Archive

2024

Browsing

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) says it fired ‘warning shots’ at a mob of Palestinians who rushed a humanitarian aid convoy early Thursday, resulting in more than 100 killed in the chaos. 

IDF Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said a convoy of 38 trucks came from Egypt and entered Gaza to distribute humanitarian supplies to Gazans in need. He said ‘thousands’ descended on the trucks, with some violent pushing and trampling other Gazans to death, ‘looting the humanitarian supplies.’ 

‘The unfortunate incident resulted in dozens of Gazans killed or injured,’ he said, adding that the tank commander decided to retreat when ‘things got out of hand.’ 

Hagari insisted that ‘no IDF strike was conducted towards the aid convoy.’ 

‘On the contrary, the IDF was there conducting a humanitarian operation to secure the humanitarian corridor and allow the aid convoy to reach its designated distribution point.’ 

More than 100 people were ultimately killed and more than 700 others were injured in the chaos, bringing the number of dead since the start of the Israel-Hamas war to more than 30,000 with another 70,000 wounded, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry. The agency does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its figures but says women and children make up around two-thirds of those killed.

Arab countries have condemned the violence, accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in the incident. U.S. President Biden expressed concern it would make negotiating a ceasefire more difficult. 

Medics arriving at the scene of the bloodshed Thursday found ‘dozens or hundreds’ lying on the ground, according to Fares Afana, the head of the ambulance service at Kamal Adwan Hospital. He said there were not enough ambulances to collect all the dead and wounded and that some were being brought to hospitals in donkey carts.

Aid groups say it has become nearly impossible to deliver supplies in most of Gaza because of the difficulty of coordinating with the Israeli military, ongoing hostilities and the breakdown of public order, with crowds of desperate people overwhelming aid convoys. The U.N. says a quarter of Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians face starvation; around 80% have fled their homes.  

The increasing alarm over hunger across Gaza has fueled international calls for a ceasefire, and the U.S., Egypt and Qatar are working to secure a deal between Israel and Hamas for a pause in fighting and the release of some of the hostages Hamas took during its Oct. 7 attack.

Mediators hope to reach an agreement before the Muslim holy month of Ramadan starts around March 10. But so far, Israel and Hamas have remained far apart in public on their demands.

The Hamas attack into southern Israel that ignited the war killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the militants seized around 250 hostages. Hamas and other militants are still holding around 100 hostages and the remains of about 30 more, after releasing most of the other captives during a November ceasefire.

Since launching its assault on Gaza following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, Israel has barred entry of food, water, medicine and other supplies, except for a trickle of aid entering the south from Egypt at the Rafah crossing and Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing. Despite international calls to allow in more aid, the number of supply trucks is far less than the 500 that came in daily before the war.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The Chinese Communist Party’s flagship newspaper, the Global Times, touted President Biden and his campaign’s use of TikTok, and critiqued the ‘deep hypocrisy’ of America’s politicians who call the social media platform a national security threat.

The opinion article in the CCP’s state media said that Biden’s campaign use of TikTok ‘highlights the unjust suppression’ and ‘proves the hype nonsense.’

‘As a social media app that has been heavily portrayed by the US as a ‘national security threat,’ TikTok being used by Biden’s campaign highlights the unjust suppression of TikTok by American politicians and proves the hype nonsense,’ the article said.

The Global Times argued that the short-form video social media platform has become a ‘necessary means’ for American politicians to reach young voters. 

Citing a 2023 survey report by the Pew Research Center, the Global Times said that about one-third (32 percent) of young Americans aged 18 to 29 say they regularly get their news from TikTok.

The CCP newspaper said that American politicians are ‘very self-contradictory when it comes to TikTok.’

The article argued that the Biden campaign’s use of TikTok proves that the social media platform is not a national security threat and proves the ‘deep hypocrisy’ of American politicians. 

‘In the end, we are witnessing that Washington’s behavior toward TikTok is unacceptable to the public and society, so politicians have to choose to compromise for votes,’ Li Haidong, a professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times.

Jake Denton, a research associate at the Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center, told Fox News Digital that Biden’s ‘hunger for votes has blinded him to the national security threats’ posed by TikTok.

President Biden’s insatiable hunger for votes has blinded him to the national security threats facing America.

— Jake Denton, Research Associate at the Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center

‘Once again, President Biden’s insatiable hunger for votes has blinded him to the national security threats facing America,’ Denton said. ‘By choosing to use TikTok for his reelection campaign, he is callously disregarding warnings from both parties and national security experts that this Chinese-controlled technology imperils our national security through invasive data gathering and its ties to the CCP.’

‘We cannot let one man’s thirst for social media virality and votes endanger our country,’ Denton said. ‘The President must put America before his personal electoral interests, immediately delete TikTok, and join the bipartisan efforts to ban the app from operating on American soil.’ 

The Biden campaign’s TikTok video sparked outrage after the administration banned the Chinese-owned app from federal devices over security concerns.

Last February, the administration set a 30-day deadline for government agencies to purge the app from federal devices.

The social media platform, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, is popular among younger Americans. 

Biden previously joined forces with TikTok influencers amid his re-election run, and the Democratic National Committee also joined the platform.

The president’s campaign joining the Beijing-based social media platform could present unique security risks. 

Most notably, the Chinese Communist Party’s cybersecurity law allows government authorities to access companies’ data.

TikTok and the White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News’ Joe Schoffstall contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In this edition of StockCharts TV‘s The Final Bar, Dave speaks to the diversifying patterns within the Magnificent 7, with GOOGL and AAPL showing clear signs of short-term distribution. He also tracks Bitcoin reaching the 64K level and shares some initial thoughts from the CMT Dubai Summit.

This video originally premiered on February 28, 2024. Watch on our dedicated Final Bar page on StockCharts TV!

New episodes of The Final Bar premiere every weekday afternoon. You can view all previously recorded episodes at this link.

Note to the reader: This is the tenth in a series of articles I’m publishing here taken from my book, “Investing with the Trend.” Hopefully, you will find this content useful. Market myths are generally perpetuated by repetition, misleading symbolic connections, and the complete ignorance of facts. The world of finance is full of such tendencies, and here, you’ll see some examples. Please keep in mind that not all of these examples are totally misleading — they are sometimes valid — but have too many holes in them to be worthwhile as investment concepts. And not all are directly related to investing and finance. Enjoy! – Greg

Secular Markets

For years (decades), analysts referred to long-term market cycles as generational markets. Ed Easterling has now defined them for us using a derivative methodology. Previously, most just looked at the price action and when it rose, called it a bull market, and when it declined or was flat, called it a bear market. I’m going to stick with Easterling’s process, as it comes with a lot of sound analysis and that removes the subjectivity.

Secular market cycles are long-term and have averaged about 25 years over the past 112 years. Secular bear markets average about 11.25 years in length over this period. Keep in mind, however, there are many cyclical bull and bear markets within the longer-term secular bear markets. Because I follow the analysis of Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research, here is my review of his book Probable Outcomes, published in 2011. This book, like his previous book Unexpected Returns, is a must-read to understand how long-term markets work.

Ed Easterling has done it again; provided a big picture approach to the market using time-tested historical data and sound principles. Ed’s first book, Unexpected Returns, was the first time I had heard of the way secular markets were defined — by valuations. Probable Outcomes expands and updates the first book. Easterling builds a methodology that is robust and clearly void of preconceived notions about the future; a refreshing approach rarely seen in books about the stock market.

The first part of the book is a lesson in market finance and economics from a practitioner view and not the usual financial academic approach — again quite informative and refreshing. Every concept is supported by data and colorful charts, which make learning and understanding the process enjoyable. He spends a great deal of time and effort to ensure that his explanations are easily understood and succinct. Secular markets are driven by long-term trends in Price Earnings ratios (PE), which, in turn, are driven by inflation/deflation. This removes the scale of time from the secular cycle definition and only uses the trends and cycles of PE and inflation as the identification of secular bear, and bear market cycle beginnings and endings. Simply, a secular bear begins when valuations peak and reverse because of a trend back toward low inflation, then continue to decline throughout the secular period. Once sufficiently low, usually single digit PE, a new secular bull period can begin.

The book wraps up with a thorough evaluation of how the current decade (2010–2019) could possibly play out (currently in a secular bear), using a large number of different EPS, PE, and Inflation combination scenarios. The message is clear, there are times (secular bears) that one needs to change their perspective on investing and seek an approach that at a minimum preserves capital so that when the next secular bull market begins, time is not spent trying to recover from the past secular bear. It is sad that most people spend a large part of their investing time trying to recover from previous losses. Understanding the secular approach and making the switch in your investing style (rowing vs. sailing) can lead to a long retirement accompanied by dignity and comfort.

I did have one question for Ed that somewhat bothered me. He was gracious enough to provide an excellent response.

My Question: With the average secular cycle being about 25 years and the total database being 112 years, do you feel there is enough data to be totally confident with your secular market analysis?

Ed’s Answer: “Absolutely. But let’s step back for a moment to consider the two types of cycles. You have asked a great question, because its answer reveals a lot about secular stock market cycles.

“There are two types of cycles: technical cycles and fundamental cycles. Technical cycles generally reflect patterns or levels that have a high propensity to repeat. Technical cycles gain their credibility and validity from a high degree of repeating incidences. The four full secular stock market cycles would hardly be considered high repetition. But secular stock market cycles are not technical cycles.

“Secular stock market cycles are fundamentally-driven cycles. By fundamentally-driven, I mean that economic and inflation factors cause the cycles to occur. Secular stock market cycles are more than patterns, they are reactions to hard drivers. Secular bulls and secular bears are driven by the trend and level of the inflation rate. Secular cycles are the adjustments to financial value that are caused by changes in the inflation rate. Since increases and decreases in the inflation rate change the expected rate of return, stocks and bonds increase or decrease in overall value and thereby add or detract from total return.

“Look at the secular bear market of the 1960s and 1970s. Rising inflation caused the valuation of stocks to decline. The market’s price/earnings ratio declined from more than 20 to less than 10 over 16 years. Earnings grew and investors received dividends, but the decline in valuation caused returns to be well-below average. Then as the inflation rate turned and declined, the 1980s and 1990s secular bull experienced the benefit of rising valuations as well as earnings growth and dividends.

“Okay, one last comment about secular cycles. There is another factor other than inflation that impacts them. The second factor is cash flow. The secular bear of 1929 was caused by deflation. Deflation causes the nominal cash flows from earnings and dividends to decline in amount. So even though the discount rate remains low as inflation neared zero and fell into deflation, the expected future decline in reported cash flows due to deflation caused the present value of the market to decline. P/E fell from more than 20 to less than 10. This is potentially instructive about the future, because recent trends in economic growth suggest that it may be slowing from the historical rate averaging 3 percent annual real growth. If economic growth slows, then future earnings growth will slow, too. As a result, the slower growth of cash flows will drive a lower valuation for the market. Growth rate affects the level of P/E.

“So we have fundamental principles related to the concepts of cash flow and present value. Then we have four full-cycle examples that are consistent with the well-accepted academic and industry principles. Is four full cycles enough to be confident about the concept of secular stock market cycles? Absolutely!”

Thanks Ed.

Easterling points out that these secular periods are not random as they follow each other; he actually calls them cycles. The driver of these cycles is the inflation rate as it moves toward and away from price stability. Trends of rising inflation and deflation drive the market valuation lower and result in low returns. As prices stabilize from either deflation or high inflation, valuations are driven upward and the result is high returns. Keep in mind that this is a process whereby moves away from price stability simultaneously cause PE to decline and low or no returns result. Moves toward price stability simultaneously cause PE to rise and result in high returns.

Furthermore, the relationship among inflation, earnings, and prices is neatly tied together. The S&P 500 is an index of capitalization weighted prices of 500 large-cap, blue chip stocks. Inflation is the annual rate of change of the consumer price index, which is a measure of various prices for goods and services. Valuations (earnings) are measured relative to price with the price-to-earnings ratio (PE). Once again, technical analysis arises because all three measures used to define secular markets are ultimately based on price.

Figure 7.14 shows the monthly S&P 500 back to 1900, along with the 12-month rate of change of the Consumer Price Index (Inflation) and the S&P 500 PE Ratio at the bottom; both the prices and the PE ratio are adjusted for inflation (known as real). This makes the PE swings more readily identifiable. You can clearly see from this chart the significant moves in PE (bottom plot) and compare to the moves in the S&P 500 (top plot). The upward moves in the PE Ratio are the secular bulls and the downward moves are the secular bears. The middle plot of inflation shows how it affects valuations over time. Although the specific changes in inflation are not aligned with the peaks and troughs of price or valuation, it is reasonable to assume it leads them. It does appear that, when inflation is within the +2.5% and -1% range (small horizontal lines), its effect is not as great or as timely, and is usually during the Secular Bull markets. I think, from this chart, the fact that secular markets are defined by long-term swings in valuations, which are ultimately affected by inflation, bears (sic) out.

Figure 7.15 shows the exact same data as the previous but over a shorter time period so you can see the changes better. This chart shows the data since World War II. The clarity of the secular bull markets and bear markets in the top plot is obvious. The changes in overall inflation in the middle plot, while not as well defined, still exist, and the bottom plot shows the rise and fall of the price earnings ratio in conjunction with the other two.

Secular Bull Markets

Do not confuse brains with a bull market.

Don’t mistake a bull market for investment skill.

Martin Pring (strategist for Pring Turner Business Cycle ETF [DBIZ]), describes them thusly:

“Primary trend changes in secular (and cyclical) bull markets are usually short and shallow and each peak is higher than its predecessor. Investors are routinely assisted from their bad investment decisions by the bull market. Investors’ confidence grows significantly during these times and eventually becomes excessive, with the period from 1998 to 1999, known as the dotcom bubble, being a classic example. There are geniuses everywhere, and they are paraded hourly on financial television. Investment decisions that are considered irresponsible and careless at the beginning of secular bulls are hailed as perfectly routine as the secular bull matures. The lessons learned in the previous bear market are long forgotten and often you hear “this time is different.” When the majority of the above become common, the end of the secular bull is probably near, despite prognostications that it will go much, much higher.”

These prognostications are given with extreme determination and confidence. In a secular bull, one can buy and hold, invest in index funds, dollar cost average, just about anything. Here is the problem: most will not realize they are in a secular bull market until it is almost over.

Secular Bull Markets since 1900

Figure 7.16 shows the four secular bull markets since 1900. It should be clear that a secular bull is a time when caution goes out the window. Unfortunately, most will not realize it until toward the end.

Secular Bull Data

In Table 7.7, notice that all of the Secular Bull markets started when PE was between 5 and 11, and ended when PE was between 19 and 42. There are charts in the next chapter that show the secular changes in valuation.

Secular Bull Market Composite

The secular bull composite is shown in Figure 7.17 . Secular bull markets, if and when you know you are in one, can easily justify some of the investment strategies that this book considers as bad strategies for most investors. Of course, most will not realize they are in a secular bull until it is well developed.

Secular Bear Markets

Martin Pring says, “the secular bears are essentially the opposite of the bulls as, in general, the peaks are lower and the troughs are lower, exhibiting a downward trend. However, keep in mind that they are not always down-trending, and there is sometimes a new high in the middle. The key characteristics are declining price earnings ratio (PE) and low or no returns. Just like the secular bull, every lesson learned is quickly forgotten. Just like a recession cleanses the economy, the secular bear resets everything and removes all the excesses. Most secular bulls end and secular bears begin without there being a condition of excess. The high valuation of the market is the rational result of low inflation.

“Certainly there are moments of excess, just as normal market volatility creates short periods of excess and the opposite of excess. My key point is that secular tops and bottoms are the result of fundamental conditions rather than irrational emotions. The bearish prognosticators are once again the daily media darlings. And once again, just like in the secular bull, the forecasts are for total gloom and doom. The determination and confidence of these forecasters is convincing, yet eventually wrong.

“Here is something that is important to remember: Secular bear markets account for over 50% of the total time. In fact, as of 2012, there were actually more years in secular bears than in secular bulls since 1900. The previous two points are true but keep in mind that the period being observed has a secular bear at both ends. Since bears are not necessarily longer than bulls, and vice versa, it’s reasonable to say that they are about the same in length on average, but the range of terms varies significantly. Secular bear markets cause investors to seek alternative investments or unconstrained investments that protect them from downside losses. However, just like the secular bull, most will be in denial and not participate in the secular bear properly until sustained losses, and then it will probably be about over.”

The next section shows graphics of the various secular bear markets. They were created with monthly data for the S&P 500 from Robert Shiller’s database. If yearly data had been used, the message would be essentially the same.

Secular Bear Markets since 1900

Figure 7.18 shows all four of the previous inflation-adjusted secular bear markets, along with the current one from their starting point on the left side of the graph. Two of the secular bears were shorter, and two were longer, than the one that began in 2000. One cannot make an investment decision with this information — only an awareness that we are currently in a secular bear market (as of 12/31/2012) and it could last much longer.

Secular Bear Data

Ed Easterling says that secular markets are determined by long-term swings in valuations that are driven by inflation. From Table 7.8, you can see that the Great Depression secular bear did not involve a rise in inflation, but it also only lasted three years. As of this writing (2013), the secular bear that began in 2000 is still in progress.

Notice that the Secular Bear markets started when their PE was between 18 and 42, and ended when their PE was between 5 and 12. The starting PE for the first four Secular Bears was between 18 and 28. The Secular Bear that began in 2000 started at 42, which is an outlier for a starting PE. The next chapter shows charts similar to the secular charts displaying the changes in valuations over the various secular cycles.

Secular Bear Market Composite

Figure 7.19 shows the current secular bear (bold) with the average of the previous secular bears. Again, this information is just for awareness and understanding, as you cannot make investment decisions with this type of observation.

The Last Secular Bear Market (1966–1982)

Figure 7.20 shows that the last secular bear from 1966 to 1982 went sideways, with a number of large cyclical bull markets and bear markets. The message is simple — buy-and-hold, or index investing, did not go anywhere for 16 years. That’s a long time to not make any money in the market, especially when you are in your “retirement wealth accumulation” years. However, if you had a simple trend-following process where you could capture some of the good up moves and avoid most of the big down moves, you would have come out in 1982 significantly better off than buy-and-hold or index investing.

Notice the percentage moves and the amount of time that each took. When one shows 16 years of data, sometimes the compressed data can make it look like the frequency of up and down moves is much higher than it actually is. The up moves (cyclical bulls) averaged 23 months in length, with an average gain of over 52 percent. The down moves (cyclical bears) averaged almost 19 months with an average decline of -33 percent. Clearly, this falls in line with common knowledge that bull markets last longer than bear markets, even if they are contained in an overall secular bear market.

The next chapter is essentially a continuation of this chapter, delving into market valuations, market sectors, asset classes, various methods to observe returns, and the distribution of those returns.

Thanks for reading this far. I intend to publish one article in this series every week. Can’t wait? The book is for sale here.

On this week’s edition of Stock Talk with Joe Rabil, Joe features special guest, Bruce Fraser of Power Charting. Joe and Bruce discuss swing trading in detail, first by defining swing trading and how it is different from trend trading, and then spending time going through the SIG chart, describing the details of the trend and momentum that made it worth watching. Finally, they spend time showing the entry and price targets. Joe will be covering stock requests again next week.

This video was originally published on February 29, 2024. Click this link to watch on StockCharts TV.

Archived episodes of the show are available at this link. Send symbol requests to stocktalk@stockcharts.com; you can also submit a request in the comments section below the video on YouTube. Symbol Requests can be sent in throughout the week prior to the next show.

We’ve begun talking more about the Price Momentum Oscillator (PMO) as it relates to finding “pure strength” and “pure weakness”. What it all comes down to is the zero line and the PMO’s behavior above or below.

We review the Magnificent 7 charts frequently and we noticed that both Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOGL) are displaying “pure weakness,” as far as the PMO is concerned. Pure weakness is defined by the PMO moving lower or moving sideways below the zero line. The distance the PMO is away from the zero line determines the veracity of the condition.

We can see with AAPL, there was a period of “pure strength” back in November. The PMO had moved above the signal line and was rising strongly. When it topped and began to fall above the zero line, it was a sign of diminishing strength. Pure weakness set in when the PMO dropped beneath the zero line, and it is currently in effect. Had we followed the signal, it would’ve saved quite a bit of downside.

The rest of the chart looks pretty terrible, as well with a negative RSI and Stochastics below 20. Additionally, relative strength is failing across the board.

We see a similar setup on GOOGL, but this time the signal is arriving NOW as the PMO dropped beneath the zero line. While this doesn’t mean a precipitous decline is ahead, it does tell us to tighten up stops, at the very least.

There are signs that there might be further decline ahead for GOOGL. The RSI is negative, and Stochastics are below 20. Additionally, relative strength is failing across the board.

Conclusion: The PMO can be used to determine the strength or weakness in a particular move based on its location and direction around the zero line. Based on the PMO, both Apple and Google are displaying pure weakness.

If you like this style of analysis, we welcome you to come try DecisionPoint Diamonds reports, where I bring you 10 stock/ETF picks per week, with a discussion on the PMO and other factors like the ones listed above. Just use coupon code: DPTRIAL2 and you can try Diamonds out free for two weeks!

Learn more about DecisionPoint.com:

Watch the latest episode of the DecisionPointTrading Room on DP’s YouTube channel here!

Try us out for two weeks with a trial subscription!

Use coupon code: DPTRIAL2 at checkout!

Technical Analysis is a windsock, not a crystal ball. –Carl Swenlin

(c) Copyright 2024 DecisionPoint.com

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

DecisionPoint is not a registered investment advisor. Investment and trading decisions are solely your responsibility. DecisionPoint newsletters, blogs or website materials should NOT be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or to take any specific action.

Helpful DecisionPoint Links:

Trend Models

Price Momentum Oscillator (PMO)

On Balance Volume

Swenlin Trading Oscillators (STO-B and STO-V)

ITBM and ITVM

SCTR Ranking

Bear Market Rules

I have been hearing comments that some of the Magnificent Seven no longer qualify for membership, so I thought a quick look at them might be helpful. I’m going to use weekly charts.

Apple (AAPL): AAPL is dealing with trying to move production out of China, and this week it shut down its EV program. The latter will probably have more effect on the EV industry than AAPL, but we’ll deal with that when we get to Tesla.

Technically, we have a bearish rising wedge and a PMO negative divergence.

Prognosis: AAPL probably won’t be so magnificent for at least a few years.

Amazon (AMZN): AMZN suffered mightily during COVID, but it has had a magnificent rally for the last year. The most obvious problem is that it will run into strong resistance at the all-time highs of 2021, and at its current rate of climb it will hit that resistance in just a few weeks.

Prognosis: Still magnificent, but due to run into long-term resistance.

Alphabet (GOOGL): GOOGL has run into resistance at the 2021 top, and has formed a long-term double top. The rising trend line from the 2022 low is still intact, but there is a PMO negative divergence. If that trend is broken, so will be its magnificence.

Prognosis: Not good at this point. Magnificence is endangered.

Meta Platforms (META): META was setting up for a long-term double top, but it broke out and is now +28% above that resistance. The problem now is that the advance from the mid-2023 consolidation is parabolic, and vertical up moves beg for correction. There is currently a PMO negative divergence, but the PMO hasn’t topped yet and the divergence could be erased.

Prognosis: Still magnificent. Watch out for possible correction.

Microsoft (MSFT): MSFT tried to form a double top mid-2023, but it broke out and moved +22% above that resistance. It has formed a long-term bearish rising wedge, and there is a PMO negative divergence, but price movement is strongly bullish.

Prognosis: Magnificent but with some bearish undertones.

Nvidia (NVDA): NVDA hit resistance at 500 last year and consolidated for about six months. In January it broke out and moved over +60% above the resistance at 500. Its biggest problem now is the parabolic advance from the 2022 lows. As I said before, parabolic up moves beg for correction.

Prognosis: The most magnificent of the Seven. Correction is likely, but magnificence should prevail.

Tesla (TSLA): Apple’s recent exit from the EV business is the most dramatic evidence to date of the EV industry and the public’s disillusionment with electric vehicles. TSLA is currently -50% down from its 2021 all-time high, and my opinion is that it is not going to recover.

Prognosis: No longer magnificent and probably will not recover.

Conclusion: AAPL and GOOGL are fading and, while they are solid businesses, may fall short of magnificence for some years. TSLA is done for. The rest are still magnificent but with some reservations for the intermediate-term. So, Magnificent Five?

Learn more about DecisionPoint.com:

Watch the latest episode of the DecisionPointTrading Room on DP’s YouTube channel here!

Try us out for two weeks with a trial subscription!

Use coupon code: DPTRIAL2 at checkout!

Technical Analysis is a windsock, not a crystal ball. –Carl Swenlin

(c) Copyright 2024 DecisionPoint.com

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

DecisionPoint is not a registered investment advisor. Investment and trading decisions are solely your responsibility. DecisionPoint newsletters, blogs or website materials should NOT be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or to take any specific action.

Helpful DecisionPoint Links:

Trend Models

Price Momentum Oscillator (PMO)

On Balance Volume

Swenlin Trading Oscillators (STO-B and STO-V)

ITBM and ITVM

SCTR Ranking

Bear Market Rules

In this edition of StockCharts TV‘s The Final Bar, Dave recaps today’s market activity from the CMT 2024 Summit in Dubai, highlighting AMD’s upside breakout, breadth improvement for US stocks, and why big round numbers matter for stocks like SMCI.

This video originally premiered on February 29, 2024. Watch on our dedicated Final Bar page on StockCharts TV!

New episodes of The Final Bar premiere every weekday afternoon. You can view all previously recorded episodes at this link.

It would be better for everyone if the SEC and Big Ten laid their cards on the table and took whatever spoils they want from college sports in one fell swoop as opposed to the craven way they’re going to spend the next decade rigging the game while pretending what they’re doing isn’t a choice. 

We see what you’re up to, Greg Sankey. You’re not fooling anyone, Tony Petitti. 

So just get on with it, guys, and stop trying to sell college football fans another jalopy disguised as a Rolls Royce. 

That’s exactly what this new 14-team College Football Playoff trial balloon is. It’s a lemon. It’s a dud. It’s a disgrace. 

And it’s a preview of exactly where the SEC and Big Ten want to take college sports: Into a world where they do what they want and they get what they want, with the inclusion of anyone else serving only as a veneer of protection from the next cluster bomb of antitrust claims. 

What is being sold as a compromise — a 14-team playoff with three automatic bids for the SEC and Big Ten, two for the ACC and Big 12 and one for the top team from the lesser conferences — is in reality the most heavy-handed money grab yet from the Power Two.  

Locking in six of the 14 playoff spots every year without even playing a game is just the beginning. You can be sure the SEC and Big Ten will argue for at least two and sometimes all three of the at-large spots as well because recent expansion has made their leagues too big and powerful to be judged against the peons.

Welcome to the SEC/Big Ten invitational: A deck stacked so high that they’ve literally created a caste system in college sports. Regardless of merit or accomplishment, the SEC and Big Ten eat first while everyone else has to lap up the crumbs and thank them for the nice dinner. 

Nothing’s official, of course. But with deadlines looming for what the playoff is going to look like under a new contract that begins in 2026, Yahoo! Sports first reported Wednesday that this 14-team plan is being circulated in CFP world with some significant supporters among the sport’s powerbrokers. 

It’s where things seem to be headed. It absolutely stinks. And it falls squarely on the shoulders of Sankey and Petitti, two men who conduct business by threat disguised as negotiation and heist disguised as leadership. 

Make no mistake, these are not ungovernable forces guiding their industry. What happens to college football, and college sports at large, is a choice. They’re choosing themselves. And they’re choosing poorly. 

What choice do the ACC and Big 12 and everyone else have? Not much. At this point, guaranteed access to the playoff is as good a deal as they’re going to get. By the way, did you see what happened to the Pac-12? It would be a shame if something like that happened again. 

And it all feels very unnecessary — especially when this coming season will deliver a 12-team playoff that generally makes sense and accomplishes the dual goal of creating more playoff access while preserving the sanctity of the regular season.

It will be a simple, easy-to-understand format. The four highest-ranked conference champions are seeded 1 through 4 and receive byes into the quarterfinals. The top-ranked Group of Five team gets in. The seven at-large teams are picked by a committee and will play first-round games at campus sites. 

Maybe it’s not perfect, but it sure would be nice to see it in action for a couple years before tinkering with the format — again.

One would suspect that the 12-team playoff, just like the four-team playoff, will organically work to the benefit of the SEC and Big Ten most of the time if they’re performing the way they should be. It may not work out that way every year, but that’s sports. Things ebb and flow. Over a large sample size of years, the leagues with the most money and the best recruiting classes will win the most games and championships. 

But that’s not good enough for the SEC and Big Ten. They want to rig a game they’ve already won. They want it all.

What are they so afraid of? Whether the playoff is 12 or 14 teams, and regardless of how the automatic bids are distributed, there’s no chance that a deserving SEC or Big Ten team with a real chance to win the national championship is going to get left out of this thing. None. Not going to happen. 

It occured maybe once in the 10-year history of the four-team playoff: This past year when unbeaten No. 1 Georgia lost the SEC title game to Alabama and slipped out of the field.  It’s not going to happen with 12 or 14 teams.

But Sankey has long telegraphed a different philosophy. Though we rarely get much real insight into his thinking, he has harped on the idea that Ole Miss was the last-team included in the 64-team college baseball tournament in 2022 and wound up winning the national championship.

He has used that example before to advocate for expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament — another thing that isn’t necessary but may well be coming down the pike soon anyway at the SEC and Big Ten’s behest. 

Now, Sankey has an even stronger pretext to push for expansion after adding Texas and Oklahoma this year while the Big Ten brings in Southern Cal, UCLA, Washington and Oregon. 

In other words, by breaking college sports through their own largesse, the SEC and Big Ten now need to break other institutions in order to fix them — but mostly to their benefit until they’ve gobbled up every morsel worth eating and grabbed every dollar worth spending. 

Great system. Great sport — if you can still call it that after the SEC and Big Ten get done with it. 

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Selection Sunday is so close we can taste it, but there’s still a lot of basketball to be played this week and next, as teams finish the regular season and head into their conference tournaments. Many have already locked up top 4 seeds — which means they’ll host the first two rounds of the women’s tournament — but the order looks dramatically different than it did just a couple weeks ago. 

On Thursday, the women’s NCAA selection committee will hold its second top-16 seed reveal on ESPN2 (6:30 p.m. ET). It’s a glimpse at how the selection committee is thinking about the top teams and, if the tournament started tomorrow, a preview of what the bracket would look like. 

Remember, in women’s basketball, there are no quads, so if you hear anyone talking about “quad wins,” you can dismiss that person’s take. The women’s committee works off categories, and the all-important NET rankings play a major role in seeding the tournament. 

The committee had its first top-16 seed reveal two weeks ago, on Feb. 15. South Carolina, undefeated and top-ranked, is locked in at the No. 1 overall seed. But there’s been movement below the Gamecocks. Here’s our prediction of how the selection committee’s reveal will go. 

Top 16 seed predictions

1. South Carolina

2. Ohio State

3. Stanford

4. Texas

5. Southern Cal

6. Virginia Tech

7. Iowa

8. UCLA

9. NC State

10. UConn

11. Oregon State

12. LSU

13. Colorado

14. Gonzaga

15. Oklahoma

16. Indiana

Regional pairing predictions

Albany 1

1. South Carolina

2. UCLA

3. UConn

4. Indiana

Portland 1

1. Stanford

2. Iowa

3. NC State

4. Gonzaga

Albany 2

1. Ohio State

2. Southern Cal

3. LSU

4. Oklahoma

Portland 2

1. Texas

2. Virginia Tech

3. Oregon State

4. Colorado

On the bubble

As usual, a handful of teams are fighting for their lives at the end of the regular season, desperately trying to play their way into the NCAA tournament. Here are five teams on the bubble whose postseason future could change dramatically over the next week. 

Arizona: The Wildcats picked up one of the best wins of the season by beating Stanford in Maples Center last week, but an 8-8 conference record is tough to swallow. Sweeping No. 8 UCLA and No. 9 USC this weekend in Tucson would put Arizona in great position to make the tournament. 

Vanderbilt: A NET ranking of 58 is not the way to the committee’s heart. The Commodores probably need to pull an upset (or two) in the SEC tournament to play their way in. 

Maryland: The Terps have been playing well as of late, but were dealt a significant blow last week when guard Lavender Briggs went down with a season-ending knee injury. Can they rally and give No. 12 Indiana a game this weekend, or are they emotionally depleted? 

Princeton: The Tigers had a clear path to the tournament as the automatic qualifier out of the Ivy League, but dropping a game to unranked Columbia last week has put them on shaky ground now. 

Kansas: Winning two games in a row, including over No. 14 Kansas State, is turning heads. But a win over No. 22 Oklahoma, which just locked up the regular season Big 12 title, would help even more. One more win over a ranked team and KU is probably in. 

Follow Lindsay Schnell on social media @Lindsay_Schnell

This post appeared first on USA TODAY