If "fundamentals" drive trend changes in financial markets, then shouldn't the same factors have consistent effects on prices?
For example: Positive economic data should ignite a rally, while negative news should initiate decline. In the real world, though, this is hardly the case.
On a regular basis, markets go up on bad news, down on good news, and both directions on the same news -- almost as if to say, "Talk to the hand cuz the chart ain't listening."
Unable to deny this fly in the fundamental ointment, the mainstream experts often attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies with phrases like "shrugged off," "defied" or "in spite of."
That begs the next question: How do you know when a market is going to cooperate with fundamental logic and when it won't? ANSWER: You don't.
Take, for instance, the first three news items below regarding the July 22 performance in crude oil, versus the fourth headline, which occurred on July 23:
- Crude prices surge nearly 4% in their sharpest one-day percentage gain since May. The rally was "aided by fears that Tropical Storm Bonnie will enter the Gulf of Mexico over the weekend and disrupt oil production." (Wall Street Journal)
- "Oil Prices Soar As Gulf Storm Threat Looms" (Associated Press)
- "The storm should keep oil prices bubbling if it continues to strengthen and remain on track." (Bloomberg) vs.
- "Oil Slips From Surge Despite Storm Threats" (Commodity Online)
Unlike fundamental analysis, technical analysis methods don't rely on the news to explain or predict market moves. They look at the markets' internals instead.
