The Trend Is Your Friend?

Google Trends analyzes a portion of the internet giant's web searches to compute how many have been done for terms entered relative to the total number executed on Google over time.

Given the growing optimism that exists on Wall Street and elsewhere, I thought it might be interesting to see how this is reflected in terms of what people are searching for as they scour the depths of the digital ocean.

For example, when the word "bullish" is typed in, the pattern is what one might expect: there has been a notable interest, especially during the past year or so, though the relative number of inquiries has recently eased somewhat from multi-year highs. 

That is not the case when it comes to searches for its opposite number, however. Though not entirely unexpected, an analysis of the Google trend for the word "bearish" yields only the following result:

Your terms - bearish - do not have enough search volume to show graphs.

Given all of the negative developments currently unfolding in the housing market, the manufacturing sector, subprime finance, and elsewhere, it will be interesting to see how this pattern plays out a year from now.

Comments

[Yaser Anwar]

MP-

It works better with Real Estate, or so I've been told.

[Bill aka NO DooDahs!]

More idiocy. Combine "stock market" with "bullish" and you get nothing from the trend.

Try "stock market crash" as a phrase. It's on the uptrend since July.

[Michael Panzner]

It seems that you did not realize this post was a bit more light-hearted than the others, and was not "analysis" as such. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by "more idiocy"? If you are referring to someone who posts three disparaging comments in rapid succession, while offering little of the so-called analysis he apparently craves, I agree.

[Bill aka NO DooDahs!]

When I first saw your blog, I gathered from your book's reviews, blog title, and several of the links on your blogroll that your work would fall into the "fear-mongering" and "market crash imminent" "end-of-the-world-is-nigh" genre. I just wanted to wait for a little more content to be posted before making a judgment, which is why the multitude of posts today. I've concluded that, as of now, my initial impression was correct.

If your blog gets significant traction, I will consider it to be another data point on my "bearish consensus" thesis and will be even more comfortable as an equity bull. Therefore, I wish you the best on both your blog and your book. Seriously. Nothing personal. It takes both sides to make a market.

I provide my analysis on my blog. When I think conditions warrant it, I shall be vigorously shorting stocks and posting about the trades.

[Michael Panzner]

I agree it takes two sides to make a market, and I could be wrong in my outlook. Perhaps you are correct: maybe there are too many stock market bears around these days, though it is somewhat ironic that you seem to be using anecdotal evidence to make that assessment.

Aside from that, it is probably best that you get the facts straight before passing judgment. For example, there are no "reviews" of my book on Amazon. There is only a rough, unvetted draft of a description put there by my publisher before the book was finished. Aside from that, there are many more mainstream media and blog links -- from both ends of the political spectrum -- on my blogroll than those of the doom-and-gloom genre. And finally, since you haven't read the book and therefore cannot make an informed decision about whether the title is warranted, it seems like you have made a rather impulsive and hasty assessment, which is at odds with your professed analytical leanings.

None of this even takes into account the ignorant remarks about me and my book on your own blog. Again, you write "on the right sidebar, he’s got about a half-dozen gold bug links and at least a dozen easily identifiable perma-bear links." That is correct, except you forgot to mention the vast majority of other links that don't fit this description. Then you make some sort of bizarre reference to "books about 'market disaster on a Biblical level.'" Again, without reading the book or really knowing what it is about (hint: it is not about a "market disaster on a Biblical level"). Then you end your little diatribe with a sophomoric attempt at humor (I'm guessing my youngest child would find it funny, but I'm not so sure about that).

The ironic thing about your so-called analytical leanings is that you are apparently a fan of technical analysis. I am not faulting you for that -- in fact, I find it quite useful. But since there is very little, if any, hard evidence to support the use of charts, candlestick patterns, and trendlines in trading or investing, it would seem that your supposedly rigourous analytical framework is somewhat lacking.

Personally, I think you're probably a nice guy and a good trader, just a little misguided and immature.

All the best in future.

[Bill aka NO DooDahs!]

I'm sorry, aren't the markets financial and isn't "Armageddon" a Biblical term?