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.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lucretius who wrote (75191)	11/12/1999 12:28:00 PM
From: MythMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

>>. i don't know which we'll get<< which makes Dec very risky -g-

To: Lucretius who wrote (75191)	11/12/1999 12:54:00 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 86076

Luc, >>>> we either begin the crash here or there's one more up move <<<< The problem with calling a crash is just the simple probability. It is possibly the hardest thing in the market to call on a statistical basis. My understanding of a CRASH is a 15-20% decline in just a few days, and I believe that has only happened a few times in the last 100 years. To put it in perspective, thats like calling for an upmove in the DOW of 1500-2000 points to occur in specificaly about a month or 2. Im not aware of a 15-20% upmove in the DOW in a few days. What I am trying to say, is that statistically, calling for a crash is highly likely to be wrong. Calling a bear market is different than calling for a crash. What is interesting is that even though calling for a crash is so hard, it is done often. My feeling is that it is hard enough to call a 5-10% correction, but to call for a crash is like winning a lottery. Maybe not that bad, but you got the picture. seeya