Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

The S&P 500 Has Never Had A Down Year After a Start Like 2017: LPL Projected 2017 Close 2760 + 22.1%

FYI: So far so good?

On May 25, Wall Street closed the 100th trading day of 2017, with the S&P 500 having risen 7.9% over that period. That’s a strong start to a year—the fourth-best start of the past 20 years—but don’t worry if you didn’t miss the rally. According to data from LPL Financial, not only has the market never ended a year with a negative return after such a start, but such a beginning typically augurs well for gains through the rest of the year.

Since 1950, there have been 23 years, not including 2017, where the S&P rose at least 7.5% over the first 100 trading days. In all those instances, the market ended higher on the year, with an average annual gain of 23.4%. Based on where the market ended 2016, such an annual gain would mean the benchmark index SPX, +0.76% ends the year around 2,760.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-has-never-had-a-down-year-after-a-start-like-2017-2017-05-31/print

Comments

  • What does this have to do with market fundamentals? Saying the S&P 500 hasn't had a down year after such a start is like saying it rained yesterday and the day before therefore it must rain today without looking at current weather conditions. It is looking only at performance data in the past without any real analysis of market conditions in previous periods when this occurred and comparing them to market conditions today. In other words, it seems like meaningless analysis to me.
  • edited June 2017
    @LewisBraham. It is ANALysis. Of a different kind than mine, but still same category:-D

    As long as you don't marry it and have horrible children it is what determines portfolio returns in both up and down markets. The lowercase version NEVER worked for me.

    Thing is "intelligent" people always like the lowercase version. Like Hussman. What is the point in being "right" if the rest of the world thinks you are "wrong"? Market is going to listen to the "wrong" people who think from their behind. He can take his PhD and...do whatever with it. The joke is if the market turns, it is not as if he is going to provide returns like a 2x inverse S&P 500 fund. Once you realize that you know the fund is to be sold. In my profession, this is known as "design" vs "implementation" issue. His design is good, his implementation is bad.

    Every "hindsight" article in the media tells us investors buy and sell at the wrong time. This is because they don't know how to do "analysis", but they are also not doing "ANALysis" which is easier to do than a monkey throwing darts at internet stocks in the 90s and has bette probability of sucesss.

    So it does not matter that article is nonsense. Do enough people believe it, and will they act on it. That will determine if what the article says will come true. 1-day market crashes are rare, and no one can predict them. For every other market crash, there is enough time to get out before your portfolio gets destroyed. There is also enough time to get back in without screwing up your chances of retirement. How I wish I would have hung out with the right people when I was young. I think I would have had enough money to just sit home and trade and I would already be retired.

    I finally reached investment nirvana when I decided to manage my portfolio "actively" by "indexing" through ANALysis. We think too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.