IB Traders Insight


1 2 3 4 5 2 828


Technical Analysis

Nasdaq100 (NQ) Below January/September Low Ahead of Yellen Testimony


The Nasdaq100 (NQ) edged lower yesterday after breaking bear flag support (on the daily chart), and is sliding further below the January/October low.  I won't rule out a bounce today though as Janet Yellen testifies at 10am EST and may provide the excuse the market is looking for to begin another short-covering rally.  I am flat the NQ and will watch how it reacts post-Yellen.

 

Nasdaq100 (CME NQ Mar16) Weekly/Daily/4hr/Hourly

 

Click here for today's technical analysis on S&P500, VIX, Euro Stoxx 50, DAX, Nikkei, GBPAUD, Natural Gas, Cocoa, Silver

 

Tradable Patterns was launched to demonstrate that the patterns recurring in liquid futures, spot FX and equity CFD markets can be traded consistently profitably. Tradable Patterns’ daily newsletter (blog) provides technical analysis on a subset of ten to twelve CME/ICE/Eurex futures (commodities, equity indices, interest rates), spot FX and US equity markets, which it considers worth monitoring for the day/week for trend reversal or continuation. For less experienced traders, tutorials and workshops are offered online and throughout Southeast Asia.

 

This article is from Tradable Patterns and is being posted with Tradable Patterns’ permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Tradable Patterns and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

 


8611




Technical Analysis

VIX (VX) Testing January High Ahead of Yellen Testimony


The VIX (VX) rallied another 2% yesterday, and is now testing upchannel resistance (on the weekly chart).  The VX is also within a session or so of hitting the January high, and should be targeting the daily chart upchannel resistance shortly after.  Weekly, daily and 4hr RSI, Stochastics and MACD are mostly rallying.  I am flat and am looking to go long intraday on any dip towards 25-26 today.

 

VIX (CFE VX Feb16) Weekly/Daily/4hr/Hourly

 

Click here for today's technical analysis on S&P500, Nasdaq100, Euro Stoxx 50, DAX, Nikkei, GBPAUD, Natural Gas, Cocoa, Silver

 

Tradable Patterns was launched to demonstrate that the patterns recurring in liquid futures, spot FX and equity CFD markets can be traded consistently profitably. Tradable Patterns’ daily newsletter (blog) provides technical analysis on a subset of ten to twelve CME/ICE/Eurex futures (commodities, equity indices, interest rates), spot FX and US equity markets, which it considers worth monitoring for the day/week for trend reversal or continuation. For less experienced traders, tutorials and workshops are offered online and throughout Southeast Asia.

 

This article is from Tradable Patterns and is being posted with Tradable Patterns’ permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Tradable Patterns and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


8612




Technical Analysis

S&P500 (ES) Testing January/September Low Ahead of Yellen Testimony


The S&P500 (ES) edged lower yesterday after breaking bear flag support (on the daily chart), and is now testing the January/September low.  Based on how other weaker indices on my Watchlist have already broken their January/September/October lows, my expectation is for the ES to break below the January/September low today as well, but won't rule out a bounce as Janet Yellen testifies today at 10am EST and may provide the excuse the market is looking for to begin another short-covering rally.  I am flat the ES and will watch how it reacts post-Yellen.

 

S&P500 (CME ES Mar16) Weekly/Daily/4hr/Hourly

 

Click here for today's technical analysis on Nasdaq100, VIX, Euro Stoxx 50, DAX, Nikkei, GBPAUD, Natural Gas, Cocoa, Silver

 

Tradable Patterns was launched to demonstrate that the patterns recurring in liquid futures, spot FX and equity CFD markets can be traded consistently profitably. Tradable Patterns’ daily newsletter (blog) provides technical analysis on a subset of ten to twelve CME/ICE/Eurex futures (commodities, equity indices, interest rates), spot FX and US equity markets, which it considers worth monitoring for the day/week for trend reversal or continuation. For less experienced traders, tutorials and workshops are offered online and throughout Southeast Asia.

 

This article is from Tradable Patterns and is being posted with Tradable Patterns’ permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Tradable Patterns and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

 


8610




Futures

Blu Putnam Talks Efficiency in Crude Oil


Blu Putnam, Chief Economist CME Group

This video is from CME Group and is being posted with CME Group’s permission. The views expressed in this video are solely those of the author and/or CME Group and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the video. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


8609




Futures

Sugar Market Pricing in Too Much Production and Too Little Demand


Excerpt from The Hightower Report – February 5, 2016

Part of the recent weakness in sugar prices has stemmed from ideas that Brazilian sugar production will be higher than previously expected for the 2016/17 season and from a very bearish demand tone. Global markets are acting like a major recession is close at hand and that there will be no growth or possibly even negative growth for the world economy in 2016. We believe the global demand fears are overblown and that the commodity markets are in a position to turn higher at any time.

Both the Brazilian and Thai currencies are at or near their 2016 highs, and this could be relieving some of the pressure on exporters to move sugar stocks onto the world market. Brazilian mills are expected to increase sugar's share of cane processing by only a few percentage points for the coming season, but with a larger cane crop and better yields (allowing for normal weather once harvest starts), that could put their 2016/17 sugar production up to 34 million tonnes, which would be close to a record high. While this is an increase of around 2 million from 2015/16, keep in mind that India may be looking at a reduction in their sugar output of that magnitude or more this season, and Thailand and China may have supply issues as well. China imported a record amount of sugar in 2015, and a drought is expected force the Philippines to import sugar for the first time in six years.

Recent reports that many Brazilian mills will shift to producing more sugar and less ethanol for the coming season is just speculation based on cheap crude oil prices. Changes in Brazilian tax laws (especially for gasoline) had helped spark an aggressive increase in ethanol demand through October 2015. Granted, demand has dropped since then due to the collapse in crude oil prices, and if crude oil stays down near $30.00 per barrel, the weak ethanol consumption trend could continue. But a recovery in either crude oil or the Brazilian currency could spark a shift back to more cane being used for ethanol production and less for sugar. In addition, Brazil’s ethanol exports have recently hit a record high, as both China and India have suddenly started importing ethanol in attempt to reduce air pollution.

Brazilian sugar mills are reported to have hedged (sold) more than 17 million tonnes of their upcoming 2016/17 production, which would be roughly 68% of their expected export total. This would also be highest amount hedged at this point (before the season has even started) in four years, which suggests they would be reluctant to sell more if their outlook turned more bullish.

For trade recommendations and other research, subscribe to The Hightower Report's Weekly Market Letter and Daily Comments. Customers of Interactive Brokers can subscribe in Account Management.

About The Hightower Report

Individual traders, brokers and fund managers look to The Hightower Report to help them navigate today’s complex markets. Our morning commentary offers a look ahead to the day’s trade, with the latest fundamental data, support and resistance levels and trade suggestions. The Hightower Report Weekly Market Letter presents a longer term look at selected markets, with up-to-date trading ideas and strategies.
 

 

This article is from The Hightower Report (Hightower) and is being posted with Hightower’s permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Hightower and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.  Due to the volatile nature of the futures and options markets, the information contained herein may be outdated upon its release.


8607




Macro

Negative Performance in Global Financials Most Acute in Japan


In Japan, the pain was most acute overnight.

JGB yields tightened by 6.4 bps last night and closed negative for the first time at -0.035%.

To put that in context, the degree of the move in their 10-yr fixed income benchmark, JGB’s moved 4-standard deviations relative to the last three months of trading.

Now it was no surprise that the Nikkei would be weak as the Japanese yen (JPY) in the US session already broke many of its key technical levels.

Put another way, the margin call for Mrs. Watanabe was already well underway before mom and pop took their morning shower.

But here is what is genuinely new.

Last night’s price action shone a spot light on something that has yet to really be discussed in the mainstream – that is, how will pension and insurance funds match their liabilities in a world of negative interest rates, especially since they have already been struggling to do that for years due to low interest rates?

Here is what we mean by that.

The Japan Post IPO last November has been very popular with retail investors, particularly NISA account holders.

Japan Post, and its sister companies, are one of the biggest holders of Japanese government bonds and gets more than 90% of its profit from interest income.

As you can see, banks are now down 42% from the 2015 high and down 21% since the announcement of negative interest rates last month.

Sight Beyond Sight® is a global macro trading newsletter written daily by Neil Azous. With close to two decades of institutional experience across asset classes, Neil interprets the day-to-day economic, policy and strategy developments and provides actionable trading ideas for investors. We invite clients of Interactive Brokers to sign up for a free trial in Account Management. If you are not a client of IB, you can sign up for a free trial by visiting our website.

 
This article is from Rareview Macro and is being posted with Rareview Macro’s permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Rareview Macro and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

8606




Macro

Wholesale Inventories Decline in December


Wholesale inventories declined 0.1% month-over-month in December on top of a downwardly revised 0.4% decline (from -0.3%) in November.  The Briefing.com consensus estimate expected wholesale inventories to be unchanged in December.  On a year-over-year basis, wholesale inventories were up 1.9%.

Inventories of durable goods in December declined 0.3% after a 0.4% decline in November.  The December downturn was governed by a 0.5% decline in machinery inventories and a 4.4% decline in metals inventories.  The only areas that saw inventories increase were automotive (+0.3%), electrical (+1.0%), and miscellaneous durables (+1.6%).

Inventories of nondurable goods increased 0.1% in December after declining 0.3% in November.  The uptick was paced by a 0.8% increase in inventories for drugs and a 2.1% increase in apparel inventories.  The only nondurable areas that saw inventories decline in December were petroleum (-7.8%) and alcohol (-1.0%).

Wholesale sales were down 0.3% in December after declining 1.3% in November.  The inventory-to-sales ratio held steady at 1.32, yet that was up noticeably from 1.24 in the same period a year ago.

Briefing.com subscription services provide streaming market commentary and analysis along with a continuous flow of macro analysis, investing ideas and research reports. Please take a Free Trial of these live services on Interactive Brokers! (IB clients may sign up for a free trial in Account Management.)

 
This article is from Briefing.com and is being posted with Briefing.com's permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Briefing.com and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

8605




Stocks

Nasdaq Market Intelligence Desk - Equity Market Insight February 9, 2016


Market Update:

US stocks are attempting to hold onto the momentum initiated during the final 90 mins of yesterday’s session. A snapback to the upside in Software stocks (+1%) has investors thinking “deep-value” buying, while crude oil remains below $30/barrel. The S&P 500 closed at a two-year low yesterday, and a move into gold has the precious metal trading at its highest level in June.

  • Stocks with high valuations have been taking some lumps over the past few sessions (-5.2% in February) there, with money flowing towards the less risky investments. Volatility has clearly picked up also, as the intraday price swing in the Russell 1000 Growth Index has eclipsed 1% for the past 26 trading sessions, the longest streak since late 2011.
  • For those Americans looking for work, there are plenty of positions available according to the JOLTS Job Openings figure released this morning. December’s job openings rose to 5.607million from 5.346million, and exceeding the 5.413 expected. Friday will be this week’s most active day on the economic front, with a monthly retail sales (+1.0% - expected), University of Michigan Sentiment index (92.3) and an Import Price Index (-1.5%) all due out in the morning.
  • More than 2/3 of the S&P 500 companies have reported quarterly results, as large-cap stocks are following last quarter’s trend of beating on earnings and not meeting sales projectionss. As of this morning, 47% of the constituents have missed on sales. After the close today, Walt Disney, and Akamai are slated to report, while Time Warner and Henry Schein will have results before the market open tomorrow.

Technical Take:

As of 11:50 AM EST
Nasdaq Composite:
Advancers: 893
Decliners: 1584
Advance Volume: 83MM shares
Decline Volume: 116MM shares
New 52 week Highs (prior close): 11
New 52 week Lows (prior close): 557


Yesterday we saw the major indices close down once again but well off of their lows for the session. Today stocks are in a see-saw of a day with deep loses in the futures giving way to gains early in the morning led by strength in Nasdaq stocks, and weakness again. While pundits may try to take comfort in the activity from yesterday and even today, we believe the risk is still to the downside in the near term. There remains to be a fair amount of complacency, certainly not any air of palpable panic which might signify a market bottom. That said some who may be looking for the Fed to “save us”, could be interested in covering shorts ahead of Dr. Yellen’s congressional testimony tomorrow.   

  • While the trading on the S&P 500 Index (SPX) yesterday and today so far saw levels below support at 1850, we have yet to see a close below it. The way the rest of the day plays out could of course change that. 1810 would be the next level of support on a prospective closing break below.
  • We believe that action in the Nasdaq Composite Index is more telling in terms of reversal potential by virtue of its ‘risk-on’ attributes and leadership to both the upside and downside. On this line of thought we have used a 2 year weekly chart of the CCMP to track its relative strength against the SPX. Here we would note the confirming view in this chart with the 18 month uptrend line for relative strength definitively broken; meaning risk-off sentiment may be here to stay a while longer. We see 4240 – 4130 as the support zone traders may have their sights on should weakness continue.

Nasdaq's Market Intelligence Desk (MID) Team includes:  

Michael Sokoll, CFA is a Senior Managing Director on the Market Intelligence Desk (MID) at Nasdaq with over 25 years of equity market experience. In this role, he manages a team of professionals responsible for providing NASDAQ-listed companies with real-time trading analysis and objective market information.
Jeffrey LaRocque is a Director on the Market Intelligence Desk (MID) at Nasdaq, covering U.S. equities with over 10 years of experience having learned market structure while working on institutional trading desks and as a stock surveillance analyst. Jeff's diverse professional knowledge includes IPOs, Technical Analysis and Options Trading.
Vincent Randazzo, CMT is a Managing Director on the Market Intelligence Desk (MID) at Nasdaq with over 13 years of experience in equity markets having served in equity research sales and desk analyst roles at major banks. Vincent’s specific expertise is in technical analysis and has been a Chartered Market Technician (CMT) since 2007.
Steven Brown is a Managing Director on the Market Intelligence Desk (MID) at Nasdaq with over twenty years of experience in equities. With a focus on client retention he currently covers the Financial, Energy and Media sectors.
Christopher Dearborn is a Managing Director on the Market Intelligence Desk (MID) at Nasdaq. Chris has over two decades of equity market experience including floor and screen based trading, corporate access, IPOs and asset allocation. Chris is responsible for providing timely, accurate and objective market and trading-related information to Nasdaq-listed companies.

This article is from Nasdaq and is being posted with Nasdaq’s permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Nasdaq and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


8604




Stocks

If ROIC is so Great, Then Why Doesn't Everyone Use It?


That’s the question we get when we argue that return on invested capital (ROIC) does a better job of explaining changes in shareholder value than any other metric. Why do investors, executives, and the financial media focus on reported earnings and other metrics such as EBITDA that ignore the balance sheet? Why aren’t executives around the world adopting ROIC in order to boost returns?

Anyone asking those questions should read the 1996 CFO Magazine article “Metric Wars.” Back in the mid-90’s, ROIC-based models such as Economic Value Added (EVA) and Cash Flow Return On Investment (CFROI) were all the rage, with corporate giants such as Coca-Cola (KO), AT&T (T), and Procter & Gamble (PG) linking them to executive compensation and highlighting them in communications with shareholders.

Fierce competition ensued, as a variety of consultants developed and marketed their own shareholder value models, all, at their core, based around the idea that companies need to earn a return on capital above their cost of capital.

That revolution was short-lived. Coca-Cola and AT&T stopped regularly highlighting EVA in filings after 1998. Some of the consulting companies mentioned in the CFO piece no longer exist, such as Finegan & Gressle, while others like The Boston Consulting Group no longer highlight the same metrics.

It would be easy to assume that ROIC-based models had their chance in the marketplace and failed because they weren’t good enough, but that would be wrong. The story of the “Metric Wars” shows that it was the marketing strategy, not the underlying model, which was flawed.

The Consultant’s Concoction

The lack of resources and technology available at the time required the proponents of these metrics to do many hours of manual work to provide the metrics for the client and its comp group. As a result, the firms wanted to differentiate their models or build barriers to entry around them so that competitors could not piggyback on their original work.

Transparency was not in the consultants’ best interests. If everyone could see the inner workings of their formulas, clients wouldn’t have any incentive to pay big money for their model over a competitor’s. As a result, the various firms guarded their models and would attack a competitor’s formula as a “consultant’s concoction.”

This was an understandable development, as the recurring revenue stream from a consulting client can be very valuable. Unfortunately, it also led to lot of significant problems for the ultimate end-users of that data.

  1. Excess Complexity: consultants needed to make the work seem really difficult so clients would not replicate and competitors could not decipher it.
  2. Lack Of Transparency: since each company’s formula was its bread and butter, they kept the details of how they were calculated hidden. It was hard for those on the outside to understand or trust the process.
  3. No Comparability: with no single standardized formula, it was impossible for companies or investors to benchmark results to their peers.
  4. Short Shelf Life: the analyses were only as fresh as the last engagement, and since the “proprietary” formulas could change from year to year, clients might not always have the most up-to-date analysis.
  5. Little Differentiation: While all the different consultant’s formulas had their own tweaks, they were based around the same basic idea. With so little fundamental differentiation, the various consultants spent a great deal of time and effort tearing each other down and nitpicking competing formulas, ultimately spreading more confusion.

Add this to the tech bubble attitude of the late 90’s, when stock valuations became more about stories and potential rather than any fundamental research, and the work these consultants were doing fell by the wayside.

Today, only Stern Stewart and Credit Suisse (which bought CFROI or HOLT in 2001) remain as survivors from the Metric Wars. Neither has had a ton of success monetizing their formulas since then, in part because they remain committed to their “concoctions” for consulting business, and also because they rely on inconsistent and limited data feeds that lack analysis of the financial footnotes or management disclosure and analysis.

A Different Strategy

What New Constructs does today is not so different from what Stern Stewart, The Boston Consulting Group, and others did 20 years ago. We’re working off the same conceptual framework and implementing many similar calculations. What’s changed is the level of rigor we put into building technology to gather high-quality data and build best-in-market models with scale.

Our point of differentiation is the scale and speed with which we can build the models and provide analytics.

Our highly educated and trained analysts leverage our proprietary technology to deeply analyze 10-Ks and 10-Qs in a matter of seconds on average.

While we make thousands of adjustments in our models to close accounting loopholes and portray the true economics of the underlying business, every adjustment is not only 100% transparent but also overrideable by clients.

Anyone can go to the Education tab of our website and get detailed explanations of the metrics we use, how we calculate them, and the various adjustments we make to accounting data. Our data is comparable across different companies, so anyone can easily use our screeners to compare profitability and valuation.

During the Metrics Wars, the technology simply didn’t exist to create such a large database and deliver that much information without charging a prohibitively large fee to clients. Because of these limitations, those companies failed even though their underlying framework was sound.

In the intervening years, the burgeoning financial punditry has helped propagate the myth that the market only cares about reported earnings. The rise of the E*Trade baby and amateur investors only furthered the focus on simplistic data points that could be easily calculated and consumed. More sophisticated fundamental research became harder and harder to find.

Today, there is a noticeable gap for the many investors out there that want high-quality fundamental research. Most of the available research out there doesn’t attempt to assess the true drivers of value. Wall Street analysts lack the independence to deliver truly objective research, and what little truly high-quality research exists tends to be too expensive for the average investor to access.

Our goal is to remove the noise that clouds the connection between corporate performance and valuation by providing an analytical framework that is intuitive yet rigorous. For over 95% of the world’s market cap, we provide apples-to-apples corporate performance and valuation metrics. We are ready to join the Metric Wars.

Disclosure: David Trainer and Sam McBride receive no compensation to write about any specific stock, sector, style, or theme.

About New Constructs

We find it. You benefit. Cutting-edge technology enables us to scale our forensics accounting expertise across 3000+ stocks. We shine a light in the dark corners of SEC filings so our clients can make safer, more informed decisions.

Our stock rating methodology instantly informs you of the quality of the business and the fairness of the stock’s valuation. We do the diligence on earnings quality and valuation so you don’t have to.

In-depth risk/reward analysis underpins our stock rating. Our stock rating methodology grades every stock according to what we believe are the 5 most important criteria for assessing the quality of a stock. Each grade reflects the balance of potential risk and reward of buying that stock. Our analysis results in the 5 ratings described below. Very Attractive and Attractive correspond to a "Buy" rating, Very Dangerous and Dangerous correspond to a "Sell" rating, while Neutral corresponds to a "Hold" rating.

Cutting-edge technology enables us to scale our forensics accounting expertise so that we can cover enough stocks to cover the ETFs that hold them as well. Learn more about New Constructs. Get a free trial. See what Barron’s has to say about our research.

This article is from New Constructs, LLC and is being posted with New Constructs, LLC’s permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or New Constructs, LLC and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

 


8603




Technical Analysis

Podcast: Long-Term Technical Uptrends Breaking Down


Click here to listen to John Kosar’s Thursday January 21st interview with Jim Puplava of the Financial Sense website.

John Kosar CMT, Director of Research at Asbury Research LLC, notes that long-term technical uptrends, dating to the beginning of the bull market in 2009 are breaking down, not just in the US but in overseas markets as well. He believes there has been technical damage that speaks to the potential for a global recession, as major trends in effect for more than five years have been broken. John makes the point that globalization has made the world a smaller place, and overseas data from major markets is now correlating with US markets. John also covers his outlook for oil and gold, as well as where he is currently deploying capital in this environment.

 

Asbury Research provides investors with a forward looking, strategic forecast of the US financial landscape 1-2 quarters out, and then defines specific tactical and actionable investment opportunities within that larger forecast via a unique and proprietary multi-layered approach that includes quantitative, technical, and behavioral analysis.  Our focus is on the US stock market and market sectors, US interest rates, the US Dollar, and economically influential commodities like gold, crude oil, and copper, but our scope is global as we integrate our database of worldwide inter-market relationships to add breadth, depth and accuracy to our investment conclusions. Interactive Brokers customers can subscribe to Asbury Research in Account Management.

This article is from Asbury Research and is being posted with Asbury Research's permission. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and/or Asbury Research and IB is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the article. This material is for information only and is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad-based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation by IB to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.


8602




1 2 3 4 5 2 828

Disclosures

We appreciate your feedback. If you have any questions or comments about IB Traders' Insight please contact ibti@ibkr.com.

The material (including articles and commentary) provided on IB Traders' Insight is offered for informational purposes only. The posted material is NOT a recommendation by Interactive Brokers (IB) that you or your clients should contract for the services of or invest with any of the independent advisors or hedge funds or others who may post on IB Traders' Insight or invest with any advisors or hedge funds. The advisors, hedge funds and other analysts who may post on IB Traders' Insight are independent of IB and IB does not make any representations or warranties concerning the past or future performance of these advisors, hedge funds and others or the accuracy of the information they provide. Interactive Brokers does not conduct a "suitability review" to make sure the trading of any advisor or hedge fund or other party is suitable for you.

Securities or other financial instruments mentioned in the material posted are not suitable for all investors. The material posted does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situations or needs and is not intended as a recommendation to you of any particular securities, financial instruments or strategies. Before making any investment or trade, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Any information provided by third parties has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable and accurate; however, IB does not warrant its accuracy and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions.

Any information posted by employees of IB or an affiliated company is based upon information that is believed to be reliable. However, neither IB nor its affiliates warrant its completeness, accuracy or adequacy. IB does not make any representations or warranties concerning the past or future performance of any financial instrument. By posting material on IB Traders' Insight, IB is not representing that any particular financial instrument or trading strategy is appropriate for you.