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: Les H who wrote (70418)	2/25/2001 2:08:00 PM
From: JRI	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

Les- Although I agree that Greenspan & co. are more-weighted to S&P 500 and other longer-standing indices, I think the Naz has become much more relevant for the Fed....For instance, the Fed cut Jan. 3rd (after a previous day loss of 7% on Naz), yet S&P 500 was not near the 20% figure then...also, in Dec./Jan speeches/commentaries, Greenspan went on and on about the productivity/technology miracle, blah, blah.....he sounded like Chambers... In my view, Nasdaq 2000 pushes Greenspan to the edge, S&P 500 going down 20%/Dow going under 10k pushes him over.. (Of course, it'll be real interesting to see how much mileage he gets this time out of the "put") What is this tit-for-tat by Angell...is trying to rise from the ashes as some sort of Anti-Greenspan? Or is just trying to make money (or save money) for his client <G>

To: Les H who wrote (70418)	2/25/2001 2:16:34 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 99985

Les, the question is how long can they hold the Dow and S&P 500 from going into a bear market, each cycle they send in the PPT, we end up with a higher PE plateau, one of these days, it is going to cave in and give us a real bear market in these two as well, apart of few days in 1987, we did not have one since the one that ended August 1982. That one was a "doozy" as far as end valuations reached are concerned. While I do not see the conditions ripe right here and now (no recession as far as I can see), once this panic button pushing exercise is finished, and the feds start to realize (probably not for another 12 months or so) that they have overdone their loose money policy, then we might have a combination of a bear (induced amongst other things by our trade deficits and weaker dollar late this year and early next year), then we may finally see the 20% rule violated for a good six months or so...(the turnips are starting to lay out the blue prints for their next year scenario <vbg>). Zeev

To: Les H who wrote (70418)	2/25/2001 2:17:10 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Respond to of 99985

Les: Market valuations are hugely higher today by any measure than in 1990. Even after the NAZ smash. Not sure that making comparisons to the 1990 bear will work here.

To: Les H who wrote (70418)	2/25/2001 2:34:42 PM
From: KymarFye	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

"the 20% figure... also appears to have deflected the market in 1990." IMHO, there's just as good a reason to expect history to contradict itself as to expect that it will repeat itself, especially with the S&P (which in reflecting the broad market reflects its bi-polar perversity especially well) - don't forget, also, how fresh in mind '87 still was back in '90. By the same token, if the Fed wants a high-impact "surprise," a set of major contraindicative presumptions (i.e., Greenspan wouldn't cut just after a major rumor/around high-profile testimony/prior to major economic reports/relatively close to a meeting, etc.) could help the set the stage just fine. Such uncertainty could be a major negative, but, then again, as soon as the major negative has (re-)asserted itself, it becomes a transitory certainty and therefore a contrary positive... Next week promises a daisy chain of economic reports, high-profile political and political-economic events (including Greenspan testimony), end-of-the-month hijinx... Meanwhile, the major indices are hovering near critical multi-year or even multi-decade suport levels and trend-lines, and one stock after another, especially on the Nasdaq, is exploring virtually where not entirely uncharted territory. In addition to offering further potentially significant reports, the week after next will also zero in on the one-year-anniversary of the Nasdaq's mania high (on a Saturday) - and, with Moondude AWOL, I'll be the one to throw in the Full Moon that comes on the Friday before... I think there's every reason to expect complete collapse and/or a series of collapses, a major rally and/or a series of rallies, and/or not much of anything - with or without a Fed bailout or attempted bailout. It's not hard for me to imagine the Nasdaq either well below 2000 or well above 2500 or totally unchanged by 3-10-01, quite possibly after having traveled through alternative extreme levels more than once. I have no doubt that, as ever, fortunes will be made and lost by equally intelligent people operating according to all things considered equally well-conceived and -grounded completely opposite strategies. Personally, having come off a very good week and feeling eager to push a winning streak forward, I'm thinking I might be better served by instead taking the next few sessions off (maybe work on my taxes and bookkeeping) - or at most concentrating on direct price thrusts over very short holding periods (even shorter than usual) with strictly limited exposure.