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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TechTrader42 who wrote (23430)	11/6/2001 4:34:20 PM
From: Paul Shread	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 52237

There's a strong view being voiced in some parts - whether they believe it or not is a different matter - that this is a one-time shock and will pass by the first quarter. Of course, these are the same clowns that saw a recovery in the second half of 2000, in the first half of 2001, and then in the second half of 2001. At some point, they could be right, but I suspect it's more likely that they will give up and turn bearish at the bottom. Internals have yet to be major-bottom-like, today included. Let's fill that 9605 gap, hit the top of the broadening top, and short the heck out of this baby. ;-)

To: TechTrader42 who wrote (23430)	11/6/2001 4:42:57 PM
From: Joseph Silent	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52237

I see us all struggle in that interesting world which lies between predicting markets and marketing predictions. :) Uncertainty going forward is always to be expected, yes? Now if there was uncertainty going backward, I would be terribly worried. It would mean we were all facing the wrong way. :) On a more serious note now .... about the CIs. Forgive me if the question is silly. I assume you have to do some sort of normalization with "available" data to get numbers between 0 and 100. If the market is trending, and if the input numbers also trend (and quite possibly start to look different from "typical" ranging data), is it possible for the CI computation to consistently yield normalized numbers at the top (or the bottom) end of the range, without really signifying a "topping" (or "bottoming") in complacency? In other words, the index correctly reflects the semantics of complacency, but fails to locate the top (bottom) of the complacency process. Thanks, J