Paul, one could argue that Kurlak is not really an "analyst", but rather a behavior modification specialist. IMHO, he does not view us as market participants; to him, we are the equivalent of lab rats. We must be "taught", through repeated use of well-timed "analysis" and "recommendations", that failure to bend to the will of this particular integrity-challenged individual will result in serious pain - electronic shocks to our trading accounts, if you will.
The interesting thing about today's recommendation is its strange familiarity. Do you remember what happened the last August expiration?
August 1997, almost one year to the day was when Kurlak reached his "turn in the road" with INTC, downing it from a N-T buy to a N-T neutral.
One year later he pulls the same thing, only this time the only arrows he's got left to draw out are the L-T recs.
I'd love to see a financial news org. point out that fact (although what Joe Kernan did this morning pre-market - that just flat-out ruled. Too bad Mark Haines, who's also outstanding, ended up looking pretty foolish by opining that Kurlak knows businesses of the companies he follows, when anyone who trades chip stocks knows fully well that it was only yesterday that LSI, the one stock Kurlak had turned positive on during his bearish phase, warned and Kurlak turned tail and downed the stock N-T and L-T several points below where he upgraded it. So much for the "Kurlak - analytical genius" argument.)
The sad part about Joe Nocera's piece in Fortune last year around this time was that Nocera didn't go far enough. He just scratched the surface.
I only wish I had access to Kurlak's research. Based on the limited amount I've seen, some of his assertions just beg to be publicly mocked <g>
Good trading,
Tom |
