[donb9006]

Originally Posted by kellyjam

Haven't you heard its only $75 Billion now LOL. Keynesians are all in.

It WAS $95 billion, I'd already accounted for the "taper". That's $300 for EVERY man, woman. and child in the country...every month!

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by donb9006

Hard for anything to go down with the Fed printing $85,000,000,000 a month

The market went up after they reduced it to 75 billion.

[glgene]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

The market went up after they reduced it to 75 billion.

That's because some $ amount of tapering was already factored into the Marketplace. Going from $85 bil to $75 bil. a month finally got the ball rolling. It was a small ball, and that's why the market digested it comfortably. Going to $65 bil. the first increment would have been a harder swallow!

That said, I heard Bob Pisani (on CNBC) say today he thinks the Fed. will end up actually increasing QE sometime in 2014. If that happens, look out below (in my opinion). That would mean we're addicted to QE; that we can't live without it.

Of course, Pisani is just one voice (he also predicted a 10% market correction sometime during 2014).

On the other hand, Jeremy Siegel said today he sees the Dow "ending" 2014 at 18,000. It ended today (12/31/13) at 16,575. That would be an 8.6% increase for 2014. He, too, said there would be a correction along the way.

One thing is for certain: 2014 won't be linear...several (many?) Ups and Downs along the way. Buckle in.

But first things first...let's see how January performs.

Gene

[rubicon]

I question the experts optimism when it comes to 2014. Washington has not done enough to correct the flawed economy. and in fact exacerbate flaws with Dodd-Frank, ACA, QE which I believe will go back up in 2014. all this and more will keep the economy bogged done in banality

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by rubicon

...Washington has not done enough to correct the flawed economy...

Or perhaps Washington has done too much, causing a flawed economy in need of correction.

[Chi-Town]

I heard the same the same rationale regarding the Santa Claus Effect.

[Trader58]

The truth is nobody knows what the stock market will do. Statistically, it goes up or down 33% of the time. It goes sideways 66% of the time. Reversion to the mean.

[glgene]

Originally Posted by glgene

I heard on CNBC today (12/30) the following commentary by one of the guests interviewed...re: the so-called January Effect:

1) The first 5 trading days of January has an 85% probability of predicting the gain vs. loss yearly status for the market.

2) For action the entire month of January, it sets a 76% yearly probability.

Disclosure: Notice I didn't say 100% predictability. So don't shoot the messenger.

Gene

Today (Jan. 8) marks the 5th trading day of 2014 (Jan. 2,3,6,7,8). Here are the 5-day stats:

* Dow 30.... -0.7% less than end-of-day Dec. 31

* SP 500..... -0.6% " " " " " " "

* Nasdaq..... -0.3% " " " " " " "

Thus, all 3 indexes show a (small) loss for the first 5 days of January. Draw your own conclusions, if any.

Gene

[glgene]

Today (Jan. 31) marks the final stock market trading day of January 2014. Here are the monthly stats for January:

* Dow 30.... -5.30% less than end-of-day Dec. 31, 2013

* SP 500..... -3.56% " " " " " " " " "

* Nasdaq..... -1.74% " " " " " " " " "

Thus, all 3 indexes show losses for the month of January. Draw your own conclusions, if any (same as I said for the first 5 trading days of January). I suggest you scroll up to the original post to see the nature of this thread.

Gene

[Shimpy]

It's only human nature to hope we found a way to predict the future but it will never happen. There are too many news events ahead of us that would change what's going to happen.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Shimpy

It's only human nature to hope we found a way to predict the future but it will never happen. There are too many news events ahead of us that would change what's going to happen.

You are exactly correct.

[villagerjack]

Originally Posted by glgene

I heard on CNBC today (12/30) the following commentary by one of the guests interviewed...re: the so-called January Effect:

1) The first 5 trading days of January has an 85% probability of predicting the gain vs. loss yearly status for the market.

2) For action the entire month of January, it sets a 76% yearly probability.

Disclosure: Notice I didn't say 100% predictability. So don't shoot the messenger.

Gene

Are you selling or buying based on the information you provided?

[glgene]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

Are you selling or buying based on the information you provided?

I merely provided this year's January numbers for viewers to draw their own conclusions for the so-called "January Effect," which (as I stated) does NOT offer 100% probability. My original post displayed the probabilities that I heard on CNBC in late December 2013.

Investing is a personal decision, as you know. To answer your question, I won't be buying any "long" positions tomorrow (Feb. 3), based on reasons other than the "January Effect."

I neither accept nor reject the "January Effect." But others may...to each his/her own.

Gene

[villagerjack]

Originally Posted by glgene

I merely provided this year's January numbers for viewers to draw their own conclusions for the so-called "January Effect," which (as I stated) does NOT offer 100% probability. My original post displayed the probabilities that I heard on CNBC in late December 2013.

Investing is a personal decision, as you know. To answer your question, I won't be buying any "long" positions tomorrow (Feb. 3), based on reasons other than the "January Effect."

I neither accept nor reject the "January Effect." But others may...to each his/her own.

Gene

Actually Gene,the so - called "January effect" is something other than what you are describing. It has to do with folks taking tax losses in December, making stocks cheaper in January, primarily small cap stocks. This has less validity in recent years since a lot if stocks are held in 401k's.

[glgene]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

Actually Gene,the so - called "January effect" is something other than what you are describing. It has to do with folks taking tax losses in December, making stocks cheaper in January, primarily small cap stocks. This has less validity in recent years since a lot if stocks are held in 401k's.

I can't disagree with you. I used the phrase "January Effect" because that's how it was reported on CNBC. I think the commentator should have said "January Barometer." Because that's what he was describing (as goes January, so goes the remainder of the year), with the Probability numbers I reported in my original post. Substitute "January Barometer" in this thread, and we're talking about the CNBC story. Thank you for pointing out the misuse of "January Effect."

Gene