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: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (147811)	8/12/2007 10:09:56 AM
From: Shack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

You know what's fascinating to me? The timing of this whole subprime story vis-a-vis the charts. What I find really cool is it happened right when many of the the charts were completing their bull runs with terminal bearish patterns, patterns that had been forming for over a year! Look at the $XBD for instance. One of the most beautiful ending diagonals I have ever seen which began to be formed in early 2006, over 18 months ago! The wave (v) of that wedge hits the top line on June 1, 2007 and begins its decline from there just as it should. Suddenly as the meat of decline kicks in, this subprime story breaks. So is this coincidence? Was the very fact the subprime mess was lurking in the shadows the "reason" we had a diagonal in the first place? Is this catalyst exacerbating a decline which was going to come anyways o would there just have been some other reason used to explain the plunge? Intriguing questions for me, but purely on an academic level In any event the key now is not to get too involved with the FA behind this market decline. The charts contain all the info you need. And if you believe in all these terminal ED's, the charts are saying there will be no rescue for the market.

To: Henry J Costanzo who wrote (147811)	8/12/2007 12:04:23 PM
From: The Freep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 209892

Not to toss my hat into an FA convo, but while I appreciate the math of this NYT article, the idea that losses to the economy should be measured strictly as the losses due to subprime delinquencies seems kinda simplistic. I don't think anyone is viewing the subprime problems as THE problems, but merely as something that has potential to cause huge ripples, be it from hedge funds collapsing due to 10-1 leverage (which would, using the simple forms of math this article uses, increase losses to $340 billion or $670 billion), or from changes in consumer spending, or... or... or.... Ripples and waves are the issues here, if there are issues. Again, I would agree that by itself, the subprime mortgage thang probably isn't a big problem, other than to those it directly impacts. But to view any one element "by itself" in the world today doesn't seem a very sound strategy, either. Or put another way, viewing the war in Iraq as costing some X where X is the approved Congressional budget for the war is certainly true on one hand, but might not truly measure the absolute cost. Just my 2 cents in a billion dollar discussion.