Everything is not being looked at with a bearish bias. A simple look at the active studies will prove that incorrect.

My basis for interpreting the current Rydex NDX data as bearish is very simple: the previous times the ratio has been this high, the market either stalled out or declined.

In general I do not subscribe to the "wall of worry" theory - that a market rising on declining sentiment is a good thing. As long as people become more bullish, the market should continue to rise. It's only when that sentiment reaches an extreme that I take a contrary view. We can argue all day about whether we're at an extreme, but I try to be clear why I conclude that in the comments.

It's not all that rare. When "the market' is overbought (i.e. the S&P 500), we typically see most/all of the sectors overbought as well, it's just a matter of degree. Some of them have relatively few components, so it's easier for them to hit overbought/oversold.

It's a good question, and I think using them separately would be more of an issue. Taking the ratio helps to alleviate the structural decline in Rydex assets as more and more traders use ETFs.

The absolute $ amount has never been an issue to me. It's like the Inv. Intelligence (or any other) sentiment survey. We're using a sample of ~150 people to generalize about millions of participants. But, for the most part, it still works.

I only disregard data when something structural changes permanently (e.g. specialist short sales) or the indicator starts to fail time and time again.

The NYSE has seemingly changed the data again. They didn't supply it for about two weeks, then when they started again the values have been wildly different from all other history. They have changed their calculation method or something, we're not sure what yet.

I was posting something mechanical prior to the fall of 2007, with the intermediate-term one continuing for a bit after that. So using the short-term changes, and neglecting to take into account scaling, etc. (just assuming you went 100% long or short), the signals generated +217 points versus -381 points for buy and hold. I could be slightly off on that, and again it's not taking into account scaling, but it should be a good enough rough approximation.

Take that for what it is, which is not much. The point isn't to generate trades, and it's not to beat buy and hold. If that's your metric, then feel free to determine its use for yourself.

I've had to take a different tack with the crosshair function, due to limitations within Internet Explorer. Please check out this chart, as it should work better across more browsers (and also requires one less click, and allows you to have just horizonal or vertical crosshairs).
http://www.sentimentrader.com/subscriber/charts/W...

Agreed on the toggle button, though oddly enough it's actually proven to be more complicated coding-wise than using the checkbox. The placement would be changed, it's at the bottom now just out of convenience for writing the code.

Right, you would have to refresh the page to turn it off.

Seems to be a common issue with IE. The crosshairs work, but only after clicking the "out of memory" box.

It's a valid point, and something I considered for a long time. I simply don't know. I do feel better about how things are now, but if it does turn into too much of a distraction, I'll just pull the outlook kind of stuff and put it on a separate site.

Half of subscribers seem to think that's a good idea, half seem to think it's a terrible idea, half couldn't care less (yes, I know that's three halves). Bottom line, I like how things are now, I think it's a good mix, and I'd like to keep it this way and see how it goes.