)

TA is just about the charts. (all info is in the charts)
Quants is about charts and fundamentals also. (maybe more towards fundamentals)

I would imagine the quant looks down on TA because it has no fundamentals
and the TA looks down on the quant because he includes fundamentals.

You could say TA is about price movement,
Quant is about telling you why the price movement happened.



Thanks
SP-diceman


Return to “Investing - Theory, News & General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artsdoctor, Bing [Bot], freyj6, KlangFool, MoonOrb, nedsaid, nolesrule and 77 guests