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.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Esa who wrote (1578)	11/15/1997 2:25:00 PM
From: Mike Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Old news about Siemens - Sandisk partnership but still exciting: techweb.com The article said that Sandisk and Siemens have worked together since 1995. Wow! That's a long time ago. This company's management really has a long term vision. More reading on MMC: techweb.com Article said that in the long term, as storage capacity will improve, the MMC may compete with CompactFlash because of the small foot print. It also said that cost per MByte will get down to $0.80. So that means I can buy a 128MByte MMC for my digital cam for about $100, quite affordable price range. With 128 MBytes, I can store 640 high resolution pictures. That's more than enough for me. I don't see why I need to buy a Clik! It doesn't matter if Clik only costs 0.20 per MByte. I will buy something that will never break because it's affordable. IOM cannot get the cost of the Clik that much lower because it's mechanical and requires assembly time, while chips are made of sand and it's just a matter of getting better yield from the die. ============================= Thanks Esa, for the very interesting TA site. After I finish reading the book recommended by Loren and read this TA site, I may be a TA expert in a couple of months.

To: Esa who wrote (1578)	11/16/1997 3:16:00 PM
From: Loren	Respond to of 60323

Well, I looked at the information in this site. One of the first things I noticed is that the MACD (Moving Average Convergence Divergence) explanation said that moving averages were ratio'd (one divided by another). Every key resource I have ever seen on the subject of MACD (from Technical Analysis journals to textbooks to several software packages) have subtracted moving averages, not divided them. I'm not saying these guys don't know a lot about TA, but for them to be so blatantly different than the classical MACD without at least warning people about the fact that their constructions are different? Be careful... By the way, the classical MACD indicators are constructed as follows: 1. FastMA = xaverage(close,12) [12-bar exponential mov.avg. of closing price] 2. SlowMA = xaverage(close,26) 3. MacdDiff = FastMA - SlowMA 4. MacdMA = xaverage(MacdDiff,9) [9-bar mov. avg. of the MacdDiff line] 5. MacdHist = MacdDiff - MacdMA Plot 1 and 2 together on same scale with closing price. Plot 3 and 4 together. Plot 5 either separately or with 3 and 4. Normally, plot 1-4 as lines, plot 5 as a histogram (bar graph). Most traders buy when MacdDiff crosses upwards over MacdMA (this is equivalent to MacdHist crossing upwards over zero). They sell when MacdDiff crosses downwards under MacdMA (this is equivalent to MacdHist crossing downwards under zero). Loren