No 90% Up Day

Mea Culpa:

I was surprised when I saw Mark Hulbert say that "Markets were up, but not ‘9-to-1 up" on Tuesday. I checked with Mark, and scratched my head. Then we went back to the Bloomie terminal to see if we could figure out what was wrong.

It turns out that the original Bloomberg data I used at the 4pm bell — Total NYSE Volume was 1227.05; Up
Volume was 1149.09. 93.6% upside day — was incomplete.

After those last few stragglers reported in, the final numbers looked very different. It settled out as the same 1149 Up Volume out of a total that was much higher — 1415 — to make a 81.2% percentage up versus down.

We did not have, as I originally reported, a 90/10 up day during Tuesday’s 300 point surge.


We apologize for the error in the original post. Those responsible have been sacked.

(No llamas were harmed in the making of this post).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. Mich(^IXIC1881) commented on Aug 7

    mea culpa…
    …Those responsible have been sacked

    So, you fired yourself? Again?

  2. dblwyo commented on Aug 7

    Thank you. A stand-up guy is always appreciated…and trusted.

  3. VJ commented on Aug 7

    Well, what a shocker, just as some *(COUGH)* had predicted, the miss-targeted stimulus checks didn’t stimulate.

    Repeatedly enacting failed RightWing theories is like repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.

  4. cfe commented on Aug 7

    “No lamas were harmed in the making of this post…”

    How about any mooses?

  5. PeterR commented on Aug 7

    Constipated NAUD cumulative IMO.

    Third chart on page three at link above.

  6. Lord John commented on Aug 7

    Always enjoy a subtle Python reference, thanks!

  7. Peter commented on Aug 7

    As I said in the other thread, a day of
    “profit taking” always follows a day of
    inflating the con game via a 1-day rally.

  8. sk commented on Aug 7

    I like the way you revisit your prior posts and correct them.


  9. sk commented on Aug 7

    I like the way you revisit your prior posts and correct them.


  10. manhattanguy commented on Aug 7

    It’s nice to see that you finally acknowledged your mistake in your analysis.

    I still think you are incorrect with your prediction on a bear short term rally to 12k. Not going to happen.

  11. Mike in NOLa commented on Aug 7

    If only we had someone in the White House willing to admit miscalculations. At least Barry didn’t say “Mistakes were made.”

    BTW, Barry, what did you think of today’s action? I noticed the CNBC crew really pumping this morning before I left Houston.

  12. steve roy commented on Aug 8

    Were they sacked for a ten yard loss …. or thirty?

  13. Jim Haygood commented on Aug 8

    Thanks for the update, Barry.

    The Bloomberg stats still don’t come anywhere close to the higher volume numbers reported by NYSE. I suspect that Bloomberg’s numbers are for individual equities only — no closed-end bond funds, no ETFs, etc. Bloomberg once told me, in response to my query, that the advance-decline and up-down volume ratios reported in their daily stock market wrap are for individual equities only, and thus don’t match the A/D and up/down volume ratios on Yahoo Finance which include all NYSE listings.

    It’s worth checking the fine print when you have time. Internet data providers are great at spewing numbers, but poor at providing footnotes with the underlying definitions. Accordingly, there’s a lot of inconsistent volume info out there.

    And I’m under the impression that the original 9-to-1 threshold, as used by Zweig, Fosback and others, was based on ALL NYSE issues — because that was the only consolidated up-down volume data available at the time. That wasn’t necessarily bad, because ideally you would want the closed-end muni funds and so forth rallying along with shares. Everybody up; it’s a party!

    So although Bloomberg’s up-down volume info may be correct and useful on its own terms, it’s probably not the same as your daddy’s 9-to-1 up-down volume ratio. Where does that leave us? CONFUSED! Bull or no bull, beats the hell outta me …

  14. Pete commented on Aug 8

    An ideologue or cheerleader would of ignored
    the corrections and still used the unrevised
    data. Reality based BR described reality even
    though it changed!
    Thanks BR, love the TBP

  15. praetorian commented on Aug 8

    RightWing theories

    A missionary-style keynesian stimulus is right wing?

    I gotta find myself a new wing to hang out in.


  16. VJ commented on Aug 8


    A missionary-style keynesian stimulus is right wing?

    You omitted “miss-targeted”.

Posted Under