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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jurgen who wrote (12715)	2/27/1998 2:34:00 PM
From: sepku	Respond to of 77400

Forwarding this clip from the COMS thread: ------------------------------------------------------------- RESEARCH ALERT - DMG restarts networker group Reuters Story - February 27, 1998 09:56 NEW YORK, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Deutsche Morgan Grenfell said it restarted coverage of a group of networker companies after new analyst Paul Weinstein joined the firm. -- Cisco Systems Inc was rated a buy. Cisco was unchanged at 66-1/2 in morning trading. [Curious that it now takes more than a buy rating, even by a significant firm like DMG, to move this stock...maybe some fundamentals? CSCO looks like it's at a point where it requires improving growth/marketshare news to justify an even higher multiple] -- 3Com Corp was rated a buy. 3Com was up 10/16 at 35-13/16. -- Bay Networks Inc was rated a buy. Bay was up 3/16 at 33-5/8. -- Cabletron Systems Inc was rated a hold. Cabletron was off 1/4 at 15-1/4.

To: Jurgen who wrote (12715)	2/27/1998 2:53:00 PM
From: sepku	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

>>>Helios, that's a bold statement. Which historical records do you mean? When i look at the charts of CSCO, ASND, DJ30 etc. i see that buying/selling at the 200 EMA crossovers would have been good investment advice.<<< You exactly right, Jurgen. Anyone can pull a historical graph on a stock, lay some trendlines, and determine their accuracy for that particular stock. Then even a moron can immediately see their accuracy in determining a change in trend. When you do so, it becomes readily apparent that certain indicators such as the 200ema and 50 ema, are very reliable if applied correctly (in combinations with other techniques to verify true changes in trend rather than false alerts). He may be referring to such programs or back-testing like those in Telescan which allow you the option of the computer laying out trendlines on a historical graph, and plotting buy and sell points on every crossover of the indicator, thus providing a %return accuracy rate. This is the only way his statement that "historical back-testing on MAs proves that they don't work" can hold true. But that is not an accurate test of MA validity as an accurate indicator because only a computer would trade based on every single crossover -- using no further analysis/judgement -- thereby including all the false signals (which are usually far more numerous than the true breakouts). But then I suppose all the great minds out there, with the power to move hundreds of millions of $, just use MA indicators for fun and not as an effective aid to time their entry/exit points. Maybe they ought to put Helios and Gerald in charge! ;o) Style Pts.