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 (84382)6/24/2002 4:59:06 PM
From: augieboo  Respond to of 99280
 
Are you trying to point out that I err? I know that, I think everyone knows that.

Everyone except M.J. He thinks you are perfection in the flesh. <gg>



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (84382)6/24/2002 5:03:49 PM
From: longdong_63  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
Zeev...Analyst sees Nasdaq in bear trap

ANGELA BARNES
Friday, June 21, 2002

Those waiting for a big rebound in technology stocks -- especially investors who have hung on since the Nasdaq Stock Market peaked more than two years ago -- could be in for a long wait, a technical analyst says.

Steven Miley of Merrill Lynch & Co. in London, suggests it could be five to 10 years before the Nasdaq composite index rallies back above 5,000.

That is, if a series of events that Mr. Miley lays out takes place. The key to the sequence is whether the index, which closed yesterday at 1,464.75 points, falls below 1,438 going into next week's quarter-end.

Should that happen, it would break a 12-year, bull-market trend line, Mr. Miley said. Were the trend line to be broken, then selling would likely accelerate into early July and make any significant recovery in the third quarter and possibly the fourth quarter or even in 2003, a difficult proposition, he said.

Mr. Miley suggests that, if all the above transpires, it could take five to 10 years for the composite to get to the highs above 5,000 reached in March, 2000.

John Roque, senior vice-president of Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder Inc. in New York, collected data on the Dow Jones industrial average from 1900. During that time, there were 27 bear markets, he said in a report yesterday.

The only time the Dow had a bigger percentage drop than that shown by the Nasdaq composite since March, 2000, was between Sept. 3, 1929, and July 8, 1932. That slump took the Dow down 89.19 per cent, dropping it to 41.22 points. The decline in the Nasdaq composite as of Wednesday's close was 70.84 per cent, more than double the average percentage decline during the 27 bear markets.

Mr. Roque says he believes it is correct to compare the Nasdaq's decline to that of the Dow in 1929-32 because both bear markets were preceded by a bubble.

"We figure that's more than enough reason for us to be cautious, if not, bearish," he concluded.



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (84382)6/24/2002 5:08:39 PM
From: Mike M  Respond to of 99280
 
<<I erred again (twice a day, oh my, what a disaster, I'd better get myself a new set of turnips...), suggesting that we will sell off to close only some 10 points up and we closed twice as much. Are you trying to point out that I err?>>

Aw shucks, Zeev...It's OK, just don't let it happen again. <g>



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (84382)6/24/2002 5:31:02 PM
From: Mark Johnson  Respond to of 99280
 
<<Are you trying to point out that I err?>>

Of course you err.....at least 60% of the time.......

Look man that is 45 posts today.....Gawd almighty....get away from the computer for awhile....take a bath or something.....geeeeeez.......



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (84382)6/24/2002 5:59:49 PM
From: furrfu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
Zeev, I am fully aware that you err. It is my goal to err as much as you do. The improvement would do me good.

Doug



To: Zeev Hed who wrote (84382)6/24/2002 9:35:29 PM
From: xxxBOBxxx  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99280
 
In the post I was responding to you stated after market close:

"I had it going to about 1465/70 and then falling back to close around the 1440/50 or so"

When actually what you posted earlier in the day was:

"a bounce to just under 1432 and then turning back down"

I was merely pointing out that there was a discrepancy
between what you stated during the day and what you
claimed after market close.