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: Zeev Hed who wrote (91769)	7/5/2002 2:26:25 PM
From: Nancy	Respond to of 99280

i just went back to look at low trin.nq days - you are right - 0.39 on 5/08, 0.44 on 5/16, 0.53 6/4 & 0.33 on wed. if we dont see retrenchment monday intraday, this thing could peter out much sooner than expected. calls volumes in qqq today are huge. another negative.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (91769)	7/5/2002 3:26:38 PM
From: Crimson Ghost	Respond to of 99280

Zeev: The need for retrenchment applies double IMHO because the dollar did not rally much today. BTW have you raised your rally target from 1525-1545? George

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (91769)	7/5/2002 6:17:01 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev, Maybe I do see what you are looking at in your call for a run to only 1526-1555. Although it cannot be stated strongly enough that we are much, much more oversold than three previous smallish rallies of note, ie, early March 01, Feb 02, and May 02, and therefore the pendulum should cause a greater percentage rally, you are only calling for a similar percentage run. But I see now that there is HUGE resistance in that area; it is the confluence of many channels, and previous support and resistance points, and the convergence is later this month. That area simply has too much overhang to bet that we should plow through it, unless the rally gains even more steam, and gathers strength with some mild pauses along the way. Thanks for the lesson.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (91769)	7/5/2002 6:49:59 PM
From: Joe Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

Zeev- Many charts etc. that I look at resemble September 11 more than the end of February. I think that it is possible that we got or are getting a decent bottom here even without your GNT's. Although I am not sure how to explain their absence. Some evidence: We over shot your initial target of 1420's by a lot. We came near your 1326 target. The only difference here was we got there by way of a few extra days of "relentless" grinding instead of a few GNT's So then, why the extra grinding and the absence of GNT's. I submit that the shorts are in control of this market to a large extent and we have to look at their profit taking as a cushion that prevents the GNT's as they cover at the bottoms. Blame it on some sopisticated short-sellers. So then, what does that mean for the markets? What it means is that we have some shrewd and powerful shorts with a mountain of cash. Until they start committing that cash long or start to get it eaten away out from under them, they will still be in control. It is a mirror image of early 2000 where the longs had the mountain of cash and controlled the markets with it. We have to look at how they lost control to see how it is that the shorts might lose control and create a melt-up similar to the two-year melt-down we have had. I think that we need to see real earnings to see that just as we needed to see real declines in earnings to stop the bull. Any thoughts?