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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: AllansAlias who wrote (50361)8/16/2002 12:33:34 PM
From: yard_man  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 209892
 
nobody likes the PPT theories, but I think these guys can see "money drawn out" and know that some needs to come back in or the whole ball of wax is toast. discussed this with patron a couple of weeks back -- he says no buys unless flows support it -- I think at some pt they buy and hope money comes back in. I think we may be seeing that now.



To: AllansAlias who wrote (50361)8/16/2002 12:35:23 PM
From: Paul Shread  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 209892
 
I covered my QQQ short for a 7 cent gain, and was damn happy to get it. Okay, we can tank now. -g-

May reshort if we retest the highs.



To: AllansAlias who wrote (50361)8/16/2002 1:01:57 PM
From: Paul Shread  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 209892
 
>>the main thing that bothers me in this entire mess is the continuing outflows in MFs<<

Agreed. Very bullish in an uptrend.

I was wondering if the same thing happened in the September 1998 rally - could confirm your deep retracement in non-tech, new lows in tech theory.



To: AllansAlias who wrote (50361)8/16/2002 1:03:47 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 209892
 
<<On another subject, the main thing that bothers me in this entire mess is the continuing outflows in MFs>>

True, but it will be interesting to see:

1) Whether they continued outflowing after (yet another) miracle ramp in the big indices

2) Whether the commercials stopped covering in the face of the bounce.

We'll have the answer to (2) alot sooner than (1).<G>