To: Benkea who wrote (44969 ) 4/4/2000 5:51:00 PM From: pater tenebrarum Respond to of 99985
Benkea, that is correct...Friday and Saturday were the two low volatility/high volume distribution days following that Thursday (back then there was trading on Saturdays). over the weekend, the air was pregnant with rumors, mostly about the huge buy orders that were supposedly received by the brokers for the following week. however, for some reason most people decided it was time to cash in one's chips. the actual crash then occurred Monday/Tuesday, both days that recorded over 10% in losses based on the INDU. Wednesday saw a big rebound that fizzled out after a few days, then a secondary, lower (lower than the Tuesday crash low) low was put in, from whence a three month long suckers rally began that recovered some 40% of the lost ground. thereafter the REAL bear market began, which lasted well into 1932 and ended with the Dow almost 90% down from its 1929 high. the reason why i mention this is because it was said today on CNBC several times that 'real bear markets don't begin with big crash-like declines'. that is unfortunately not true. it all depends on how the economy performs subsequent to a crash...and i have yet to meet an economist who can accurately forecast the future course of the economy. there are more successful market forecasters than economic ones. as you know, i'm NOT in the camp that believes economic cycles have somehow ceased to exist. rather i believe that the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust that follows in its wake... one of the things i heard said today was that 'economic fundamentals haven't changed'. how true. the current account deficit is still ballooning, the amount of leverage in the economy is still at a record high. these imbalances need more than a temporary dip in a speculative sector of the market to get corrected. regards, hb