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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PeterS who wrote (2071)	4/21/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: Rick Thomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Test of the $4.80 to $5.00 range is coming. Not likely to penetrate this range without news or a significant increase in volume.A retest of support in the $4.00 range is likely. Pyng is still very oversold short term.WE MAY HAVE ESTABLISHED A SHORT TERM TRADING RANGE between $4.00 and 4.80. Should we close below $4.00 , we are most likely to test support in the $3.00 range.

To: PeterS who wrote (2071)	4/21/1998 9:10:00 PM
From: Ward Nicholson	Respond to of 8117

Peter: I wrote $ (dollar sign - the part you missed)1 million/day. It means, as you as a technician sure know, volume times price. In other words $1 mil/day means 1 million of $1 shares per day or 250K of $4 (PYT) shares per day. Your note about the non-volume-based indicators does not really make any point. All I'm saying you need a real crowd to meaningfully apply TA. But I'd be truly interested to know what indicators you were able to successfully apply to PYT. Does not really make any point? I don't understand your logic here. $Volume (volume * price) will vary with volume. Indicators that do not use volume as a factor will not vary with volume, e.g. MACD, RSI, EMA, etc. Situations in which there is a concern about a lack of average daily volume (or lack of "a real crowd" as you have coined it) generating misleading signals are generally best studied with non- volume-based indicators. As the situation would have it, I haven't used any volume-based indicators with PYT to the extent that I used non-volume based indicators. I mentioned in a previous post that PYT's relative strength "sucked". I meant it. The RSI indicator is tracing a bearish divergence with the price action. The fall from $5, as an event, had a higher probability of occurring than any other sceneario. > ... indicators available to TA players (which you'll find more > of in Canada because of the lack of volume relative to US markets). Where did you get this impression? The only published reference to this regard I know of is the exact and overwhelming opposite. My source is Investors Digest and articles by Roman Franko (editor of TA of Canadian Stocks). I am sure I can find the exact references. Hmmm. Sorry. That came out wrong. I guess my fingers couldn't keep up. Allow me to clarify. I meant to say that if you compared a Canadian TA player versus an American TA player, you would find that the Canadian TA player will use more non-volume based indicators simply because of the relative lack of volume in our markets. I didn't mean to say that there are more TA players up here. I'm sure that Franko is correct and I agree (BTW, let me just say that Roman Franko is one analyst whose work I highly respect. His write-up on BXM in Jan/1997 was one I'll never forget.) Your encouragement to look at 1996. Well, my friend (sorry, I could not resist), are you saying that the company affairs were comparable? Not at all. I was referring strictly to PYT's chart formation. I have no idea where PYT was at in 1996 fundamentally speaking. You are arguing from a fundamental point of view, whereas my stance is technical. We're speaking two different languages here Peter. At that time it was a promotion in combination with peaking of VSE market. There is hundreds of VSE stocks with similar pattern (often never lived up to since)as VSE was really going at that time. That is until the summer when the market turned south - big time. If you're saying that in 1996 PYT went up because it was being promoted, what can I say except that promotion is a fundamental event, something that I really can't speak to. The reason it went up couldn't be less important to me -- it acted the way it acted. I'm not sure about you're second point here. If you are arguing that there is a strong positive correlation between PYT's chart and the VSE Index, you couldn't be more wrong. I maintain that the similarity of the chart formations of PYT (1996 & 1998) deserves some attention, if only because history repeats itself on the VSE more often than people like to remember. I missed the 1997 FDA spike, because I was on a two week vacation - that is how long it lasted and you literally had hours to get on the bandwagon. Apply TA to that. Perhaps you are looking at the patterns and not the indicators (somebody was posting about head&shoulder) - if you have spikes, you, almost as a rule, have some kind of head&shoulders. Pennants and similar features, it is my understanding, are good for stocks in a trading range (as oppose to trending range). What escapes me is how one could apply patterns on an essentially flat line with little undulation. You're right. There wouldn't have been many traders holding PYT at that time for technical reasons, or for its chart formation. Just fundamental players. I'll tell you this though...PYT was a good technical short after it spiked. As a conclusion, I like TA, I just do not think it is appropriate here... What can I say, except that there a variety of indicators that are available to the technician. A successful one will find or create the right indicators, or just not trade the stock at all. I've found success in using non-volume based indicators to look at PYT. If it ain't broke... WN