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

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/5/2003 2:56:48 PM
From: bcrafty	Respond to of 209892

Some smart words from a smart man "The market is just the market" goes along with your semi- tongue in cheek comment to the board yesterday Now then, if only I could key into the institutions' most popular trading programs . . . . <g>

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/5/2003 3:44:29 PM
From: bcrafty	Respond to of 209892

argument for non-existence of the PPT which also quotes Richard Russell saying "the market is just the market" Message 18800564

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/5/2003 10:23:08 PM
From: John Madarasz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

Thxs for that link Al I actually saw that link on another site and got a few sentences into it before I flipped to the next post. In deference to your follow up I finally read thru the whole thing.... in all honesty, it reads to me like some shit some old head had to pump out before cocktail hour, because it's all been said before, and we're in middle ground here with no definitive answers. The fact the some "sage" is actually trying to define some theoretical multi billion $ futures arb is fucking ridiculous to me. Are you kidding me bro....really??? and the fact that you are posting this shit to me tells me that we are in middle ground too...waiting for some direction. Break out the bronze wool bro, it's time to get to work on the brass and bright work. You are good god damn right when you say you are down with your day job...anyone with half a brain should be pumping double time time cultivating real world contacts and job prospects... this is one tuff market<gg> Peace in the Hood... ;~)

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/5/2003 11:32:54 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

limiting ones discussion regarding the PPT to saying it is useless chatter is itself very foolish IMO.

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/5/2003 11:37:15 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

eer since Maudlin called Fisher brilliant for eliminating the 30 year as a great way to jump start the economy, i thought he was a loose a few screws.

To: AllansAlias who wrote (70540)	4/6/2003 1:52:35 AM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

I said I would post if I thought I had something useful to make sense of what I've seen going on - something that ties together the war rally, the lack of durable-looking bottoms, sentiment, and most importantly, a count that explains the relative underperformance of non-tech. I can't claim that the counts are unique, but the melding of them may be. What I believe is occuring is that tech, having endured a longer and deeper bear, is in the middle of a longer correction. Tech completed a "thought" labelled "A" in the days following 9/11/01, had a correction of that (labelled "B"), and then embarked upon the "C" to complete the crash off the bubble highs. ttrader.com I think we have been correcting the first wave of that "C", wave 1, in three waves. We are now entering wave "v" of "c" of "2" of that big "C" down. ttrader.com The implications, if correct, are serious. This high would produce one of the best shorting opportunities of the bear, as the "3" of "C" would be imminent. Being the third wave of the third wave, there should be no mistaking this turn. (I apologize for switching from Nasdaq to SOX, but the short-term count is the same.) Looking at non-tech, the count is muddier. It, too completed a "thought" following 9/11/01 and went into a correction of that in synch with tech. The difference in non-tech is that the ensuing wave appears to have been the same degree as the prior wave, where it was probably not in tech. ttrader.com The relative underperformance of non-tech produced what looks like five waves down off the 12/2002 high labelled "B", whereas tech did not make a fifth wave down. ttrader.com Here's where it gets exciting. This may indicate that non-tech turned down into the next subwave down, labelled "1", while tech remained only in "b". The implication would be that one would expect tech to make a marginal new high on the war rally "c" to wrap up wave "2" of "C", while non-tech should only lodge three waves up and fall short of the December 2002 highs in its own "2" of "C". Both tech and non-tech would be wrapping up wave 2's of slightly different degree - but both would be on the verge of launching the third wave of the third wave. Recognition would be at hand. Again, if this count is valid, it should be unmistakeable. SPX would have the impetus to finish the measured move off the enormous head and shoulders break, and Nasdaq would come closer to undoing all the gains from 1995 - my preliminary bear target. BC