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.

Non-Tech : The Woodshed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TH who wrote (17726)	12/4/2004 10:19:20 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60914

>>Its like hyper-Calvinism, and man has no free will. << Isn't hyper-Calvinism a redundant phrase? What do technical traders mean when they say that a cycle turn has "inverted?" Doesn't that mean that the market failed to turn down when it was "supposed to" -- or failed to turn up when it was "supposed to?" I probably should have clarified what I said a little better. It is very possible that a fellow who takes the spectrum of a long time series of prices can find non-neglible terms which have periods in the years -- or years and fractions. I guess what I am saying is there is probably very little that one can go back to in the real world for explanation of those spectra -- unlike seasonal, daily or annual cycles. Wars, currency crises, banking runs, revolutions -- whatever -- these aren't regular phenomena. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes?? A-cyclic, but repeating phenomena, are very important and useful for analyzing markets, I think. I have seen a few who are not rigid about the time aspect. That seems better to me. Where do you start -- with fundamentals -- macro issues -- and move to charts -- or do you start with charts and move to macro issues?? A lot of folks insist that the macro issues or fundamentals are "in" the charts ... As an example -- take that latest piece by Lance Lewis which was recently linked on one of these threads. For Lance there is only one acceptable explanation for the two charts -- POG and HUI. HUI is forecasting a walloping dollar rally that will wallop the POG; i.e. the fundamentals are in the charts -- even for the near future. The article dara linked here -- reminded me of a view that is often taken towards junior resource companies -- that of an option of the POG. From that perspective, nobody puts much of a premium on the oppty to participate in the near term rise in the POG. It just isn't worth much "time" right now. My gut keeps shouting that Lewis is right again (not saying he is right a lot <g> -- just saying that shares lagging the metal usually produces the result he mentions). OTOH -- I could take the contrarian view with the option POV mentioned above and say the odds of a rise in the POG are possibly being mispriced -- I see some problems with that view -- although it isn't impossible. What both views share is the idea that future behavior of both series is being predicted recent behavior of both series -- and especially present prices. I would like Lewis to be wrong here -- just because I don't like markets being so predictable and I think what I am talking about -- a point occuring where the "options" grossly misprice the near term potential for the POG -- will happen. This may not be it. Well, now I have opened myself up for being lambasted on a certain thread. Let them have their fun with what I've written.