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: Zeev Hed who wrote (64298)5/8/2002 8:01:32 PM
From: westpacific  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 99280
 
Here comes the Kudlow and Clown show.



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64298)5/8/2002 8:16:08 PM
From: JRI  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
hey Zeev, looks like the downtrend lines will be right around the 50% retrace (around 1750) by "high" date on 14th...

saavycharts.com



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (64298)5/8/2002 8:24:10 PM
From: id  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
zeev--dumb question dept.--i posted this on another board but would like feedback from the knowledgeable traders on this board too.

today when they drove adsx from 2.26 down to 1.40 and back to 2.36 in a few minutes this question occurred to me, "is there any beneficial free market function for which it is essential to grant MMs the power and freedom to so manipulate the price of a stock?"

it is a real question in my mind. i wasn't holding adsx at the time so it is not a 'sour grapes' question based on my being personally burnt (that time :). i am genuinely curious if those of you who know more than i feel that, all our occasional grousing about the nasty MMs aside, this is really the only system that would work as well as it needs to--so we may as well accept MM price manipulation as permanent and necessary. is that the case? if not, am i right to assume the 'big bux' keep this ethical anachronism humming long past its natural life? as i say, pardon the dumb questions.
id