While MAGS finished just below its 50-DMA on the week, I’m showing the chart in candlestick setting to evidence the tremendous outside reversal demonstrated by the ETF on Friday. This also proved to stimulate a complete outside reversal pattern on the day for the Nasdaq Composite and Nasdaq 100.

Market Mania – FinX Weekly Top 10 #20

“…the 50-DMA is holding… for now. How much longer remains to be seen but before my ADHD catches up with me, I’ll remind investors/traders that if Tech/Semis/Growth/QQQs can’t find a new wave of buying, we’re likely going to continue this consolidation phase and ultimately break below the 50-DMA. Need that leadership to lead, because of the cap-weighting within cap-weighted indices proves market moving. Good news on that front if we think in MAG-7 terms is offered in the chart of the ETF for the MAG-7 (MAGS)”

If AI is Dotcom S&P 100 : S&P 500 Performance Ratio 2024 - 2025 will complete the achieved price action from 1997 - 1998. 2026-2027 would complete 1999 - 2000 price trend. AI trend has not yet gotten parabolic; if Michael Burry, I'd be concerned. Too much preciseness here. $SPX $ES_F $SPY $QQQ $NDX $SOXX $NVDA $PLTR

Market Mania – FinX Weekly Top 10 #19

“I’m comfortable, despite the late year breadth and momentum consolidation underneath the surface of the markets, buying the dips hence forth and given the litany of quant data informing of higher prices by year-end. I can understand that many would not be as comfortable, given certain of the technical charts discussed, but do keep in mind that what is taking place is typical of strong bull markets initially executing a Zweig Breadth Thrust and everything rally to new all-time highs across almost all cap-tier levels and indices. That kind of bull market demands a breather, at least underneath the surface. There’s nothing ominous in the technicals, and just like a recession demands an exogenous/endogenous catalyst, I hold the view that such is the case with this bull market delivering a full 10% correction. Job growth has stalled, Mis are still below 50, yield-curve formerly inverted, Sahm Rule formerly triggered, Fed hiked at the fastest pace in 45 years and no recession. The demand for a catalyst to cause one is no different than what markets need to drive a full 10% or greater correction given the earnings strength and momentum trends. I’m not trying to tempt Mr. Market, but we had this same discussion to end October 2024, still yet without a full 10%+ correction on the year (-9.8%). That 10% correction didn’t come until the threat of severe tariffs in early 2025 ie an exogenous event.”

A two-panel chart showing the Nasdaq 100 price versus its 200-day moving average since 1985. The top panel plots the index and its 200-day MA, along with a box showing four return regimes based on distance from the 200-day MA. It highlights that the current reading is about 16% above the 200-day MA, placing it in the “Above +1 standard deviation” zone, which historically delivered the highest annualized returns. The bottom panel shows the percentage distance of the Nasdaq 100 from its 200-day MA over time, with dashed lines marking one standard deviation above and below. The latest value is labeled at roughly +16%. Branding “© Bluekurtic Market Insights” appears at the bottom.

Market Mania – FinX Weekly Top 10 #18

“If there is such a thing as “up is bad”, it’s when the HLL Indexes are doing this and break into warning levels. Both are currently at their respective “high alert levels” (NYSE HLL is a warning above 1.50). It is important to keep in mind, however, warnings can survive many, many months before the indices actually render a larger correction/pullback/bear market.”

October Monthly QUANT Recap

October closes not just with a flurry of headlines or policy speculation but with the market continuing to write its own script atop sturdy earnings growth, resilient margins, and relentless upward price action. The S&P 500 has scaled to its 34th all-time high this year, with October delivering a weekly gain and fulfilling a stretch that, historically, sets the market up for further highs before year-end. Finom Group’s research underscores that these highs have come not through happenstance, but by way of methodical price action, disciplined dip buying, and persistent earnings upgrades—even as anxieties swirl over policy and politics.

Market Mania – FinX Weekly Top 10 #17

“I don’t use volume very often. The only really good use for volume is to identify washouts. It’s the main thing it helps you with. You know, you’ll always hear people say, “Oh, the market went up, up, up on light volume.

That’s all it ever does. That’s called a melt-up. That’s what markets do — they generally have lighter volume on the upside and heavier volume on the downside.

It’s what investing is all about. You get lighter volume on the upside because buying is a process — it’s slower and takes more consideration, so it doesn’t happen all at once. Selling is quite the opposite — it usually happens all at once because something is scaring investors.

It’s an emotional response. It doesn’t take a lot of time; you’re scared, so you sell. So, there’s almost always greater volume on the downside.

SEPTEMBER FINOM GROUP MONTHLY MACRO-MARKET QUANT RECAP

September Monthly Macro-Market RECAP

September, notorious for its volatility and bearish lore, instead delivered yet another display of broad resilience and underlying macro strength. Contrary to pundits and headline fear, economic growth continued to surprise—with Finom Group’s long-standing no-recession call again borne out despite Q1’s “growth scare” and every new round of exogenous policy risk. With tariff realignments and labor disruptions receding, businesses adapted, consumption rebounded, and jobless claims trended toward new lows by month-end. In short: this cycle’s adaptability and productivity remain underappreciated by the consensus.

Market Mania – FinX Weekly Top 10 #14

“Markets are intrinsically constructed to go higher, not lower and investors largely position and participate for such outcomes. Hence, if there are quant probabilities informing of a greater than 70% downside probability, these still have a higher failure rate than quants informing of a greater than 70% positive outcome. In other words, always leave more room for negative quants to fail than positive quant failures. Markets are designed to go higher, which is the basis for investing.”