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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (27103)	9/24/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: SeaViewer	Respond to of 99985

Heinz: I can't agree more with your assessment. Those big Japanese insurance groups are also waiting for the intervention so they can bring their investment back to Japan. I sold my INTC puts today and am now waiting for the bounce (but forgot selling my MU puts). If you take a look at the market, you can see it is still weak. The market tried to bounce at noon, but immediately got hammered. The last hour bounce is no more than Friday short covering. Today's biggest gain groups are inuts and banks, one has no earnings and the other should be weak during rate-hiking environment. I have to assume all the players were watching T-bonds. If there is no intervention, I would jump on the market Monday. Otherwise, I may wait a few days. Jeff

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (27103)	9/24/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

Heinz, Im far from an expert in reading the PUT-to-CALL ratios, but it appears from the following chart that the OEX PUT:CALL ratio is actually going down, implying complacency and that some are expecting a rebound. At the same time the equity PUT:CALL is going up. How would you interpret such divergence. decisionpoint.com seeya

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (27103)	9/24/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 99985

heinz, re: "there's also the simple fact that a burgeoning trade deficit just doesn't argue for a strong dollar." That's precisely what I was mulling over last night. Summers says that a strong dollar "is in the U.S. interests". Yet, it stands to reason in my J6P mind that if the dollar were not so high against foreign currency, then foreign companies would be able to afford more of the U.S. products that they buy, whether that is Oracle expertise or MS Office client licenses. They buy what fits into the budget. That would help reduce the trade deficit. Also, the opposite is true: When the dollar is strong, we can import more foreign goods with that same buck, than we could if the buck were weaker. Forex is very confusing to me, esp. when Summers is saying things I can't make sense of. There are of course the benefits to the consumer of being able to buy foreign goods cheaper (supposedly the ability to import goods cheaper is passed onto the consumer).