{"id":402,"date":"2017-03-27T20:44:12","date_gmt":"2017-03-27T20:44:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.apisbull.com\/blog\/?p=402"},"modified":"2019-01-22T02:52:52","modified_gmt":"2019-01-22T02:52:52","slug":"stocks-just-fell-six-days-in-a-row","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.apisbull.com\/blog\/?p=402","title":{"rendered":"Stocks Just Fell Six Days in a Row"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here’s What Happens Next<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Stocks just fell for six days in a row\u2026<\/p>\n

That does not happen often.<\/p>\n

It wasn’t a big six-day loss \u2013 just 1.4%. But you don’t expect the market to go down for six straight days when it is in an overall uptrend, as it is right now.<\/p>\n

So what typically happens to stock prices after a signal like this?<\/p>\n

The answer might surprise you.<\/p>\n

My friend Jason Goepfert of\u00a0SentimenTrader.com wanted to find out what typically happens after six down days in the market\u2026<\/p>\n

He looked back at every time this happened over history. And he uncovered a truly astounding fact. Here’s what he told me\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
The Dow has now been down six days in a row, with a small total loss [<2.5%], during an uptrend.\u00a0Since 1960, this has led to a positive return in the Dow over the next month every time<\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Granted, this didn’t happen often over the last 60 years. It only happened a total of 15 times \u2013 a couple of times each decade.<\/p>\n

But the results were amazing. Again, stocks were up one month later, every single time.<\/p>\n

The gains don’t appear to be a fluke\u2026<\/p>\n

Stocks were also up six months later in all but two instances. And the story is the same looking one year out.<\/p>\n

It’s not often you come across a signal that was right \u2013 every time \u2013 going back 60 years.<\/p>\n

So\u2026 should you trade it?<\/p>\n

“We’re not reading too much into this,” Jason said.<\/p>\n

Well\u2026 why not?<\/p>\n

It’s because 15 instances \u2013 a couple every decade \u2013 is not enough evidence to go on. And Jason dropped another important caveat:<\/p>\n

“Prior to 1960, [this signal] had the exact opposite connotation,” he said. Prior to 1960, six consecutive down days delivered losses down the road \u2013 most of the time.
\n