In January when we broke below the Nov. lows and also the 200 day started pointing lower that was the confirmation that Oct was the top and that we have been in a bear market since that top.

In a bear market we have to assume that every rally is a counter-trend rally till we either form a base and start a new bull or we take out the previous high and resume the old bull.

On the intermediate time frame we have been marking higher highs and higher lows since Mar 17th, which is a good trading rally. But now we have come up to the down-trending 200 day MA and got turned away, thus it is my believe that we head lower from here and take out the March lows.

However, as you have said, and as you have shown in your rotational portfolio and your own trades, it does not really matter what the S&P500 does because there is always a bull market somewhere.

If you use a definition like “the 100 day ema is below the 180 day ema,” then it’s been a bear market in the S&P 500 for a few months now.

However, there’s always a bull market somewhere!

I just posted a chart on my blog that might help illustrate what Goefert means by “high” and “low”. Basically he’s referring to short term deviations from the mean.

What Jason means by slope is simply whether the 200 day moving average of the S&P 500 is rising/falling.

I don’t believe he gives a time frame for this Naz/NYSE study but he usually tries to include as much data as he can when he reports on studies. Btw, Goefert doesn’t really do much work with volume because he believes it is of limited value unless you’re evaluating individual securities.

Hope the chart helps.

Allow me to explain how difficult this is with a few bullet points:

Timeframe for the Naz/NYSE table? Number of instances tracked? Results and number of instances at the other extreme? How many of those instances were the result of the tech bubble, and what is the non-tech bubble sample and what does that look like?

By Goefert’s definition, as you state it, volume is NORMAL. The 10-day average was +1% above the 200-day average as of yesterday. It’s been in a NORMAL range (his definition as stated by you) since the March price lows. If that’s his definition, he shouldn’t be concerned about volume. Either his presentation now that it’s “low” is out of whack with his own definition, or your presentation of his argument is flawed.

To develop a slope, I need a rise and a run (as a roofer would say, although they’d probably say Necesito un lugar y una carrera. Slope over what timeframe and how defined (simple return, slope of regression line, position relative to a moving average, etc.). Without a definition, I can’t evaluate it.

By his definition of volume, and assuming his definition of slope is simple return somewhere between a week and three months, we’re in a bull market with normal volume. Assuming his definition of slope is down right now, we’re in a bear market with normal volume. Regardless, we go back to volume by his definition (as you’re presenting it) as NORMAL.

It’s so difficult to adequately address his arguments in the comments without a quoted piece of his material to work from, and unless his quoted material adequately defines some terms, it still won’t work. I hope those points above clear up how hard it is to convey the ideas without his material to work from, or his participation.