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: ahhaha who wrote (61631)	10/31/2000 11:30:34 AM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

"It wasn't a technical bottom, a bottom determined by supply and demand of market participants alone." Is that the definition of a technical bottom? I don't believe it is,,the charts should reflect all factors..technically speaking of course,IMO.The ebb and flow of supply and demand is driven by external events...

To: ahhaha who wrote (61631)	10/31/2000 12:42:17 PM
From: eichler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

ahhaha "So it was only a bottom because the FED disrupted the game." I would be the last one to dispute that manipulations in the market occur on many levels. However, discounting the market's actions due to whatever... doesn't sit right with me. To me, that's like saying for instance Tennessee's win over Washington isn't really valid since a fluky interception returned for a seemingly impossible touchdown with time run out affected the outcome. I believe it's what's on the scoreboard that decides the result, not the stuff in-between. Like the scoreboard, charts accurately reflect all of the market forces and manipulations, not just the ones you consider valid. Whether it was the FED, the MMs, the big players, ect. doesn't really matter. The scoreboard has the final word. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with your assertion, just that I do not believe it matters much in the final analysis. Regards, Eichler

To: ahhaha who wrote (61631)	10/31/2000 1:54:54 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

Shoulda-coulda does not really count too much in this game. The low in August 82 was a typical contrary low, a paucity of new highs and a preponderance of new lows, followed by a string of three days when the tic run above 1000, a signal that the fed's, or whomever (may be the ridiculously low valuations?) succeeded in changing the market's direction and ending what was in essence a 16 year old bear market (interrupted every so often with nice bull moves until in 1979, the nifty fifty finally started to collapse) in which the Dow was unable move out of the 500 to 1000 range. Zeev