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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (23088)	12/8/2004 1:34:32 PM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

It would be surprising, but I wonder if the $ shot its wad. it's down 70 cents from its high quotes.ino.com

To: ild who wrote (23088)	12/8/2004 3:07:27 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 110194

Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 14:47 trotsky (frustrated@Fed) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved highly likely imo. first of all, the long end of the curve has moved opposite to their hikes all year long ( remember, they are market followers ) because the bond market knows the recovery is bogus, and secondly, the rate hike cycle in the other industrialized economies has clearly peaked ( e.g. in the UK, the real estate bubble is already bursting, so no more rate hikes. Japan and continental Europe are reporting a huge slowdown, and German Bund futures have just hit new all time highs to boot ) . the UK in particular has a history of leading US rate cycles. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 14:37 trotsky (MDG) ID#248269: just turned green - looks like the turnaround may happen today already. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 14:27 trotsky (Hambone) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved "Wish I could remember which technician it was who called for QCOM to go to 1,000 when it hit 400." i DO remember that. and the guy was simply the stock analyst assigned to Qualcomm, not a technician. "I might also point out I went bullish on PMs in January 2001 and bearish on the dollar at 115 in April 2001 based on fundamentals - not technical considerations. Could be just luck, I suppose. But I don't recall any market technicians, or Elliot wavers, or any other "system" folowers reaching the same conclusion at the same time." well, there was at least one, namely me. my technical take was based on the numerous non-confirmations between the XAU, gold and silver in the '99-'01 bottoming period. admittedly i did also take the fundamentals into consideration, or rather the likely path those fundamentals would take in the future. certainly the dollar's rally from '95 to '01 could not be explained by fundmentals alone ( e.g. the trade deficit basically exploded throughout the period ) . there was no assurance that this insanity wouldn't continue for another 2 or 3 years. but the technicals in the form of above mentioned non-confirmations were the alert that the trend change was near. regarding my naming of Schaeffer, i just use him as an example - one of many worthwhile technicians who called the Nasdaq correctly. since you insist on focusing on Wall Street analysts, i note that 95% of them are actually FUNDAMENTAL analysts. and it's true, i also don't remember any of them calling the Nasdaq top , not to mention the huge bear market that followed in its wake. if i remember correctly, WS urged its customers to buy all the way down. the fundamental analyst Abby Joseph Cohen recommended a 'must have' portfolio of tech stocks in early '01 that was down a cool 87% a year later. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 14:08 trotsky (RIP@bonds) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved well, the bond bears get one warning after another from me ( a pulic service since i'm not charging for it ) . based on technicals AND fundamentals, no less. -vbg- they keep insisting i'm wrong, and i probably will be, one day. until then, my prediction remains: new all time lows in yields are on the way. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 14:02 trotsky (JD) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved "I find fundamentals overwhelmingly important in telling if something is going UP or DOWN" this isn't really true either. for example, which type of fundamental information would have told you in 1998 that the stock of Yahoo was about to rise by about 8000% over the next two years? another example: the oil price is probably THE most important price affecting the economy in the medium term. and yet, when oil rose to $55/bbl, the stock market barely budged - in fact it was about to move sharply higher. fundamental analysts everywhere expressed the conviction that the opposite was about to occur. another example: from 1992 onward , silver has been in a structural deficit every single year ( i.e. consumption exceeded mine production by a big amount ) . and yet, the price kept falling for 8 years. when Mr. Buffett analyzed the market's fundamentals in '97 he was right about the market's likely direction for about one month - and the rise occurred mainly because the market got wind of his huge purchase. another one: when the stock market bottomed in late 1974, the economic fundamentals looked absolutely atrocious. economists and market observers all agreed ( and the newpaper headlines of the time bear that out in spades ) that things could only get worse. needless to say, the lows of Dec. '74 have never been seen again. i could go on and on.... Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 13:43 trotsky (Hambone@technicians) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved that was not my impression. i don't regard the shills working at the brokerage houses as worthwhile technicians. they're in the business of selling stocks, not in the business of offering unbiased opinions. but i do know of countless technicians who DID either call the top or changed their opinion on the market as soon as the change in trend became evident. a good example is e.g. Bernie Schaeffer ( one of the greatest technicians around imo ) . while fundamentalists like Fleckenstein were short all the way from Nasdaq 2,000 to Nasdaq 5,000 or at least predicting an imminent debacle all the way up, Bernie kept people on the long side until the trend changed. so he didn't get out at the actual top tick , but not very far below it. and then proceeded to make a another fortune shorting the market all the way down. you tell me what's better: the fundis who advocated shorting all the way through a 150% advance, or the technician who switched from long to short less than 10% from the actual top. and note, all of these market moves occurred before ANYONE knew a recession was about to begin ( the fundamental datum that then drove the bear market ) . a fundamental anlysis of valuations on the way up turned out to have been an interesting intellectual exercise, but it sure didn't help anyone to make money. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 13:30 trotsky (Carmack) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved "Mr Trotsky is particularly negative and bearish today " nonsense. i haven't offered a single opinion on the market so far today. i only discussed points of market theory and philosophy ( lead-lag relationships and the question of dogma ) . i hate it when people put words into my mouth. if you're eager to hear my opinion, money flows into gold stocks have been positive for 5 days in a row ( i.e. all the way down ) , so we will most likely get a good bounce soon. Date: Wed Dec 08 2004 13:24 trotsky (pond life@fundamentals) ID#248269: Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved i agree - fundamentals are useless in timing tops and bottoms ( which ALWAYS occur well before the fundamentals shift ) . but it's still useful to be aware of the fundamentals , especially in trending markets. this is because fundamentals have momentum as well - i.e. they tend to move from one extreme to another just as market prices do.