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: McNabb Brothers who wrote (79443)	7/2/2001 7:48:52 PM
From: eichler	Respond to of 99985

Hank, <So I guess the big boys are playing musical chairs with one another?> Well, first off I have been personally distancing myself from outright accusations of conspiracy and toning down my rhetoric lately as I can't prove the accusations nor do they reflect on the accuser very well. Actually, I thought I was somewhat benign in my treatment of Friday's funny business, mostly re-posting interesting thoughts by others I found on some of my favorite threads. The main reason I posted Hahn's comments was that I generally consider that individual's thoughts more acute and savvy than my own. I was rather surprised to read those comments coming from him and do not dismiss those ideas entirely. As far as musical chairs...I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if the small investor is locked out at a crucial time, then only the big boys can play with each other? What about existing stop orders? Do stop orders not also belong to the smaller investor? Don't major market moves also get fueled by running stop orders? <I would have to think the big boys would have the small investor to sell too!> I'm guessing this statement assumes that the market is tanking and that the small investor is locked out. So you are saying that since the big boys are not able to dump their shares on the small investor directly, then this phenomenon would not occur. I am missing out on the logic here as well...I would expect that the selling by the boys to the small fry already occurred in the distribution phase before the actual meltdown. When the small fry is stuck holding the bag with the exit doors locked shut, then what option is left for the small player when the dust settles? Sell at great loss or become a LTBH'er. Two choices. Period. <if one really believes in it I can't believe they have their money in the markets to begin with!> Well, assuming your logic as fact, I would expect Las Vegas should be going out of business very, very soon. Everyone knows that gambling in Vegas is a losing proposition, yet bigger and better casinos sprout up nonetheless. I just saw a program about Vegas yesterday on the Learning Channel. They showed lavish suites (unbelievably opulent) and mentioned that as lavishly as they are decorated, the full payback for the expenses are only 6 months! Wow! Double Wow! There is no shortage of gamblers in Vegas, or "investors" in the market. Both share the dubious distinction of funding the "house" or the operators. Believing in a statistical disadvantage has never precluded players in playing just the same. I guess I just don't understand the comments as you presented them. Maybe you could elaborate or explain? Thanks in advance. Sincerely, Eichler