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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (114510)	1/5/2001 10:35:45 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> Good lord craig, talk about needing perspective. When the heck did 2 billion (with a b) shares become 'light' volume'? << Today's volume is about 50% lighter than the record volume we had on the record day Wednesday. It is down dramatically from yesterday's 2.6 billion. Market is retracing the gains on successively lower volume. You have to look at the volume in relation to the volume of the rally we just had. --There were 47 trading days in 2000 with volume over 2 billion shares. --Two days ago the Nasdaq did 3.12 billion. That's 1 billion less on the downside on this decline. I think that is significant and worth noting. --The 274 point rally on 12/05 which obviously didn't mark the bottom wasn't even in the top 10 heaviest Nasdaq volume days! Obviously the record rise a couple days ago was significant. -- Four of the top ten heaviest trading days ever on the Nasdaq occurred in the last half of December. All on volume over 2.5 billion. Four of those five were on about 2.7 billion or more. --Eight out of the top 10 heaviest volume days ever have occurred since Oct 18, which encompasses this decline the last four months. All of those days are over 2.5 billion shares. So yes, 2 billion isn't all that heavy, relatively speaking! Now are you going to nitpick semantics, and rehash the same tired argument all the bears are spewing, or are you going to put up some facts to back up your claims? P.S. On certain stocks like my top holding SUNW, the volume today on this down day was less than half the volume on the record day Wednesday. That doesn't signal to me overwhelming selling pressure. That is a textbook low volume retracement of some gains.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (114510)	1/5/2001 11:17:17 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Oh and another thing. Those eight out of the top ten heaviest volume days on the Nasdaq ever all coming on October 18th and later were all down days except two. The record 3.1 billion we did on Wednesday was obviously one of the two up days. The other up day was on 12/21, the day we short-term bottomed at 2288. We had a decent rally following that heavy volume day. (I believe the bottom for the Nasdaq was 12/20-12/21, not Wednesday when we hit 2251. The broad market clearly bottomed 12/20-12/21 two weeks ago). You can draw whatever conclusions you want from this data, but I think it shows that the market has strengthened ever since 12/20, with two of the heaviest volume days recently marking bottoms. Only two of the eight heavy volume down days since October 13th have been after the bottom of 12/20-12/21. That was 12/29, the last trading day of the year, and yesterday when we did 2.6 billion on the 50 point pullback. Incidentally, those two heavy days that marked an important bottom on 12/20-12/21 were heavier volume days than 12/29 and 1/04 (yesterday). For all the negativity and fear mongering spewed by the bears today about how this was some sort of important reversal to the downside, I would bet that today's volume wasn't even in the top 25 heaviest days of all time. The bears best hope is that the slide intensifies on Monday on heavy volume. That would be bearish.