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.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Egret who wrote (19683)	2/16/2000 1:55:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

Well there sure has been a lot of buying in ATHM all the way down and it is exactly the buying that has helped MO all the way down too. Without that buying the stock would have no market. The buying allows it to persist downward. It's human nature to buy all the way down to fractions. This has been the history of Wall Street. The problem is that you don't know what buying and selling is. You've extrapolated a definition based on personal experience. Further, you can't make these claims about asymptotic limit price structure based on local observation. The local does not determine the global structure. I hate to disappoint you but MSFT's rise has been exactly that, a predominance of money exiting. Now there is the public buying since they have finally seen the light, so once MSFT's latest product is released, price will gravitate to where the public would like to buy it "cheaply". Price is not determined by the volume of money moving in or out of it. Price is determined by the rational expectations for future earnings and relative growth rates. You could have massive selling hit MSFT and instantaneously the stock would decline, but it would recover in a single leap on a 100 share order if someone had the conviction that the stock's instantaneous price did not reflect rational expectations. What you patzers do is buy when the opposite is the case and a stock is sensitive to the downside. All those patzers are buying below and the price gravitates downward attracting more and more buying interest below, so down she goes. It follows you'd better locate a stock that the public has been buying for some time and has been declining accordingly. I wonder what stock fits that bill?

To: Egret who wrote (19683)	2/16/2000 1:56:00 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

If you had no selling you would not have a change in price.

To: Egret who wrote (19683)	2/17/2000 2:54:00 AM
From: KW Wingman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Yes, Ah has funny ideas sometimes. <<That's funny. It follows then: that any stock that goes to zero, was caused by "huge" buying all the way down?(g) It also follows that stocks such as MSFT have grown in price and cap because of "huge" selling bias all the way up? >> << I think this subject is now exhausted, and perhaps boring to ATHM owners. >> No, I'm not bored, I would like you to keep posting. Ah has posted this idea (selling causes price to rise) several times in the past but he has never proven it. He attempts to bully posters who disagrees with him, calls them a patzer. A few patzers may pretend to understand his argument and agree with him for various reasons. It appears most of the thread just shuts up and listens. As far as I am concerned, Ah is full of horse dodo on the idea that an excess of selling causes the price to rise or an excess of buying causes the price to fall. It is true that people will try to buy at the bid or below when accumulating, so what someone has to sell at the bid. Oh I forget, he says a few 100 share transactions can put the price right back where it was. That is undoubtable true in some cases but that fact does not make it a rule or definition. In a market if we have 1000 sellers of 10K shares each wanting to get out of a POS stock right now and one sucker buyer of 100 shares willing to buy at market the price is going down. In that case, the buying did not cause the price to fall, the selling did. Ah has said the public will buy the stock down to fractions, true, so what? He said, It is human nature to buy down into the fractions, true. They want a good value, so what? Those things don't prove anything. Say you have a $100.00 stock, one buyer willing to pay 1/16 and 1000 sellers wanting out at market that does not mean the buyer caused the price to fall. It is a given that someone is willing to pay 1/16. The sellers willing to sell at the bid overwhelming the buyers willing to pay the asking price is what is causing the price to fall. KWW