• Weekly Comments for October 12, 2015

    Half an hour of short-covering that lasted the whole week

    I concluded last week's comments with this opinion: "Markets will most probably come back down early next week. It all depends on the time it will take to run the margin calls on Monday (half an hour?)"

    This statement proved about 100% wrong: the bounce was very strong and certainly lasted more that what is needed to run margin calls. It felt like March 2009, when QE1 forced an epic short-covering move. The main difference with QE1 is that in March 2009, prices were very low AND the Fed was really buying.

    Today, we might question the potential for a continued bounce (Price/Value) in an environment characterized by the Fed's inaction and passivity (more data needed, more time needed to observe, etc.)

    The other side of the coin is that funds that had positioned themselves for an imminent rate increase may not be done adjusting to the long side. Hence, although still "short" oriented, I am much more prudent now than last week.


    How should we handle the coming week?

    We are short-term overextended, but this is options expiration, which carries a positive bias. In other words, there is a good chance that a trading range will develop.

    In such a case, we should look at some hypotheses and follow those that are data supported.

    1. If the Fed is not going to raise rates, then dividend-offering defensive sectors should do well.

    Since issuing a buy signal early in September, REITs and VNQ have gained 20%, which is really good for a defensive sector. So yes, that statement looks to be data supported.





    2.The bounce in energy is overdone. Energy will pull back this week.

    This is what the XLE MF is telling us.



    The Oil Integrated sector (XOM, CVX) has attracted good money and is now overextended, but it is hardly falling here.



    On the other hand, the Oil Sands sector (IMO, SU, CNQ) is not doing well at all: large investors are taking advantage of the bounce to sell shares. It might be "Canada specific" (For example: new taxes.) or it might show that there is no trust in a long lasting oil bounce.







    3. With the bounce in oil, coal should also do well.

    Not really!!
    We can see that the coal MF has now turned negative again.
    CNX is probably a short here.





    Coal is a big component of the materials sector XME, which shows a topping pattern here.



    Steel companies such as STLD/NUE seem to be running on fumes, which is to say that they are up because the materials sector and the market are up, but for how long?





    4. With the uncertainty in the energy and materials sectors ready to return to the markets, the safest buys are probably in the tech sectors.

    Indeed, many tech sectors are attracting money and a few tech stocks could probably move higher on genuine buying (not just short covering).

    In the Software enterprise sector, QLIK, ADSK, WDAY, MBLY are interesting (ADSK is somewhat extended now).



    On the Software security side, SPLK, FEYE or the HACK ETF might move higher.





    Conclusions:

    It is still possible to make money in the current environment, but I believe that carrying a balanced portfolio is the best for now. There are enough "stories" to find good opportunities on both sides of the market.

    There are still some other stories such as
    - the solar panel issue with the Chinese competition and the end of state subsidies
    - the biotech sector that has been shaken by Hillary's campaign against high prices

    Maybe for another comment.
    Comments 8 Comments
    1. pgauti's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
      date issue I suppose
    1. Pascal's Avatar
      yes. corrected it

      Pascal
    1. 77seas's Avatar
      Pascal

      Is there a link to the archive of weekly comments?

      Thanks
    1. Artur's Avatar
      Hi Pascal,

      As you mentioned, the large players have been selling CNQ in its recent 30% climbing.
      I think that it could become an interesting short, now that CNQ is approaching an important horizontal resistance around 25,50$.
      At the first sheet of your Repository File, I find CNQ with 50% Supply, LER -125 and belonging to the Oil Sands Sector that is in a Short status.
      Everything looking good.
      Can you tell me why CNQ does not appear at the Supply sheet of the Repository File?
      Is there an error or am I missing something?

      Regards
      Artur
    1. Pascal's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by 77seas View Post
      Pascal

      Is there a link to the archive of weekly comments?

      Thanks
      It is the same page:

      http://www.effectivevolume.com/conte...e-week-archive

      However, I noticed that a "pagination link" was not properly configured, which made it impossible to read old weekly articles.

      I fixed that.


      Pascal
    1. Pascal's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Artur View Post
      Hi Pascal,

      As you mentioned, the large players have been selling CNQ in its recent 30% climbing.
      I think that it could become an interesting short, now that CNQ is approaching an important horizontal resistance around 25,50$.
      At the first sheet of your Repository File, I find CNQ with 50% Supply, LER -125 and belonging to the Oil Sands Sector that is in a Short status.
      Everything looking good.
      Can you tell me why CNQ does not appear at the Supply sheet of the Repository File?
      Is there an error or am I missing something?

      Regards
      Artur
      Hi Artur.

      Thank you for your question.
      There are two aspects: one technical and one fundamental.

      The first aspect is about the Supply. There are two types of supply (two reasons for you to sell shares): Book profits or cut losses. These two types are shows in two different colors below. the combination of the two makes the Supply level. As a buyer, you would not care much whether the share you bought came from a seller who booked profits or from a lesser who booked a loss. However, as a short seller, you would be more interested in shorting stocks that experience much panic selling instead of stocks that experience normal profit taking. Why? Because "panic selling" carries a "snow ball" effect that the profit taking selling does not carry.

      To the contrary, profit taking in a stock that just booked a 30% gain can be healthy for further gains.
      This is the reason why on the repository file, I only consider the high "loss cutting" supply levels.

      Attachment 32609
      Attachment 32610

      Now, regarding the second aspect - the fundamental aspect - we do not know the motivations of these oil sands sellers. I suspect that these could be long-term institutional holders that have no confidence that the price of oil can climb much higher and stay higher. However, there could be another reason, such as a regulatory issue or a pipe-line/refinery issue for these producers.

      I have no specific knowledge.
      I would not short CNQ even when I see such strong selling. But I certainly would not be buying price weakness here.

      If you compare the MF of ALL the other oil related sectors, they are all far into positive territory. Only the oil sands sector (both the US and Canadian) show a negative MF. This means that you could probably use the oil sands sector as a hedge against a long position taken for example on the oil services or oil drillers. You would basically carry a balanced portfolio, but with a positive edge due to the different MF directions.



      Pascal
    1. Artur's Avatar
      Pascal,
      I thank you for your reply but I have a related question.

      ORCL is a stock that also have high supply and a very negative LER in a short mode sector.
      Unlike CNQ, you have placed ORCL in the Supply sheet.

      Can you explain the difference?

      Artur

      Quote Originally Posted by Pascal View Post
      Hi Artur.

      Thank you for your question.
      There are two aspects: one technical and one fundamental.

      The first aspect is about the Supply. There are two types of supply (two reasons for you to sell shares): Book profits or cut losses. These two types are shows in two different colors below. the combination of the two makes the Supply level. As a buyer, you would not care much whether the share you bought came from a seller who booked profits or from a lesser who booked a loss. However, as a short seller, you would be more interested in shorting stocks that experience much panic selling instead of stocks that experience normal profit taking. Why? Because "panic selling" carries a "snow ball" effect that the profit taking selling does not carry.

      To the contrary, profit taking in a stock that just booked a 30% gain can be healthy for further gains.
      This is the reason why on the repository file, I only consider the high "loss cutting" supply levels.

      Attachment 32609
      Attachment 32610

      Now, regarding the second aspect - the fundamental aspect - we do not know the motivations of these oil sands sellers. I suspect that these could be long-term institutional holders that have no confidence that the price of oil can climb much higher and stay higher. However, there could be another reason, such as a regulatory issue or a pipe-line/refinery issue for these producers.

      I have no specific knowledge.
      I would not short CNQ even when I see such strong selling. But I certainly would not be buying price weakness here.

      If you compare the MF of ALL the other oil related sectors, they are all far into positive territory. Only the oil sands sector (both the US and Canadian) show a negative MF. This means that you could probably use the oil sands sector as a hedge against a long position taken for example on the oil services or oil drillers. You would basically carry a balanced portfolio, but with a positive edge due to the different MF directions.



      Pascal
    1. Pascal's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by Artur View Post
      Pascal,
      I thank you for your reply but I have a related question.

      ORCL is a stock that also have high supply and a very negative LER in a short mode sector.
      Unlike CNQ, you have placed ORCL in the Supply sheet.

      Can you explain the difference?

      Artur
      Indeed. It is because ORCL is at the left of the NB (Neutral boundary).
      The high supply is due to Loss cutting, which has the possibility of a "negative snowball effect".


      Pascal

      Attachment 32625

      Attachment 32624