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 : IMRS racking up y2k contracts. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: giddy guru who wrote (2478)	5/3/1998 1:53:00 AM
From: eabDad	Respond to of 3162

I use some different technicals than most, some of which I created. The "get out" signal earlier this month was based on a 7dma or slow stochastic which peaked at a lower level while the stock was making new highs. This showed momentum was weakening and a correction was near (a negative divergence). This same slow stochastic has now made a new low not seen in the runup, which tells me the near term trend is still down. However, the fast stochastic is bouncing up now, meaning a bounce is probable. As far as levels go, I use a 10w and 30w ma. IMRS blew below the 10w which is just above 35, while not quite reaching the 30w at about 25. Once a stock shows the stochastic behavior, coupled with the price behavior just described, I find the most probable outcome is a bounce to or near the 10w, and then a test (and parhaps fail) of the 30w. CHRZ just did this. What concerns me right now is that money flow has become more negative relative to the stock price. It is possible that the bounce will be weak and without money flowing in - then a break of the recent low is highly probable. A buy signal would be set up if IMRS bounced, did make a new local low, but stayed above the 30w - coupled with the slow stochastic cycling in a low above the current level (positive divergence). This would show momentum on the correction was weakening. A money flow confirmation is not necessarily required in this case. My take right now - neutral, let's see what happens.