Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The 56 Point TA; Charts With an Attitude -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gene S who wrote (31159)	7/22/1999 2:42:00 AM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 79227

Gene, QCOM is actually a tricky little bugger to construct an IL/ACT on. Sometimes you'll run into tricky ones. Five ways to cut through the static are 1.) The IL must be at least as steep as the ACT. .....Your two possible ACTs don't run into any problem here. 2.) Parallel constructions are most often the most valid. If there is a possible construction that yields an IL that is parallel to the ACT, that construction should be used. 3.) ACTs are low volatility events in that the highs during the time frame that the ACT encompasses tend not to show any significant advance. You will find that of any possible constructions that may exist, the construction with lower volatility concerning activity along the daily price highs will be the most valid. .....The more "elastic" (nice term) the ACT, the less likely it is to be valid. 4.) ACTs are normally very short term events. 5.) Then there's the head and shoulders thing I unveiled at the seminar you attended. shhhhhhhh. In light of these 5 intricacies try 3/23 and 3/24/99. It's parallel, shows low volatility along the highs and is as short term as they come. Excellent question Gene. You're definitely on the right page with the IL/ACT stuff. As far as time frame, it appears that QCOM may take 7 to 10 weeks (or less of course) to find its way to the ACT. Doug R