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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gsp6181 who wrote (29608)	1/30/2002 8:02:15 AM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

Another Livermore quote to start the day.. I think the clearest summing up of the whole thing was expressed by Thomas F. Woodlock when he declared: "The principles of successful stock manipulation are based on the supposition that people will continue in the future to make the mistakes that they have made in the past." In booms, which is when the public is in the market in the greatest numbers, there is never any need of subtlety, so there is no sense of wasting time discussing either manipulation or speculation during such times; it would be like trying to find the difference in raindrops that are falling synchronously on the same roof across the street. The sucker has always tried to get something for nothing and the appeal in all booms is always frankly to the gambling instinct aroused by cupidity and spurred by a pervasive prosperity. People who look for easy money invariably pay for the privilege of proving conclusively that it cannot be found on this sordid earth. At first, when I listened to the accounts of the old-time deals and devices I used to think that people were more gullible in the 1860's and '70's than in the 1900's. But I was sure to read in the newspapers that very day or the next something about the latest Ponzi or the bust-up of some bucketing broker and about the millions of sucker money gone to join the silent majority of vanished savings. You could so easily just change the dates in the last paragraph. That which drives and drills a market has not changed much at all. edit: How apropos. I just this minute found this reference: news.bbc.co.uk

To: gsp6181 who wrote (29608)	1/30/2002 8:32:53 AM
From: bcrafty	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

gsp, my understanding of "the January Effect" is that the market rises(or is "supposed" to rise)in January due to an inflow of money into mutual funds and stocks and from people with new money to invest and also from people re-buying whatever they sold the previous month for tax-loss purposes. Therefore January is "supposed" to be an up month. My comment yesterday was sarcastic in that I was saying that there was no "January Effect" this year, as we did not have an up month. This phenomenon (if it really is one) is not to be confused with the chestnut "as goes January, so goes the year" which is what I think you are referring to. That phrase is also of questionable value, as it certainly wasn't true last year with an up January and a down year. I couldn't connect to the article you mentioned, as I'm not a Forbes subscriber. Perhaps you copy and paste the text? TIA