<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Looking into the Dollar / Equities Relationship</title>
	<atom:link href="http://systematicrelativestrength.com/2009/11/20/looking-into-the-dollar-equity-relationship/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://systematicrelativestrength.com/2009/11/20/looking-into-the-dollar-equity-relationship/</link>
	<description>The Official Blog of Dorsey Wright Money Management</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:40:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Non E. Mouse</title>
		<link>http://systematicrelativestrength.com/2009/11/20/looking-into-the-dollar-equity-relationship/#comment-340</link>
		<dc:creator>A Non E. Mouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://systematicrelativestrength.com/?p=1157#comment-340</guid>
		<description>&quot;David Brown at Seeking Alpha&quot; suffered an all-to-common serious disconnect, when he argued that the recent &quot;inverse relationship between the dollar and the market is not that surprising since a weak dollar means more exports and fewer imports for the U.S. and higher material prices.&quot;

His disconnect?  The U.S. dollar index is a FUTURES CONTRACT.  It is NOT trade-weighted.  The USDX might actually have been trade-weighted 20 or 30 years ago, but it isn&#039;t no.

For fun - I say for fun, because I know it won&#039;t mean anything for your trading process - you might compare the list of currencies and weights for the trade-weighted index found at the Federal Reserve&#039;s research site to the currencies and weights for the USDX.

I agree totally about the nature of the correlations involved.  It should be pointed out that correlation doesn&#039;t imply causality.  When a correlation changes over time, reversing, etc., it&#039;s possible that either the correlations observed were spurious, or that a third, &quot;confounding variable,&quot; was actually the causal factor, and both the dollar and the stock market responded to that third variable.  Either way, that would imply that paying a great deal of attention to the dollar/stock relationship would be relatively fruitless.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;David Brown at Seeking Alpha&#8221; suffered an all-to-common serious disconnect, when he argued that the recent &#8220;inverse relationship between the dollar and the market is not that surprising since a weak dollar means more exports and fewer imports for the U.S. and higher material prices.&#8221;</p>
<p>His disconnect?  The U.S. dollar index is a FUTURES CONTRACT.  It is NOT trade-weighted.  The USDX might actually have been trade-weighted 20 or 30 years ago, but it isn&#8217;t no.</p>
<p>For fun &#8211; I say for fun, because I know it won&#8217;t mean anything for your trading process &#8211; you might compare the list of currencies and weights for the trade-weighted index found at the Federal Reserve&#8217;s research site to the currencies and weights for the USDX.</p>
<p>I agree totally about the nature of the correlations involved.  It should be pointed out that correlation doesn&#8217;t imply causality.  When a correlation changes over time, reversing, etc., it&#8217;s possible that either the correlations observed were spurious, or that a third, &#8220;confounding variable,&#8221; was actually the causal factor, and both the dollar and the stock market responded to that third variable.  Either way, that would imply that paying a great deal of attention to the dollar/stock relationship would be relatively fruitless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

