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 : YEEHAW CANDIDATES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Galirayo who wrote (13316)	11/16/2005 6:20:51 PM
From: Sergio H	Respond to of 23958

Ray, I have the same view. ALAN does have another gap.

To: Galirayo who wrote (13316)	11/16/2005 6:48:02 PM
From: Sergio H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23958

I'm being stupid tonight. Can't figure out just how the FA is built into the TA chart. At what point does it get in? If the stock moves in any direction, its because of TA, right? So, does the FA go in while the stock is sleeping, sort of like the tooth fairy? It sneaks in while the stock is not moving and then in the morning, TA takes over. I guess I figured it out. Thanks Ray. What's the question? OK, let's hear some music! Put Madame Jenkins on the turntable while I figure out if the Tooth Fairy delivers FA and if doesn't then who does? Dominoes?

To: Galirayo who wrote (13316)	11/16/2005 8:51:03 PM
From: Ken W	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23958

Ray Okay, here is one that I've owned FOREVER! stockcharts.com[m,a]daclyyay[dd][pb50!b200][vc60]&pref=G Note that the gaps always got filled regardless of the moving averages. Saying that FA is built into the TA was, maybe in the old days, when EVERYBODY but retail knew something was coming. Back in the day, that is why we had a pick of the week...scanning for stocks that had sudden volume spikes with less than 10% gain on the day, followed by a couple of low volume days. If the scan worked out the trade was nearly always good for 20 to 30 percent, sometimes more. If the stock was not overbought at the point we announced it. BUT, those were before the days of Fair Disclosure, Sarbanes Oxley and the like. Now, like FNSR in early Sept, no one knew that the company was going to get 12 million even after the 60 million cash buy of another company. That would have been a ringer for the arb. players, but they come up with the 12 million and the arbs got killed...no FA built in there. The arbs had to cover and the buyers came in. I will not use ALAN as there is a force greater than TA moving the stock, I've explained it before and it will continue until the seller is out of stock. CDIC had the same problem back in 2001...all the good stuff was there but there was no cost basis seller. I held the stock 2 years, averaging down at 20% intervals..in 2003 CDIC bought up the last of the sellers shares and the stock doubled from my orginal purchase of 3.25...the averaged down shares were more than double. The TA said the stock was toast..the FA said wait it out. Ken

To: Galirayo who wrote (13316)	11/17/2005 12:14:03 AM
From: John Metcalf	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23958

"Thanks Ken .. FA is already built in to the TA Chart." I've been watching this discussion with some surprise that the TA guys have doubts about the science of it all. Would a comprise hypothesis suit? Known events, like earnings, are forecast, and there is a basis for believing that consensus is priced in; and therefore shows in TA. Unknown events, like clinical trials data, are forecast with far less reliability. Random events, like earthquakes are not forecast and not priced. Further, the fewer followers of a company, as with small-caps or micro-caps, the more likely that information issues in leaky fashion. Thus, more likely to show in TA than in the news. Not necessarily deliberate leaks, but the information which comes out is not in the headlines available to everyone. The point is that there are many degrees of consensus which inform TA. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition, but more of a continuum of relative certainty. If this is not right, tell me what I'm missing.