Doug,
My instinct is that QUAL is equally good and perhaps better than BMC.
For one, at 15/16, BMC has already done 13.8% of its move from the signal-day bottom--which of course doesn't mean it can't go higher, but it does make it feel to me a wittle, wittle bit like chasing. And you know I became a fu$king expert on such--why, as recently as Friday. (I'm getting that into-wishin' thing going with ONTC: "Well, maybe I'll just buy and hold this one after all." Bad, bad, bad. It's not all that great a company as far's I can tell, and they're probably weeks away from the next news--which as you pointed out can be dangerous with HTFs. Please advise. Oh, OK, I'll get out at the proper time on Tuesday. Bad buy, good loss.)
QUAL, on the other hand, seems to have failed its last signal day, which I see 5/1 as. By my lights, then, it has already set up a low-volume multi-day base as the signal, and from my experience with sub-$5 cats--particularly the very painful experience of having sold ABTI too early--the new low yesterday is not necessarily bad news, or even a new signal. I'd be hard-pressed to say why. It's just, we cat-people just ... know-w-w-w--w things about our little friends.
I thought I'd check out the semi index and have a quasi-ACT/IL test to offer as corroboration (I love quasi stuff, because I'm inherently bull$hit myself, y'know). Didn't work out as I'd thought it would--the semis are definitely slumping, perhaps even in free-fall:
tscn.com
Any supportive ACT* you draw from the early to mid-1990s lows that was not already broken by the midsummer-1996 correction shows another 20% to go, and any ACT you pick up after the correction is already violated. So F me for a D.
Woof, woof,
Ivan the Catman
* - I know you can't really do the ACT part without V for proof; that can actually be obtained (inferentially, by checking out the major components of the index for the time-periods), though I'll be damned if I'm going to spend M-Y-Y-Y Sunday doing that. Besides, it's an unweighted index. Why do they bother? |
