mc, (sigh) since it seems that the Freep doesn't want to put out the fire he started yesterday, I'll take one last stab at it. <g>
IMHO the iH&S (or H&S Bottom) is a major reversal pattern which may form, after an extensive decline, and signal a price rally... From the January 64 high to the April 44 low SBUX lost roughly 30% of its value. Only twice in its history has it had larger intermediate term declines; in '99 when it lost about 50%, and in '01 when it lost about 50%. Therefore, 30% seems to me an "extensive decline" to me. If you feel that it's not, then why not? Does it have more to do with the time length of the decline?
The price pattern followed by SBUX since its last high, at the turn of the year, IN NO WAY even begins to meet the minimum characteristics necessary for possible formation of an iH&S pattern.... Now then, before you define what "the minimum characteristics necessary" are, and I'm sure you're going to mention volume patterns etc., I again ask that you bring this up with Freep who originally questioned ajtj about it . . .no, I insist that you ask Freep about it so that he can either (a) state that he honestly doesn't think it's a valid iH&S and that he was was merely kidding ajtj who frequently spots and mentions these patterns, or (b) he really does think it's an honest iH&S and he can debate you fully and definitively on this matter, while the rest of us in the gallery gleefully watch this clash of you two titans, cheering on one side or both, hoping that we don't get any blood spattered on us in the bleachers. <g>
Have tried to hold my peace about this, BC....to each his own......but I have been increasingly concerned to see a recent proliferation of IHMO spurious iH&S "sightings" similar to this latest SBUX one.......on this and other threads.... On this larger topic mc, by directing this iH&S debate to me I think you're engaging in a variation of "shooting the messenger." In the past three years I think I've mentioned iH&S maybe a handful of times, and each time it was in reference to someone else's "sighting." I don't commonly mention H&S or iH&S because, although I think it's a valid pattern, I don't usually look for them; instead I favor straight geometric patterns (wedges, triangles, channels, flags, etc.) In fact, before this SBUX discussion, the last time I recall mentioning an iH&S was to Shack about a month ago on COMPX, because he was mentioning one on the recent NEM daily, and I had just read Mike Ashbaugh's column at cbsmarketwatch where he had suggested the iH&S pattern on COMPX that day. Instead of taking this up with me, I think this topic of "spurious iH&S sightings" would be better taken up with ajtj, or Shack, or others who spot and mention them on a more frequent basis, and you and them can debate their degree of spuriousness <g>.
I already have a slight idea of part of what they're going to say, as I had a similar discussion years ago about another pattern: they'll probably say that it's a matter of timeframes, and within the smaller timeframe in which they see it they feel that they saw a valid iH&S on whatever issue they were speaking of, in other words, a "mini iH&S."
(So bring on the Freep..while you're in court....LOL) I hope that you don't think that I'm totally passing the buck here, as I've given my reasons for my statements, but as to engaging in more lively and detailed debate on this topic, you'll have to take it up with others. But I have a feeling that if you do so neither you nor the people you carry on the discussion with are going to walk away from it entirely satisfied with each other's explanation . . . . . . ;~} |
