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

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 5:27:39 PM
From: Softechie	Respond to of 99280

Short the craps out of SAN Suckers!!!

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 5:36:49 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Eugene, good points. Some of us are looking for the economic numbers to not meet expections Even if economy is fine, the stocks in the Nasdaq were pricing a strong rebound. Cisco's comments the other day along with IBM is telling a story of a slower pick up in demand and if that is the case, people will just get frusterated paying up for these stocks. These are heavyweights and you can bet MSFT is just as negative; for them the consumer driven strong holiday selling season is over and it can only go downhill. For that reason, staying away from Nasdaq and finding alternatives in other areas is not a bad strategy. The big old economy industrials have much lower PEs and are looking ahead to a recovery but that recovery does not have to be a "V" shape for them to go higher. Low growth can still support their stock prices in a low interest rate environment. However, most Naz stocks are priced for a "V". The risk may not be worth it at current prices. Going into Y2K just created too much capacity...along with the overspending. jmho

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 6:35:13 PM
From: Ted Downs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

Eugene, Very thoughtful post. The bearish sentiment was becoming so strong the shorts were due for a setback. I made a pre-market comment on the QCOM thread early this morning when it appeared Qcom was going to surge and Metsin jumped me like an attack dog. Seems some of the shorts have become rabid. (g) Ted

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 9:38:58 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

>>I HUMBLY submit that this weekend this thread was the most bearish I have seen yet, and this was in the face of 3 critical indicators:<< Gene, are you OK? I just got back into Qcom today at 34.75. Lets see how this plays out. Regards, HJ Message 17108324

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 9:57:10 PM
From: ajtj99	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

Eugene, before you get too smug with yourself, please remember the following: -The COMP had not yet touched the April Lows this run. -The SPX had already breached the April lows. -The NDX did a .618 re-trace of the Sept-Jan run. Any lower and it would have meant a re-test of the Sept. lows. -We reversed 26 points from the lows on the NDX on Friday by close, not 90. -I don't know about the 20% bear corrector thing. Did you apply that last summer when the COMP dropped to 1870? If so, you would have had a whopping rally to 1941 before you got your head handed to you. -A breach of COMP 1695 would have set a re-test of 1646. On the positive side, we had a candle that breached the lower BB and a bounce off the bottom line of a trendline. We also had oversold stochastics on the daily, which we had for a whole month last year. I think I did mention that I thought we'd possibly see an 80-100-point rally out of this, but I hardly agree with you that it was blatantly obvious from the few indicators you mentioned. There was a reversal candle on Friday, but those have been good for a day or two lately.

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/25/2002 11:40:02 PM
From: Mark Johnson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

<<I HUMBLY submit that this weekend this thread was the most bearish I have seen yet,>>> Well why not....Zeev called today for a "Black Monday"......I kinda liked todays black Monday, hope Zeev calls a few more..... To:Metsin6 who wrote (32136) From: Zeev Hed Friday, Feb 22, 2002 9:42 AM View Replies (5) \| Respond to of 33352 Not sure, we may be setting up for "black Monday". I still have INVN from the AH deployment and wll try and extricate myself here as well. Zeev

To: 16yearcycle who wrote (33264)	2/26/2002 9:04:16 AM
From: exp	Respond to of 99280

Eugene, intriguing arguments about rsi on nas bp but perhaps not entirely correct. BPCOMP rsi had similarly low values in 1999 and in Oct 2000 at NON-bottoms. On the other hand, BPNDX has not had such low values at NON-bottoms but is more volatile than BPCOMP. As far as NASI rsi it was just as low in Oct 2000 at a NON-bottom. Your arguments 1. and 3. do not appear as important technically to me. I think that what happened is that after a 400 pt and 19% correction on Nasdaq some indicators naturally exhibit quite oversold levels similarly to Oct 2000. I still maintain that 1650 is a natural potential bottom judging from weekly Nasdaq charts and that sentiment indicators must mark this potential bottom in an unequivocal manner if we are to have a sustainable rally. Eugene, thanks for your interesting thoughts and please contribute more insights on this thread as we are all focused on the same goal of increasing our portfolios' values.