One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average

MarketWatch2021-09-21

Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell The S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four ...

网页链接

免责声明：本文观点仅代表作者个人观点，不构成本平台的投资建议，本平台不对文章信息准确性、完整性和及时性做出任何保证，亦不对因使用或信赖文章信息引发的任何损失承担责任。

123

RS142
·2021-09-21
Fall everyday
回复
1
举报
ivanlam
·2021-09-21
[开心]
回复
2
举报
收起
- ivanlam:
  1
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报
- ivanlam:
  2
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报
- ivanlam:
  3
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报
查看更多 2 条评论
Dazhu
·2021-09-21
Continue to fall today?
回复
3
举报
收起
- Mb76:
  K
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报
superduper
·2021-09-21
Sigh
回复
4
举报
JY1980
·2021-09-21
Hi
回复
2
举报
收起
- JY1980:
  Hi
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报
IXC
·2021-09-21
Are Hedggies looking for scapegoats?
回复
1
举报
themonkey
·2021-09-21
[看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨]
回复
2
举报
Ahsiang
·2021-09-21
Jialat
回复
2
举报
AudTKH
·2021-09-21
I c
回复
5
举报
HappySheep
·2021-09-21
[OMG]
回复
3
举报
Daniial
·2021-09-21
Niceo
回复
4
举报
KTX
·2021-09-21
Like pls
回复
5
举报
收起
- Daniial:
  Wow
  2021-09-21
  回复
  举报

热议股票

7x24

全部

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","thumbnail":"","is_english":true,"pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","id":"1137129092","market":"us","top_or_hot":-1,"title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average","media":"MarketWatch","content":"<div>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"lsy1603348471595","html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-09-21 11:38 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page>MarketWatch</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four ...\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">网页链接</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","isBrief":false,"type":0,"news_type":1,"symbol":".IXIC","symbol_name":"NASDAQ Composite","start_time":0,"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","article_id":"1137129092","we_media_id":null,"thumbnails":[],"rights":null,"url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"columns":[],"sourceInfo":{"source_id":"lsy1603348471595","name":"MarketWatch"},"weMediaInfo":null,"summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","collect":0,"end_time":0,"defaultTopTitle":"marketwatch.com","property":[],"viewcount":null,"language":"en","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"translate_title":"对遭受重创的股票来说，一个有希望的迹象是：标普500股市低于50天移动平均线","themeId":null,"isJumpTheme":false,"ttsUrl":null,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9},"content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","kind":"news","is_publish_news":true,"is_publish_highlight":true,"is_publish_live":false,"is_publish_wemedia":null,"editions":null,"column":"","sentiment":"0","news_tag":"","news_rank":0,"symbols":[],"gpt_button":0,"need_auth":false,"code":"91000000","status":"200"},"commentList":[{"id":860708018,"gmtCreate":1632206579634,"gmtModify":1632802063673,"author":{"id":"3574118564601995","authorId":"3574118564601995","name":"RS142","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/22d2d9b1f352da24e6ea75b557ac987a","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3574118564601995","idStr":"3574118564601995"},"htmlText":"Fall everyday","listText":"Fall everyday","text":"Fall everyday","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860708018","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860471788,"gmtCreate":1632205080644,"gmtModify":1632802072188,"author":{"id":"3582016577975526","authorId":"3582016577975526","name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582016577975526","idStr":"3582016577975526"},"htmlText":"[开心]&nbsp;","listText":"[开心]&nbsp;","text":"[开心]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":2,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":15,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860471788","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5943521,"gmtCreate":1632205086074,"gmtModify":1634790448977,"authorId":3582016577975526,"author":{"id":3582016577975526,"idStr":"3582016577975526","authorId":3582016577975526,"name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860471788,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"1","text":"1","html":"1"},{"id":5943523,"gmtCreate":1632205091778,"gmtModify":1634790448760,"authorId":3582016577975526,"author":{"id":3582016577975526,"idStr":"3582016577975526","authorId":3582016577975526,"name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860471788,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"2","text":"2","html":"2"},{"id":5943566,"gmtCreate":1632205609589,"gmtModify":1634790444921,"authorId":3582016577975526,"author":{"id":3582016577975526,"idStr":"3582016577975526","authorId":3582016577975526,"name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860471788,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"3","text":"3","html":"3"},{"id":5943571,"gmtCreate":1632205663747,"gmtModify":1634790444373,"authorId":3582016577975526,"author":{"id":3582016577975526,"idStr":"3582016577975526","authorId":3582016577975526,"name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860471788,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"4","text":"4","html":"4"},{"id":5943583,"gmtCreate":1632205789172,"gmtModify":1634790443172,"authorId":3582016577975526,"author":{"id":3582016577975526,"idStr":"3582016577975526","authorId":3582016577975526,"name":"ivanlam","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b69aadeaeb7dadd4cee48a1d48771644","vip":1,"crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860471788,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"5","text":"5","html":"5"}],"langContent":"CN"},{"id":860456657,"gmtCreate":1632202491179,"gmtModify":1632802086031,"author":{"id":"3575197337244742","authorId":"3575197337244742","name":"Dazhu","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575197337244742","idStr":"3575197337244742"},"htmlText":"Continue to fall today?","listText":"Continue to fall today?","text":"Continue to fall today?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860456657","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5943650,"gmtCreate":1632206315768,"gmtModify":1634790437468,"authorId":4087701475296490,"author":{"id":4087701475296490,"idStr":"4087701475296490","authorId":4087701475296490,"name":"Mb76","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860456657,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"K","text":"K","html":"K"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860462305,"gmtCreate":1632199740407,"gmtModify":1632802103917,"author":{"id":"3581550518409224","authorId":"3581550518409224","name":"superduper","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/04a121c70123b41a7011f9ec45096505","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581550518409224","idStr":"3581550518409224"},"htmlText":"Sigh","listText":"Sigh","text":"Sigh","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860462305","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860466364,"gmtCreate":1632199629558,"gmtModify":1632802105027,"author":{"id":"3582667225966897","authorId":"3582667225966897","name":"JY1980","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c6f123e82a9a8b2f55744c343c13bbdc","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582667225966897","idStr":"3582667225966897"},"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860466364","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5942802,"gmtCreate":1632199635289,"gmtModify":1634790514309,"authorId":3582667225966897,"author":{"id":3582667225966897,"idStr":"3582667225966897","authorId":3582667225966897,"name":"JY1980","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c6f123e82a9a8b2f55744c343c13bbdc","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860466364,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Hi","text":"Hi","html":"Hi"}],"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860484118,"gmtCreate":1632198805434,"gmtModify":1632802111746,"author":{"id":"3549961947099138","authorId":"3549961947099138","name":"IXC","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0aaf74f45f10bbfd1b6452de17f032b1","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3549961947099138","idStr":"3549961947099138"},"htmlText":"Are&nbsp;Hedggies looking for scapegoats?","listText":"Are&nbsp;Hedggies looking for scapegoats?","text":"Are Hedggies looking for scapegoats?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860484118","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860486133,"gmtCreate":1632198438222,"gmtModify":1632802114477,"author":{"id":"3573986430688942","authorId":"3573986430688942","name":"themonkey","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/573a67d390101884216129f5c49fe8a0","vip":1,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3573986430688942","idStr":"3573986430688942"},"htmlText":"[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;","listText":"[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;[看涨]&nbsp;","text":"[看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨] [看涨]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860486133","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"CN"},{"id":860481153,"gmtCreate":1632198179972,"gmtModify":1632802115959,"author":{"id":"3582617881962608","authorId":"3582617881962608","name":"Ahsiang","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/310f96e7696af85ae33ece774a483d15","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3582617881962608","idStr":"3582617881962608"},"htmlText":"Jialat","listText":"Jialat","text":"Jialat","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860481153","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860418466,"gmtCreate":1632197231955,"gmtModify":1632802123833,"author":{"id":"3575582076363736","authorId":"3575582076363736","name":"AudTKH","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e4905e1cd622b8faa04ad4125cd04a83","vip":1,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3575582076363736","idStr":"3575582076363736"},"htmlText":"I c","listText":"I c","text":"I c","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860418466","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860413889,"gmtCreate":1632197073241,"gmtModify":1632802125922,"author":{"id":"3581932792448241","authorId":"3581932792448241","name":"HappySheep","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3581932792448241","idStr":"3581932792448241"},"htmlText":"[OMG]&nbsp;","listText":"[OMG]&nbsp;","text":"[OMG]","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860413889","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860410023,"gmtCreate":1632196822262,"gmtModify":1632802127647,"author":{"id":"3586933172277650","authorId":"3586933172277650","name":"Daniial","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ee7cc3a13c09301d8be74a3c911bfb86","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3586933172277650","idStr":"3586933172277650"},"htmlText":"Niceo","listText":"Niceo","text":"Niceo","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860410023","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"langContent":"EN"},{"id":860431646,"gmtCreate":1632196102785,"gmtModify":1632802133304,"author":{"id":"3571482211918385","authorId":"3571482211918385","name":"KTX","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f7d2d6c9788fbae7ed024ed5ba7c58e4","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"authorIdStr":"3571482211918385","idStr":"3571482211918385"},"htmlText":"Like pls","listText":"Like pls","text":"Like pls","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/860431646","repostId":1137129092,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1137129092","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632195526,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1137129092?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-21 11:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1137129092","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day mo","content":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>One hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nOne hopeful sign for hard-hit stocks: S&P 500 is below its 50-day moving average<blockquote>对于遭受重创的股市来说，一个充满希望的迹象是：标普500股价低于50日移动平均线</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nMarketWatch2021-09-21 11:38\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nBreak of a key support level is not a good reason to sell<blockquote>突破关键支撑位并不是卖出的好理由</blockquote> The S&amp;P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&amp;P 500&nbsp;over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.<blockquote>标普500上周五跌破50日均线并不是卖出的好理由。事实上，过去四十年来，当市场低于过去50天平均水平时，标普500的表现优于平均水平。</blockquote> There’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”<blockquote>没有办法知道周一股市暴跌有多少是由下意识的技术人员造成的，他们因为周五的行动而决定积累现金。但这无疑起到了作用。《巴伦周刊》将50日均线的突破称为“比缩减、税收和中国恒大集团加起来还要可怕”。</blockquote> My review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&amp;P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&amp;P 500 was below its moving average — not above.<blockquote>我对美国股市历史的回顾未能找到这种世界末日情景的统计支持，正如您可以从附图中的摘要数据中看到的那样。它显示了股市在接下来的一个月、一个季度、六个月和一年中的平均表现，具体取决于标普500的交易价格是高于还是低于其50天移动平均线。请注意，在标普500低于移动平均线（而不是高于移动平均线）的几天后，回报率略好。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6b62cc6aefb107b17fa100562f9b0fb2\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"501\" width=\"100%\" height=\"auto\"><blockquote></blockquote> That’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.<blockquote>这与人们普遍认为周一的暴跌是由市场突破50日均线引发的相反。</blockquote> I hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&amp;P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.<blockquote>我赶紧补充一点，你不应该因为标普500现在低于50日移动平均线就得出这样的结论，你应该变得更加看涨。图表中绘制的差异在统计学家在确定模式是否真实时经常使用的95%置信水平下并不显著。</blockquote> The investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>相反，你应该从图表中得出的投资含义是，如果你根据市场相对于50天移动平均线的位置来预测股市的未来，你就处于危险的境地。</blockquote> It should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined&nbsp;seven other possible causes&nbsp;of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&amp;P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.<blockquote>这应该是显而易见的，但我还是要提醒你：未来几周股市仍可能下跌。MarketWatch概述了这种下降的其他七个可能原因，我还可以补充一个：不利的情绪。这一分析更广泛的观点是，如果股市确实下跌，不要将其归咎于标普500跌破50日移动平均线。</blockquote> Pre-1980 experience<blockquote>1980年以前的经验</blockquote> I chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.<blockquote>我选择1980年作为本专栏分析的数据截止日期，因为直到20世纪80年代，指数基金才开始广泛使用，投资者通过单笔交易买卖整个市场变得相对容易。记住这一点至关重要，因为50日移动平均线在1980年之前确实有更好的记录。但没有简单的方法可以在不产生大量交易成本的情况下真正遵循其信号。我的研究表明，在1980年之前的20世纪，在考虑交易成本后，简单的50天移动平均线交易系统不会击败简单的买入并持有策略。</blockquote> Blake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.<blockquote>布兰代斯大学(Brandeis University)金融学教授布莱克·勒巴伦(Blake LeBaron)告诉我，他怀疑移动平均线交易系统在进出股市变得越来越容易、越来越便宜的同时停止工作，这并非偶然。当太多投资者开始遵循之前成功的策略时，它们就不再起作用，这是市场效率的一个标志。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page\">MarketWatch</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-hopeful-sign-for-stocks-s-p-500-is-below-its-50-day-moving-average-11632166237?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1137129092","content_text":"Break of a key support level is not a good reason to sell\nThe S&P 500’s breaking below its 50-day moving average last Friday is not a good reason to sell. In fact, the S&P 500 over the past four decades has performed better than average when the market was below its trailing-50-day average.\nThere’s no way of knowing how much of Monday’s stock market plunge was caused by knee-jerk technicians who decided to build up cash because of Friday’s action. But that undoubtedly played a role. Barron’s referred to the breaking of the 50-day moving average as “scarier than tapering, taxes, and China Evergrande Group combined.”\nMy review of U.S. stock market history fails to find statistical support for this doomsday scenario, as you can see from the summary data in the accompanying chart. It shows the stock market’s average performance over the subsequent month-, quarter-, six months-, and year depending on whether the S&P 500 was trading above or below its 50-day moving average. Notice that the returns were slightly better following days when the S&P 500 was below its moving average — not above.\n\nThat’s just the opposite of the widespread narrative that Monday’s plunge was triggered by the market violating its 50-day average.\nI hasten to add that you should not conclude that, because the S&P 500 is now below its 50-day moving average, you should become more bullish. The differences plotted in the chart are not significant at the 95% confidence level that statisticians often use when determining if a pattern is genuine.\nThe investment implication you should instead draw from the chart is that you’re on dangerous ground basing any projections about the stock market’s future on where the market stands relative to its 50-day moving average.\nIt should be obvious, but I’ll remind you of it anyway: The stock market may still decline in coming weeks. MarketWatch outlined seven other possible causes of such a decline, and I can add one more:unfavorable sentiment. The broader point of this analysis is that, if the stock market does decline, don’t blame it on the S&P 500 breaking below its 50-day moving average.\nPre-1980 experience\nI chose 1980 as the data cutoff for this column’s analysis, since it was only in the 1980s that index funds started to become widely available and it became relatively easy for investors to buy or sell the entire market with a single transaction. That’s crucial to keep in mind, since the 50-day moving average did have a somewhat better record prior to 1980. But there would have been no easy way to actually follow its signals without incurring substantial transaction costs. My research suggests that, for the 20thcentury prior to 1980, a simple 50-day moving average trading system would not have beaten a simple buy-and-hold strategy after transaction costs are taken into account.\nBlake LeBaron, a finance professor at Brandeis University, told me that he suspects it’s not an accident that moving-average trading systems stopped working at more or less the same moment that it became easier and cheaper to trade into and out of the stock market. It is a hallmark of market efficiency that previously successful strategies stop working when too many investors begin to follow them.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9}},"isVote":1,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"tweetType":1,"comments":[{"id":5942446,"gmtCreate":1632196840185,"gmtModify":1634790546136,"authorId":3586933172277650,"author":{"id":3586933172277650,"idStr":"3586933172277650","authorId":3586933172277650,"name":"Daniial","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ee7cc3a13c09301d8be74a3c911bfb86","vip":1,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[]},"repliedAuthorId":0,"objectId":860431646,"type":1,"supId":0,"prevId":0,"content":"Wow","text":"Wow","html":"Wow"}],"langContent":"EN"}],"hasMoreComments":true,"newsSizeData":{"likeSize":123,"commentSize":12,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false},"isCrawlerRequest":true}