Ducks are lining up, although not quacking yet, as a looming resolution just ahead will determine whether S&P's rally is a 'B'-wave in an 'A-B-C' decline.

Unsplash

I suspect spillover effect of the sell-the-news rallies, and coincident arrival right near the 'mean regression' upside rebound goal, sets-the-stage for conflict.

Besides risk of war in Ukraine (which I suspect is mostly to firm oil prices and causing inflationary disruptions within the EU countries while increasing funds to oil-income dependent income), there's China facing another COVID tsunami, and then there's something that isn't focused on as much: the labor report.

We already have an ADP number suggesting 200k fewer new jobs versus the Street's expectation of 300k 'more' new jobs. If the overall number is far below the consensus, on the surface that's an excuse for decline. However, data like that also has a tendency to get the Fed's attention (even more than COVID), so it might not be as negative for stocks as what might be an initial reaction.

Meanwhile, OPEC did their seasonally-planned production oil supply increase of 400k /bbl daily, which is not terribly relevant. In the U.S. refining capacity as well as freezing pipelines and limited trucking capacity combine.. to inhibit any big availability of supply, not to mention drilling and maintenance usually tend to be low this time of year (almost impossible in cold/frozen areas), picking up in about 2 months. Hence there's no real factor to suppress oil prices, unless you have a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, but that's unlikely too quickly, as of course Russia benefits greatly by notable demand, low supply and high price.

There is still pent-up demand, so absent lots of drilling overall Oil uptrends will likely persist. Also China is the largest importer and their consumption levels are restrained 'for now' due to widespread COVID lockdowns, but ultimately the opposite once China emerges from the factory utilization limits (or surrender to COVID). That means you could have a million bbl/daily increase. Ah ha.. but if Iran makes a deal you might have a $15 decline temporarily, but they too do well with higher prices. No deal with them and no deal in Europe = Oil ~ 100.

Overall... investors should realize that focusing on solid holdings plus a few of the speculative 'new theme' or disruptive stocks, makes reasonable sense. At the same time recognizing that 'old tech' is not 'old FANG' essentially, while of course the vision for the future is yet to be defined. That's why one has some of the specs (in Ai, AR, infrared, photonics, medical/biotech) but diversified.

At the same time the old mainstays in tech are giving mostly defensive views, as even they don't know for sure how they'll navigate if they manage to their next 'breakthrough', or whether another of the disruptive stocks interludes.

A current example is Facebook (o.k. 'Meta') (FB), which we haven't liked forever (our last buy was after their IPO went post-restriction, so under 20). Now even Mark admits that 'reels' hasn't matured enough to produce revenue (long view times but not interrupted by ads), hence a shortfall. YouTube (Google) figured that out and Facebook decided to circumvent that model. They'll get it right in the long-run, but they went after Snapchat and TikTok instead of YouTube.

For sure it's why I said for ages: 'the problem with technology..is.. technology'.

Ancillary effects of the 'misses' dominating financial news should rapidly start a 'maturing' phase of analyst and pundit understanding of these markets. I've referred to the 'algo-effects', the 'trap-door' risks, the monkey-see-monkey-do result of the illiquidity these situations create when everyone acts in unison, or so on.

The late (post-close) news from Meta is just one example, Spotify (SPOT) another. For that matter both of these have been among 'theme' stocks trading at high prices, but already 'past their prime' in terms of multiple expansion even 'if' the earnings estimates had been made. They were not and they get punished.

The dynamics of all this reflect failures, slowing growth, and little idea of what 'worth' (in terms of earnings or multiples) the debatable growth holds. So few are attractive once reaching stratospheric prices, that one has to be careful in a lot of them. It's a reason we even (above current prices) took some AMD off the table, even though (and partially because) it was such a great winner (AMD).

As noted last week we had climactic selling at a high level (Monday week ago approximately), and several days of chaos I suggested were hammering-out a launching pad for a rally back up, with resistance targeted at or near 4600 on the S&P. Finishing at 4589 on Wednesday, we're basically there. Could get a slight overshoot of course (this is 'art not exact science'), so we wouldn't focus on trying to calculate numbers of 'sub-wave' counts or any of that.

Incidentally, whether it's the next-generation payment system challenging the likes of PayPal or Square, or whether a next-generation cholesterol medicine, like Novartis has to challenge Omega's (the best being Vascepa) by Amarin, there's always someone working on something (they hope) is better. That's a truism even for the schemata (old Irish phrase for clothing.. smile) business.. where Capri might supplant LVMH if they get lucky... you never know for sure hence if one buys a stocks and it surges mightily, fade at least a part of it.

In-sum: 

This should be the market Indexes running out-of-steam, and the fuel provided by the mega-caps rebounding is not only exhausting, but finished for a handful. Yes, they often go the opposite of knee-jerk reactions to earning or forward guidance reports, but that's temporary. If growth is slower, so be it.

It's not going to always be that way, but it's one reason to buy low, not chase high like some pundits that insist on attaching their interest to 'already-played' names. I'll reflect more on a few in the main video, and trying to abbreviate as far as these remarks.

My greatest concern at the moment, besides the folly of expensive stocks, is not even COVID impinging on the Olympics (though they are and will). Rather it is a cyberattack from Russia triggered by a 'COVID-triggered' disintermediation globally that many don't realize is having psychological influences on decision making in Moscow, in Washington, and obvious at #10 Downing in London.

Of course Beijing is also making poor decisions. They have all along with the virus, so now they're going to build a wall....to keep the virus out. Good luck.