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: Scott Bergquist who wrote (1067)	11/30/2000 7:13:19 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

No one could possibly be following the advice of the 57 percent of bullish analysts, as demonstrated by negative market action. That is to say, maybe the analyst opinions (or at least of those polled) are not a good indicator. What I was looking for is a metric that measures how much bad news affects the market--and is multiplied--as compared to how good news is attended to. Right now such a ratio is probably several orders of magnitude to one (10:1, 100:1 ?) An example today was Gateway's negative news--that was attended to and multiplied, whereas Tech Data's positive news was completely ignored. One way to look at this would be to compare the relative loss/gain in market caps not only within the specific equities themselves...but others in the market which were affected by the news. Another interesting and illuminating factor in this case, Tech Data has TWICE the sales revs of of Gateway (5b vs 2.5b)! So in a "sane" market, Tech Data's opinion was, in effect, twice as important as a sector indicator (and thus "2" would be plugged into my proposed bull/bear equation). Without going any deeper it is easy to see a major market imbalance is present...the news of a company with 1/2 the sales of another completely dominated the other, errantly.