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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (731)	11/17/2000 1:39:48 PM
From: Joshua Corbin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

"Fifty-four percent of individual investors don't beat the market. What makes you think you can?" Yeah, because I have. You have not consistently beaten the market for a significant amount of time. You went short in April and were 90% cash in August. That's only a five-month horizon. People who bought Qualcomm can claim a 2,400% stock rise in 1999. It simply isn't significant. I started with 10k a few years and now am up in the high 100s. And I have a really cool rare book collection. So what? Can your swing-trading beat the index until 2035? And if your system works, why are you 90% cash? Why not shoot for a cool million? Point is that no one knows the short-term future of the markets. And being bearish in a bear market is not exactly a bold step. Predictions of financial collapse are simply too vague and sensational to take seriously. One man's crash is another's correction. Wild claims exploit existing fears, driving people to sell at the bottom.

To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (731)	11/17/2000 1:41:16 PM
From: jim black	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Personally I don't trust the potential exposure of money markets to derivatives mess in all major investment sectors, "creative financing" A Greenspan has alluded to. I am out of money markets entirely and have 90 day T.bills. Do you feel safe in money markets if Osama bin Laden takes out another American warship and/or little camel boy(saddam) moves on Kuwait again. As I read it, risk to T. bills is inflation whereas risk to some money market deposits is total loss. If we read the fine print we as investors are warned that money markets bear fully uninsured risk, FWIW, IMHO. Jim Black

To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (731)	11/17/2000 2:02:21 PM
From: Warren Gates	Respond to of 74559

I am of the opinion that even in this bear market, there is an opportunity to go play the long side as long as one is mindful of the areas of overhead resistance and will be willing to take 10% gains. A well defined downtrend line is starting to emerge on the Nasdaq index with 5100 being the starting point, 4200 in August being the 2nd point, and what I believe would be 3500 as the 3rd point sometime in the next few weeks. The difference between this bear market and past bears are the willingness of traders to play this market on the short side. This has provided plenty of buying power during the strong counter-trend rallies. Since I don't really like to daytrade, and I don't want to commit more than 20% to tech stocks, a strategy I strongly recommend in this kind of market is to buy in the money calls instead of stocks. 10-15 pts in the money for a $100 stock affords one the ability to profit from rallies but protects from those devastating overnight plunges. This also allows the remaining cash to earn some interest. This should be balanced out with some naked calls against the QQQ. In my opinion, trading in this kind of market is the only way to go.

To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (731)	11/20/2000 1:13:18 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Mike, I have been reading you for a while and I must say I respect what you say. Ignore these naysayers who don't answer your questions and who seek only to discredit your character when they themselves don't have the guts to let us know their opinions on the markets. Don't worry, people can see through them. Just to show you my theories and how early I was to the game...yet, I was lambasted the other way when people were so damn greedy they made me a pariah on the message boards. This after I made a ton of money for people as "Puff Daddy" on the Kimberly Lee thread. More later, enjoying my vacation. <<To: Jay Couch who wrote (33643) From: Stock Operator Wednesday, Apr 12, 2000 2:51 PM ET Reply # of 33645 Actually, I have provided technical, fundamental, and theoretical reasons why the market should fall on other threads. A brief synopsis of my theory: 1) Fed pumped liquidity in 1999 prior to Y2k. a) Foreigners saw USA as a safe haven prior to Y2k. 2) Many hedge funds thought 2000 would see a retreat - particularly the beginning of 2000...many learned traders thought people were holding off profits of 1999 to sell into 2000 because of tax implications. a) These hedge funds shorted. 3) January to mid March was a short squeeze. A great stock for evidence is Rambus. It is well known amongst circles that RMBS was being shorted the hell out of and many pros were forced to cover at substantial losses. 4) Reallocation into larger cash position and out of tech by pension funds, CalPers (my former employer) is an example in mid March. Abby Cohen's, Mark Mobeius...particularly Mark, a hero of mine since I was in junior high school. 5) Fed draining liquidity now that Y2k is over. a) Foreigners selling because they see opportunities in their own emerging markets. 6) Intense margin buying by daytraders, hedge funds, and an overall arrogance about man's place in history. 7) The charts. Take all emotion out of the game and go strictly by technical analysis. There is certainly no fundamental basis to value these guys so I read the chart and tape. Both say a sell. In conclusion: Do I think CSCO will go to 45.? Yes. Will it? Of course not, nobody knows. But I certainly have provided more evidence for my opinions than anybody else here.>>