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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (80235)	9/13/2000 4:30:03 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

The QCOM shareholders who bought above $100 (and still hold today) will most probably ALSO hold if and when QCOM gets back to $175 and $200 (on its way to a number much higher than $200). The people who insist on using "advanced techniques" will probably "advance technique" themselves into less ultimate profits (than the purported "brain-dead" buy and holders), even if they start out at $64 instead of above $100. (Just my opinion, but based on over 20 years of watching traders "churn themselves into butter" ). Jon.

To: HairBall who wrote (80235)	9/13/2000 4:51:50 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

LG, I wish you would re-consider. Although I never responded to you, I found your analysis and posts informative. Your views are valuable to many others like me who do not necesarily respond but who are nevertheless acutely aware that your predictions do carry weight because they were accurate, unlike those of many here who are not as disciplined as you. Kindly ignore whatever it is that offended you. You are a valuable part of the information mix that makes this board valuable.

To: HairBall who wrote (80235)	9/13/2000 5:07:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 152472

LG, it's not the mind meld you need to get right on timing stocks. That's passe. Herds of sheople with a mind-meld are no longer the determinant of stock price action. Models which purport to model sheople are now the determinants. Using TA Models is a bit like Heisenberg trying to measure electron's momentum and position simultaneously = you can't do it because by taking part in it, you change it. You try to predict the share price, but in predicting it using your predictive models, [carefully avoiding human emotion I suspect - or kidding yourself that you don't have emotions, which is the first mistake investors make - followed by thinking they can separate their thinking department from their emotions], you change the position of the very thing you are trying to measure with your model because you move the market and other models have to account for your model and then your model has to react to their change which arose from your model's effects. So stock market prices are no longer made up of hordes of people in full-blown endorphin-primed excitement and wealth hysteria followed by sweating, pallour, depression and despair. Stock prices are determined by models which are predicting what each other will do. The smartest models will be deliberately changing prices to see what the other models do and then adapting to that feedback. It's like a game of chicken. "Let's take the price down and see who blinks and when and how much - we control how much we are selling so we can control what the other models see". There will be deliberate market movements by models - laminar flow in the markets is NOT the way to make money. Volatility is needed. So the best models will cause volatility, which they then profit from - they'll know how to 'panic' the other models into a buy/sell then take the opposite tack when the modelled buy/sell price is reached. TA Moonies [which I hope you appreciate is a term of endearment] think their modelling sits outside the market. It doesn't. It sits inside the market and is now a large chunk of the market [if we judge from how many people follow DoubleTops, Moving Line 30 Day Averages, Double Bottoms with inverted conical aspersions with double-helix reversions, and stuff like that]. The predictive models are therefore the pricing mechanism. So many people [and computers] use them, that they are, to a great extent, the market. The competition then becomes to create a model, the champion model, which most accurately combines all wave-functions of the other models which are used. The dumb models - such as a 30 day moving average, will be subsumed by more successful models which are outsmarted by the top model. Nobody reading this has got the top model [okay, that's a WAG]. You are all playing roulette and hoping to be in the lucky half [with the house = the brokers, taking their cut off the top]. Sure, half of you [just under half] will indeed be lucky and will win. Some will win spectacularly and will do so for years and decades using chicken entrails and a random number generator. Those using simplistic models [such as 30 day moving averages combined with BigMac indices] will consistently lose over a period of time since their model is defeated by the smart models. The only way to win is to be lucky and that means using random numbers [or dartboards] or to have the top model [or close to the top model - maybe the top 10% of models would still win since the top model would be capital limited and couldn't take more than a small bunch of opportunities]. D E Shaw comprised 5% of the NY Stock Exchange trades at one time [I'm not sure that's true, but it's what I heard somewhere a couple of years ago]. They use models, not emotions. That's the scale of model trading. Sure, there is plenty of sheople emotion too [see this thread] but it is in thrall to the models. The models move the market and the sheople smile or moan accordingly. That's my model anyway. Mqurice PS: Actually, I DO use timing when buying. I judiciously wait until markets and the stock are down [as much as I figure they'll go]. But I do NOT buy and sell in trading ranges to make money from the sheople [and models]. I figure Q! is worth $1 trillion then buy it at what seems like a low point.

To: HairBall who wrote (80235)	9/13/2000 7:15:13 PM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<Anyone that bought into the mind meld at 100 or above (split adjusted) and is still holding, probably wishes he or she had practiced a little entry/exit timing.> Well, LG, you sure know how to stir up a thread! :) Seriously, after reading lucid retorts as those from Maurice and Frank, it is hard to have much to add. Except to say something as self evident as this: identifying a great company, regardless of the gyrations of the market, works over time if you buy and hold. That is a lesson I am learning. After sometimes b&h, mostly st trading, managing somehow to make a ton in '98 and '99, and then managing somehow <g> to lose a ton in '00. I am more humble now. Let's face it. Not everyone can do what you can do. For the rest of us, it's a lot simpler to identify strong fundamentals and choose to ride those waves. Fortunately, we live in an era of economic restructuring that seems to reward that simple approach. And to you, congrats also! ps. I don't post much on this thread. But at times like this, I do try to read it. Perhaps that is also why you are here today. At any rate, the quality of responses to your posts suggest to me that I'm in the right stock! :)