Friday's market gave us an opportunity for an interesting analysis. We've been down two consecutive days, for a total decline of -1.65% on SPY. When we've been down two days in a row for a drop in excess of 1.5%, what happens next?
Since January, 2003 (N = 774), we've had 49 such two-day sequences. The next day, the market is up on average .14% (32 up, 17 down). This is stronger than the average one-day gain of .05% (430 up 344 down) for the sample overall. It thus looks as though a bounce is the normal expectation following two consecutive declines.
When we divide the sample by time, however, a different picture emerges. During 2003 (N = 25), the two-day declines led to a next-day average price change of .38% (18 up, 7 down)--quite strong. In 2004 and 2005, however (N = 24), the average next day change has been -.11% (14 up, 10 down).
If we look three days out, the pattern becomes even more pronounced. During 2003, the average change over the next three days following the two-day drop was .25% (15 up, 10 down). Since 2004, the average three-day change after a two-day drop was .08% (13 up, 11 down)--and in 2005 alone (N = 10), the average three-day change has been -.17% (3 up, 7 down)!
What this is telling us is that early in the bull market, expectations following a two-day drop were quite positive, but these positive expectations have been eroding. At present, based on 2004 and 2005 results, we cannot say that there is a distinctive upside edge following a large two-day decline, and there is even modest evidence of continuation to the downside.
Such sequential analyses of patterns are useful in identifying changing market cycles. This is very important.
Very.
Posts
