The technicals have been blown for a long time. Like technical analysts say, a correlation exists until it doesn’t. That means there are other factors in the model to predict the direction of probable risk.
Direction is the key term. Not only does it refer to the pattern, or shape, within Cartesian space over time (kurtosis) but the means to direct it with purpose (the associative property).
Technical analyses intend to be objective, but how objective is it to not include the gamma-risk dimension, for example.
When the risk is going gamma the first signal is the technicals don’t seem to work anymore. Simply, that’s because the risk is being directed based on your technical position (the direction you expect the values to go). It’s a setup. A confidence game playing on a set of principles that the players tend to believe (like the players have equal power in the marketplace) but really isn’t true (because the capacity to direct the pattern of risk–developing the event probability in which the liability is limited–has been consolidated).
Nevertheless, there is a familiar pattern that indicates the tendency for a financial crisis proportion. Rising equity values against falling earnings is one, which is being described as pricing-in expected future improvement. The probability that will happen, however, is low because using capital to buy back equity and merge industry and markets (like the GE and Microsoft combination to more efficiently manage “the cloud”) has the expected result of making you work more for less, which is a deliberate act of causing economic desperation.
What is Hillary Clinton going to do about that? What is she going to do to counter the effects of efficient-markets theory that has resulted in repeal of Glass-Steagall and caused the Great Recession? … Nothing!
Mrs. Clinton supports efficient-markets theory. If you could see the high-paid speeches to Wall Street, you would likely see support for the “arcanum” that plagues the critique of modern economics and the way things “just happen to work” by default (i.e., by natural design, like every Randian Objectivist believes).
The change we need is not Clinton, but the alternative (Trump) is even worse! (Huh! How did that happen?) Forcing you into detriment is a political act with an economic (technical) measure of effectiveness–economic desperation, which results in a declining rate of profit (by default).
Now, look back. Observe the familiar pattern of interpretation (and the pattern of resistance, offered by Clinton now as being “practical”).
Before the 08-09 financial crisis, the stock market was booming and it was nothing but blue skies. People were using their savings to buy into the bubble; and despite supporting Clinton now, they will still feel the Bern!