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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (265432)	10/30/2003 6:31:53 PM
From: Mark Adams	Respond to of 436258

The members were net long at a historically unprecedented level by Oct 02 and through March 03. You might call this is a 'sign', or indication. In July '02, I saw CGC trade at $14 (after the fact, intraday price; finance.yahoo.com my attention was elsewhere and busy putting dry powder to work or I'd have bought some) which looked to me to be a bit of panic selling. I commented at the time to Joan that if there were a bit of panic selling, that it was probably a good 'sign'. Perhaps a bit early, as 10/02 proved a retest, followed by yet another swoon to the '03 low. But CGC never traded at $14 again. I guess the March '03 low caught me by surprise as I was expecting new lows for the 'waterfall'. That was what the market action since 2000 had taught me to expect- bear rallies followed by new lows. It didn't appear like much panic or forced selling had taken place, yet the market spiked higher four days in a row, on good volume. Yet more capital about to become homeless; Message 19450745 This ongoing maturity of higher yield savings facing reinvestment risk, perhaps for the first time, is a factor to be reckoned with.