Slope initially began as a blog, so this is where most of the website’s content resides. Here we have tens of thousands of posts dating back over a decade. These are listed in reverse chronological order. Click on any category icon below to see posts tagged with that particular subject, or click on a word in the category cloud on the right side of the screen for more specific choices.
Well, this is the first down month we’ve had since President Courageous Super Business Guy Deal-Making Genius got elected. It’s almost impossible to believe, but we haven’t had a single down month since October 2016. This is also the biggest loss for a February since 2009. Needless to say, I’m pleased we’ve broken this streak. We can see quite plainly the top, the drop, the recovery, and – – God willing – – the resumption of weakness.
The following daily chart (and close-up shot) of the S&P 500 Index is criss-crossed by a number of trendlines. There are a couple of near-term price levels where these intersect at their apex (2730 and 2685). Should both of these be breached with force, we’ll likely see another leg down.
My last post referencing the SPX:VIX ratio offers further details that would corroborate such a downward event…worth monitoring in the days/weeks ahead.
This morning’s big hit for me is Acadia Pharmaceuticals. I’ve been tracking this one forever, since it’s got a gorgeous symmetric triangle pattern. I shorted it yesterday as it approached its midline, and this morning, blammo, it’s down 16%.
One of the most frequent guests in the world of financial media is the “commodity king” 
Dennis Gartman. In spite of his moniker, he chimes in far more on equities than commodities, and his nearly daily appearances on Fox Business, CNBC, Bloomberg, the trade show circuit, or whoever else will have him, have made him a glowing success story. At least if you measure success by being repeatedly invited back to share market opinions.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam in the comments section of many a blog (particularly ZeroHedge), Mr. Gartman, in spite of his efforts, appears to be wrong far more often than right. Many would say his percentage of being wrong is something approaching 100%, although my own informal analysis puts the figure at a kinder 70% or so.
Oh, and allow me to say this before going further: those of you who feel it clever to comment that people should just do the opposite or whatever Gartman says, or that there should be a triple-inverse Gartman Fund – – you should know the identical comment has been made, oh, thousands of times already, so what may seem clever and saucy to you is, in fact, tired and boring. So save your typing, because the thought you just had isn’t original.
Anyway……….. (more…)
