Monty-- These, I presume, are your postings on the Lucent gap:
siliconinvestor.com
You, however, provided no such analysis on this thread. I, and a few others, basically said technicians and their "art" are fluff. You then responded with a rant about the orgasmic speculativeness that makes people totally unwilling to accept the possibility that (a) their stock is a dog and (b) stocks can plummet in value. The very high levels of bullishness among individual investors does not seem to have a correlation with the statement, "AMD has a gap to fill in the $40s."
The premise of your Lucent posts is, correct me if I'm wrong, that Lucent gapped down due to bad news, and then gapped up on superficially good news which concealed, to naive investors anyway, the bad news. Hence, the stock had to gap down on a technical basis due to a misconstruing of a fundamental fact.
Given that there has been a whole lot of new news since the original gapping sequence, I fail to see why the stock has to "fill" a gap at a particular price, rather than just having a relative percentage drop at whatever price it has risen to to adjust for the gap which occurred due to a false analysis of the fundamentals.
Regardless, I don't see the gap down/gap up sequence that characterizes the Lucent moves in October and March in AMD's February/March activity. If you would like to make an argument, please make it about AMD, rather than assuming that everyone to whom you are speaking is an idiot for not intuitively knowing whatever your overall chain of thought is.
-Eric |
