as for the NYSE breadth, that’s a whole ‘nother animal. For the past dozen or so years the NYSE has been infiltrated with non-common stock securities. Bonds (like the GM ones), munis, CEFs, and other weird and woolly animals that bear no resemblance to honest to goodness equities.

The result is that it has totally messed up the breadth numbers. Smart people (like Lowry’s) have worked very hard to keep a pruned list of only common stock breadth. But this sort of info is not readily available for free.

I suspect that the two breadth numbers look nothing alike.

Does that makes sense? logically no. Because you would expect such “loser” stocks to have a neutral effect as they flop positive one day, then negative the next. But the fact that they perpetually go down, may have something to do with it.

The NASI is built on the same inputs so I’m not surprised it shows you similar characteristics. Hope that helps,
Cheers

The only problem is that you neglected to cite the “very good reason” Meisler helped you identify for the cumulative price/breadth divergence! My own work led me to smooth $NAAD with EMA 5 and 20, and I’d love to understand the underlying logic of why this works so much more reliably than cuimulative metrics. Thanks….dk

Thanks for dropping by and commenting.

I didn’t accuse you of misleading readers - I was pointing out that you are very biased. And, how do you know that I haven’t read your book? In any case, I’d prefer to talk about the topic and not get personal.

The point is that if we look at a long term graph of the Nasdaq cumulative adv-dec it is easy to see the fallacy of trying to wring any sort of significance from it for the market as it has been in perpetual decline.

Perhaps you would care to take a look at such a chart and then perhaps reconsider your current bearish position.

cheers

Here’s what I wrote: “While not necessarily a sign of trouble ahead, this sort of divergence often signals that a market lacks the broad participation necessary for a sustainable advance.” I also wrote “Like other recent indicators, it also suggests that the bulls need to tread carefully in the current environment, at least with respect to technology shares.” For some reason, you left off the first part of both sentences. Hmm, I wonder why? Trying to make a point about how clever you are, perhaps?

In addition, you forgot to mention that I am the author of two books, Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes and The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle: An Insider’s Guide to Successful Investing in a Changing World (which was not bearish, in case you were wondering). Your inclusion of only one title gives the impression that my view is solely driven by my latest book.

You also make reference to my “bombastic” predictions without actually having read the book to see why I feel the way I do, which speaks volumes about your approach to analysis. I at least have a logical basis for my argument.

If you read all of my posts at bloggingstocks.com, you will find that they cover a lot of ground. My second to last post was “Rising ‘Spider’ turnover — what does it mean?” [http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/05/23/rising-spider-turnover-what-does-it-mean/], which discusses the relative increase in volume of the S&P 500 ETFs to that of the overall market.

Finally, there are more than two years worth of graphs at the site of my first book, some of which are bearish and some of which are bullish. [http://www.stockmarketjungle.com/usefullinks.htm]

Yes, I am very bearish right now, for fundamental as well as technical reasons. This is a very dangerous market envirnoment, and those who lack experience in all kinds of markets and under a variety of trading conditions can’t really appreciate that.

I guess to some so-called trading “experts,” ignorance is bliss.