Euro Pacific Capital CEO Peter Schiff explains why the Fed will backpedal when it comes to future interest rate hikes. » Read More
Louise Yamada has a strong message for investors: Don't get complacent.
The markets have been in rally mode since the start of the fourth quarter, with the S&P 500 and Dow Jones industrial average each surging more than 5 percent. Both indices are trading at levels not seen since late August. But according to Yamada, any strength should be used as an opportunity to sell.
"You always get a rally after a big decline," the renowned technician told CNBC's "Futures Now" on Thursday. "The point is that we initiated a downtrend in August and once a downtrend is initiated after something that looks like a larger top, these rallies tend to go back into resistance." Yamada identified the next levels of resistance as the falling 200-day moving average, which comes in at around 2,050 to 2,060.
As commodities continue their recent rally, one analyst says that the group may have already found a bottom this year.
Andrew Hecht of Commodix.com said the last few months have been exceptionally weak for commodities, which could be a good signal for the fourth quarter. According to data from S&P Dow Jones Indices, the past quarter was the third worst Q3 returns for commodities since 1970.
Although Hecht expects to see more volatility in Q4 this year, he said there are several catalysts that could push commodities higher.
"While we have to keep our eyes on China, and that's going to move commodities prices, we might have seen a bottom for the year during Q3," Hecht said Thursday on CNBC's "Futures Now."
"The commodities sector in general was down about 9 percent at the end of the third quarter. And it's down about 13 percent as of Sept. 30 across the board. So a bounce that's happening now is not out of the question," he said.
With Fortress' macro hedge fund closing, and Glencore struggling to manage its debt, the market could see much more contrarian plays that drive upside for commodities, Hecht said.
Read More Should you fear a 'Glencore' moment?
Hecht is particularly bullish on gold, which he noted has "blasted off." The yellow metal has risen more than 6 percent in October. He said that gold could break through $1,200, but to watch key resistance around $1,234.
"I see pretty clear sailing" for gold, Hecht said Thursday. "I think we're going to put a print up above $1,200, maybe up to $1,225, but I think up there it gets a little more dicey."
Hecht said he is also watching soft commodities such as rice, sugar and coffee, which could soar as the El Niño weather phenomenon pushes prices up for producers.
When it comes to the market this quarter, bad is good.
Some of the S&P 500's worst-performing sectors on the year have emerged as some of the recent winners. Energy, Materials and Industrials, which were all down heading into the fourth quarter, are the three best-performing S&P 500 sectors since Oct. 1, up a respective 11, 9.5 and 6.5 percent over that time. And according to one technician, that could mean trouble for the market.
"The obvious theme since the September lows has been this outperformance from the lagging sectors," Jonathan Krinsky told CNBC's "Futures Now" on Tuesday. "Our general sense is that's not healthy for the market going forward."
Comparing the recent environment to that of October 2011, Krinsky noted one key discrepancy. "The rally coming off the October 2011 bottom was led by the leadership group," said Krinsky, meaning the sectors that were strong heading into the sell-off continued to be rally coming out of it. "Meanwhile, the laggards continued to lag," he added. "So we're seeing a completely different picture coming off the lows [now]."
It often appears that no matter what the Federal Reserve does, its actions are destined to draw the ire of market participants.
Now, it appears that what it doesn't do is at least as likely to ruffle feathers.
The recently released minutes to the Fed's September meeting showed the committee fretting about the sharp drop stocks had suffered over the past month. It was mentioned as a negative in the economic outlook prepared by the committee staff, and factored into the policymakers' economic outlook.
Those factors, along with several others, are widely seen as keeping the central bank from meting out its first rate hike in almost a decade.
"The growing debacle surrounding the election of a new Republican House Speaker and the potential crisis if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling within the next month are additional risks that have sprung up in the past couple of weeks," Capital Economics said in a research note last week. "Accordingly, we now expect the Fed to wait until early 2016 before beginning to raise interest rates."
However, the Fed's emphasis on downside risks is injecting a degree of uncertainty—and volatility—into markets, a factor not lost on global policymakers that are calling on the Fed to end its handwringing and begin the tightening cycle.
"In the United States, equity prices fall, on balance, amid significant volatility, and risk spreads for businesses widened," the Fed minutes note. "Many participants judged that the effects of these developments on domestic economic activity were likely to be small, but they acknowledged the risk that they might restrain U.S. economic growth somewhat."
The minutes go on to state that the stock drop was not a primary factor behind the Fed's widely anticipated decision to keep its interest rate target on hold.
However, it added that "participants indicated that they did not see the changes in asset prices during the inter-meeting period as bearing significantly on their policy choice except insofar as they affected the outlook for achieving the Committee's macroeconomic objectives and the risks associated with that outlook."
Still, it was clearly a factor lurking in the background, to the extent that the market drop has weighed on inflation expectations.
Suddenly, stocks are hot again, with the S&P 500 is on track for its best week of the year. The index has rallied nearly 5 percent since the start of the fourth quarter, but if history is any indication, the recent rally could soon fade into the abyss.
"If you look at the seasonal data, it suggests we will see a more lackluster [quarter] than usual," technician Stephen Suttmeier told CNBC's "Futures Now" on Thursday.
According to Suttmeier, since 1928 the last quarter of the year has a tendency to be "quite bullish" with the S&P 500 posting an average return of 2.61 percent in the 87 years. However, things could take a different turn this time around.
"Bullish fourth-quarter seasonals do not work this year," said Suttmeier. "When the market has been lower through the third quarter, the fourth quarter tends to follow on that weakness," added Bank of America Merrill Lynch's technical research analyst. In the 30 instances where the market was negative at the start of the fourth quarter, Suttmeier noted that the average return was down nearly 1 percent.
Stocks opened higher Wednesday after taking a breather in the previous session. But that's not coming as surprise to one top technician, who believes the market could be well on its way to retesting old highs.
"[The past few sessions] have been the best action I've seen in many months," Ralph Acampora told CNBC's "Futures Now" on Tuesday. "We slowed down a little [Tuesday], but I think that's a good thing." The S&P 500 closed slightly lower Tuesday, snapping its five-day winning streak.
Acampora, who predicted major problems for the market in late July, said the charts are now showing signs of a bottom, and he believes the worst could be behind us. "I was very concerned after the August 24 sell-off," said the director of technical analysis at Altaira Limited. "The rallies that [immediately] followed were not impressive." Since Aug. 24, the Dow and S&P 500 are up a respective 7 and 6 percent.
Crude oil soared nearly 5 percent Tuesday to its highest level in more than a month after U.S. government data showed a decline in production. The commodity has now rallied more than 27 percent from its August low, and the recent move is giving one expert major flashbacks.
"Comparing 1985 to 2015 in crude, there are a few similarities to highlight," Darren Wolfberg told CNBC's "Futures Now" on Tuesday. "Back in 1985 we saw a 69 percent sell-off in crude, we can call it a crude depression, and I think we've seen a similar pricing pattern now where crude oil fell 61 percent from its June 2014 high to March 2015 low."
According to Wolfberg, following both sharp declines were "corresponding short covering" rallies that took approximately 34 trading days to materialize. "In both instances we then saw this double-bottoming effect that happened over the next 100 or so days," added the head of U.S. cash equity trading at BNP Paribas. "In 1985, once we saw that double bottoming process play out, crude oil then rallied 110 percent. It went from $11 to north of $20 over the next year."
It's been a tough start to earnings season, with Yum Brands and Adobe Systems falling sharply after reporting their disappointing numbers. And that appears to be increasing the concern of a so-called "earnings recession."
Analysts in aggregate expect earnings to fall more than 5 percent compared to third quarter of last year, according to FactSet. Following the year-over-year earnings decline in the second quarter, this would actually mark the first two consecutive quarters of falling profit since 2009, FactSet reports.
Analyst earnings expectations tend to be overly bearish, and the average company beats estimates.
But if earnings do register the second straight year-over-year drop, it would represent a so-called "earning recession"—a parallel to a regular recession, which is marked by two straight quarters of negative GDP growth.
Before investors head for the bunker, they should note well the deleterious effect of the energy sector on overall numbers. Energy earnings are expected to plummet 65 percent versus the third quarter of last year, due to the sharp decline in oil prices.
According to RBC Capital Markets, expectations that exclude the energy sector are for earnings growth of 2.8 percent.
"Ex-energy trends appear more robust," RBC's equity strategy team writes, perhaps understating the market's growing worries.
After the release of a miserable jobs report Friday, some have seen fit to claim that employment is rising only for immigrants, and plummeting for native-born Americans. But a closer look at the numbers reveals a different story.
It is true that, according to the household survey, employment among native-born Americans slid from 124,314,000 in August to 124,052,000 in September. This came as the number of employed foreign-born American rose from 24,914,000 in August to 24,928,000 in September.
But there's a problem with the "they took our jobs" storyline.
Read MoreJob creation misses big in September
The number of unemployed foreign-born Americans also rose, from 1,142,000 to 1,204,000. Meanwhile, the number of unemployed native-born Americans fell from 7,021,000 to 6,423,000.
For that reason, the unemployment rate for foreign-born Americans rose by 0.2 percent, while the unemployment rate for native-born Americans actually fell by 0.4 percent — exactly the opposite of the shift some see occurring.
(Native-born Americans do still have a slightly higher unemployment rate, at 4.9 percent versus 4.3 percent. But at 61.8 percent versus 64.8 percent on the participation rate, fewer native-born people are in the labor force at all.)
So what's going on here? Are all the jobs going to foreign-born Americans, or not?
Quite simply, the overall number of native-born Americans in the labor force is falling, while the number of foreign-born Americans in the labor force is rising. That's why both employment and unemployment are falling for native-born Americans; it's the total group that is shrinking. This comes as more immigrants are in the labor force.
The numbers, then, should be taken as an indication of shifting demographics, rather than a shifting employment situation.
The market can't seem to make up its mind on crude oil.
The battered commodity has recently traded in a wide range of sharp swings, and has plunged more than 52 percent over the course of one year.
But looking ahead, Darren Wolfberg, head of U.S. cash equity trading at BNP Paribas, said that there could be good news for oil on the horizon, specifically in a rate hike from the Federal Reserve.
Theoretically, a rate rise should be bad for oil, because increased interest rates would strengthen the U.S. dollar against other country's currencies.
Meanwhile, oil is inversely related to the dollar, because as the greenback rises, the value and price of oil, bought in U.S. dollars, tend to fall.
However, Wolfberg said expects the opposite to happen for two reasons.
"Historically when the Fed raises rates, that's actually the top in the dollar," Wolfberg said Tuesday on CNBC's "Futures Now." "Secondarily, the Fed's going to raise rates because the economy is good. And usually that means more demand of oil."
Crude oil has struggled to break above $47 a barrel in September, Wolfberg said Tuesday afternoon, but if it reaches above that level, he could see oil back up around $50 to $60.
Until oil recovers, "I think you really gotta buy the dips and sell the rips," he said Tuesday.
CME Group brings buyers and sellers together through its CME Globex electronic trading platform and trading facilities in New York and Chicago.
Take your trading to the next level with a platform that lets you trade stocks, options, futures and forex all in one place with no platform or data with no trade minimums. Open an account with TD Ameritrade and get up to $600 cash.