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 : Network Appliance -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert New who wrote (6202)	2/7/2001 7:51:25 PM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 10934

I'm looking for 100 near term on QCOM. QCOM has the benefit of a nice long base to work off, someday NTAP will have one too. What nice about buying off a base and the longer they are the better it is for the stock, is sellers become less and less a factor. Greg

To: Robert New who wrote (6202)	2/8/2001 4:10:00 AM
From: kas1	Respond to of 10934

Ive read that 90% or better of all gaps tend to get filled And I bet 90% of non-gaps (prices near the "gap" price) also get filled. Stocks do tend to move around their prices, in random directions (Brownian motion). That 90% of the time they would hit a price arbitrarily designated as a "gap price" is no great surprise. I can bet you that any number that you pick between 40 and 200 will get "filled" as an NTAP price sooner or later. Perhaps it has something to do with equilibrium in the markets (dont dare ask me to explain that one <g>). I've never seen anyone twist economic theory / equilibrium theory hard enough to make it yield any support for TA. There is nothing in equilibrium theory to suggest anything TA-like. Again, I don't mind if people believe in TA, and I'm glad if it works for some of the people here -- but the above attempts to lend it empirical and theoretical support fall flat on their respective faces.