The article talks about how some stocks might do not so well in March because it is an election year and that month usually has low stock prices. It also mentions a company called NVIDIA and their earnings report, which is a report that shows how much money they made. The article tries to guess what could happen to the Nasdaq 100, which is a group of 100 big technology companies' stocks, in the future based on different situations. It did this before and one of their guesses came true. Read from source...

1. The author begins by mentioning the low volatility and weak breadth of the market, but then shifts to a positive tone when discussing NVDA's earnings report. This creates a contradiction in the narrative and undermines the credibility of the analysis.
2. The use of terms such as "relentless market advance", "bearish implications" and "AI euphoria" suggest a strong bias towards either a bullish or bearish perspective, which can affect the objectivity of the assessment. A more balanced approach would be to acknowledge both the positive and negative factors influencing the market.
3. The seasonality charts for the S&P 500 are used as evidence to support the author's argument that March is a weak month for an election year. However, this data alone does not provide enough context or explanation for why this pattern exists or how it applies to the current situation. A more robust analysis would involve comparing the historical performance of the S&P 500 during election years with other relevant indicators such as GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, etc.
4. The reference to a previous article where the author claimed to have predicted four possible outcomes for the Nasdaq 100 is misleading because it does not specify which scenario actually played out. This creates a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the reader's mind, as they are left wondering whether the author was accurate or not. A more transparent approach would be to clearly state which outcome occurred and how it aligns with the current market conditions.
5. The exercise of laying out four potential scenarios for the Nasdaq 100 is useful in theory, but it lacks depth and detail. Each scenario is briefly described without providing any supporting evidence or rationale for why they might happen. A more effective way to communicate these possibilities would be to explain the underlying assumptions and drivers behind each one, as well as the probabilities assigned to them based on empirical data and expert opinions.
6. The author ends with a vague statement that "the point of this exercise is to help investors prepare for different outcomes". However, it is unclear how this information will actually benefit them or what actions they should take in response. A more helpful conclusion would be to provide specific recommendations or strategies that can be implemented to mitigate risks or capture opportunities based on the various scenarios presented.

Bearish

Key points:
- The article discusses four potential scenarios for QQQ, a Nasdaq 100 ETF, in relation to seasonal weakness and AI euphoria.
- The author argues that the bearish implications of weaker breadth, divergences and overbought conditions are still present even after NVDA's earnings report.
- The article cites historical data from the S&P 500 seasonality charts that show March as one of the weakest months in an election year.
- The author questions whether the Nasdaq 100 will follow the normal pattern or be pushed higher by AI euphoria.

- Scenario 1: Nasdaq 100 rallies to new highs in March (high risk, high reward): Probability: 15%
- Scenario 2: Nasdaq 100 consolidates and corrects in the spring (medium risk, medium reward): Probability: 45%
- Scenario 3: Nasdaq 100 experiences a sharp drop and test of the 200-day moving average (high risk, low reward): Probility: 25%
- Scenario 4: Nasdaq 100 enters a bear market and breaks below the December lows (high risk, high reward): Probability: 15%