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: Stephen who wrote (51016)	4/13/2002 12:16:26 PM
From: Stephen	Respond to of 99280

I came across this old bean in my files .... fwiw ... geocities.com Best regards Stephen

To: Stephen who wrote (51016)	4/13/2002 12:18:11 PM
From: ajtj99	Respond to of 99280

Stephen, I don't really follow Hays because he bases so much on his indicator. No indicator is infallible, that's why we use a virtual tool box full of them so we can get a consensus to help validate what we see in the price action and other technical analysis.

To: Stephen who wrote (51016)	4/13/2002 5:19:39 PM
From: Robin Plunder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Stephen, I subscribe to Hays service, and while he makes many good points, he has been way too bullish for over a year. He does not seem to recognize that 4 arms signals in one year is potentially a problem for his usual interpretation of the arms index. He knows that this is unprecedented, except possibly for the Dow in 29-32, but nobody has calculated those numbers as far as I know, but he continues to interpret this as bullish. I think he is wrong on this. Some disturbing things he has done is in his interpretation of charts. For example, he showed a chart of SP500 over last 9 months, saying that the two prior lows could be seen as cup and handle....except in that case the handle would be 3 months long, and by definition a handle is never more than 3 weeks. Another time he showed the same chart and said it was a potential inverted head and shoulders, which is more accurate.....except that in an inverted H&S, according to Edwards and Magee, it is critical to have higher volume on the right shoulder...which we have not had. So he is loose and lax with his charts, leading to erroneous conclusions. Also, when he shows the charts, he only points out those structures that support his argument. For example, in that same SP500 chart, there is a massive H&S going back over several years indicating a long term top...but he does not mention this....Instead, he brings out the SP600 chart to show how the small caps are moving ahead, but never mind that the large caps are about to collapse... He has many good indicators, but I think he is off-target in interpreting them, at least in this current market context.... Robin