Chief:
Sorry Chief, but this has gotten out of hand.
These are facts? Heh Heh. Apparantly, you obtained you science
degree from a much different place than I. These read a lot more
like opinions than facts.
...It can be debated at length but the facts remain...
1) The stock has shown no weakness to substantiate a prolific fall
to the $3.00 level.
The stock has shown substantial weakness since being blown off on
March 17th (hitting a new high of $6.70 on massive volume, and then
closing below it's previous day's close). Just over one month later
(April 20) we see PYT closing as low as $4.25. Not even taking the
full trading ranges into account, PYT has been down over 25%
from its closing high (down over 40% if you use intraday highs
and lows). I am at a loss to understand how you cannot view this
as weakness. Back in October 1997 our "crunch" took us from a TSE
7200 to 6400 at one point; only an 11% move. Was that not weakness?
I don't know...you must equate the terms weakness and MELTDOWN.
Whatever the case may be, a qualitative notion like "weakness" is not
a fact. It is an opinion.
2) Sufficient buying seems to appear at the $3.85 level to support
the "fewer and fewer shares" available at this level
Heh Heh. Good one Chief. I will grant you that buying materializes
when $3.85 - $4. (I don't know why you you think $3.85 is the "true"
support level anyway...support is better defined as a zone, not one
particular price.) I wonder if you have taken the time to notice that
since March 23, when PYT established this level of support, the ensuing
rallies have been less and less powerful. On March 25 PYT closed
at $5.25 and cycled down. On March 30 and April 3 we witnessed 2
more up-cycles to closes of $5.20. The last cycle top occurred on
Wednesday at $4.85. We are again in a down cycle. PYT has been
leaving a trail of lower highs on its rallies. So, lets take this
a bit further. Might I suggest that we are witnessing the formation
of a descending triangle?
From Alexander Elder's "Trading for a Living" (p. 110):
"A descending triangle has a relatively flat lower boundary, while
its upper boundary slants down. Its flat lower boundary shows that
bears are maintaining their strength and continue to drice prices
down, while bulls are losing their capacity to lift prices. A
descending triangle is more likely to lead to a downside breakout."
3) No "track record" has been established as to what will happen if
it were to break the $3.85 level.
If you are going to use concepts support and resistance in your
arguments, then behold the relative lack of volume that occurred
when PYT rose from $3 to $4 at the beginning of March. Many more
shares exchanged hands in February at the $2.90 level, and at $4
level in March, than did at price levels in between. For heaven's
sake, PYT moved from $3 to $4 in two days! Quite honestly, you
have had a "track record" right in front of you all along. Perhaps
you invalidate it because the momentum of PYT was in a different
direction than the hypothetical case posed to you at this point in
time. If so, you are mistaken.
4) Market depth at anyone point does not seem to indicate the
direction of the stock because of "impulse buyers", for this stock.
This is a fact? Huh? A buyer is a buyer, a seller is a seller.
The reasons for which they buy and sell have no bearing on
the direction of the trading. What is your point here? That
there are certain buyers in the weeds waiting to drive PYT up?
This is a fact?
5) TA is useless on "event driven" stocks, with a single
product, such as this.
Now really Chief...you call this a fact?
Heh Heh. You are opining and you don't even know it.
...The position of a $4.00 to $4.90 envelope has been demonstrated,
whereas your $3.00 scenario has not. As a result of this stock not
testing your prediction, or even giving any clear signs of that
prediction, there is little to debate.
All you keep saying here is that "because it hasn't happened yet,
it is not at all worthwhile to even discuss the possibility of it
happening". I ask again Chief, what is speculating? You
never answered this. As for signs of it happening, I defer to the
formation of a descending triangle. While it may not be a "clear"
sign, at least it is based on probabilistic reasoning, and not
some imaginary "impulse buyers" waiting in the weeds.
So by all means, keep on with your predictions but try to include
"logical reason" as to why you feel this stock will test these levels.
Heh Heh. My analysis has never been based on logic and never will
be. The market is not about what is logical. I pity the trader who
thinks it is. It is about what is probable. In any case, perhaps
you would do well to learn the differences between facts and opinions
before playing science.
WN |
