SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ajtj99 who wrote (10886)12/5/2001 4:38:37 PM
From: orkrious  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
Zeev, originally you had 1934 for January, then 2100 if we got to 1920-1940 in November. Then you had 2160 as a possibility if we went beyond 1941 (I think that was mentioned last Monday). You had 2250 for the high in April and I think 2859 for the high later in the year,

This was totally negated when we didn't have the December tanking. Zeev said that if we don't retest the lows in December, we will likely retest them (or worse) in March.



To: ajtj99 who wrote (10886)12/5/2001 5:31:34 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
Yes, that was the scenario if the 1793 (spike 1815) Nov. high held. Right now, all I can see is a potential 100 more (actually 2160) run here on the Naz (but not at once), and then a period of few months going back to the September lows (the alternative scenario). We almost need to copy the April 3 to late August scenario, with minor modifications. December 14th was quite critical for a number of different reasons and that is only 9 days away, so i would rather see how we behave into that date (do we stop at 1850 or not even get that low or go through it like we went through 1965?), before I can attempt a new update to the scenario. The longer term is still a double plus on the Naz from the recent bottom sometime in the third or fourth quarter next year. As to Justa's question, I would accept a double from the bottom as a major bull move.

Zeev



To: ajtj99 who wrote (10886)12/5/2001 5:53:28 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 99280
 
AJTJ99: Re: "As to Justa's question, I would accept a double from the bottom as a major bull move."

As to Zeev's response, a major "bull move" is quite different from what he said was "the new bull market."

But his scenario makes sense.

Don't ask me why I am writing to you <g>. I am following the tread lead on this one. Are you the official thread go-between <g>?