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 : The 56 Point TA; Charts With an Attitude -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cube who wrote (17291)	5/20/1998 12:37:00 PM
From: ivan solotaroff	Respond to of 79490

WHAT AM I, PAUL REISER OR SOMETHING? Cube: "I thought George R posted that the 30% gap to qualify for cat status was from close to next day's open." That's right. "If that is the case, IMIC doesn't come close to that in the last 300 days." That's right. IMIC is not a cat. It's a quasi-cat. They're different. I had this dispute with a fellow traveler named Esteban--my contention being that inclusion of 30% intraday losses would only lead to confusion along the road. Now that Esteban's gone off to become an options trader (take that if you're lurking, Esteban), and until someone comes along to f$ck with me 'bout it, I hereby declare: NO QUASI CATS ALLOWED. THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH REAL ONES TO GO AROUND. And yes, Doug, your FATS cat is sleeping safe and sound in his catbed after that nasty little crash he took through the roof. Wasn't that an Instockian 35-minute wonder at one point? Hopefully, he'll be up and around in about three to ten weeks. Good luck with ONTC. I lowered my stop on ADPT, so i don't know if I'll be able to join you going over Lover's Leap today. Lowered the stop? I think they spell that G,R,E,E,D. Ivan

To: Cube who wrote (17291)	5/20/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Doug R	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 79490

CUBE, The official rule is close to open>>>>>-30% or more. Quasi-cats get a little leeway if they gap around 25% and run down afterward. I prefer the official rule but Ivan runs the cat house. If he says it's a cat...it's a cat. If he says it's only genetically similar, it's not a cat. Doug R

To: Cube who wrote (17291)	5/20/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: ivan solotaroff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 79490

Cube, I have devised the following acid test for PGDCEBs: 1) Do 75% of the news heads at the bottom of the Yahoo screen have the following phrase: "So and So and So, PC, Announce Class Periods for Security Action Complaints"? 2) Do the posters on the SI and Yahoo message threads speak of the CEO exclusively by his first name. I.e.: "If Tom won't listen to what the shareholders have to say, maybe he should at least care about his own holdings"? 3) Have those posters resorted to profanity in which the male reproductive organ of the accused poster is attached without a hyphen to his head? 3) Do they contain blanket accusations of market- maker duplicity? 4) Do rumors of an imminent takeover/buyout appear in those lovely blue private message screens SI provides the moment you join the thread? 5) Are the thread's self-styled TA wizards a) guaranteeing the thread that the chart is currently showing a double-bottom ("Hey, it looks like a W"), or b) resorting to fractions for time-frames for Stochastics, RSI, OBV, and CCI studies? Seriously: This, from Online Investor, sums it up in a nutshell: "Vivus: Life After Viagra? May 18, 1998 - The company has recently been sued, watched its share price get decimated, and seen a new competitor introduce a pill that successfully treats impotence with few side effects. The lawsuit, which is now being treated as a class action, was prompted by shareholders who believe the company manipulated share prices by issuing bullish statements that made things appear better than they actually were during the second half of 1997. Things, in fact, were anything but better. Shareholders point to December 10, 1997, as proof that things were actually not going well at all. On that day, the company announced it would miss fourth quarter revenue goals by as much as 25 percent; as a result the company's share price, which stood as high as $21.50 on the day the company issued its revenue warning, fell nearly 30 percent, to $13 and change. Since then, shares have retreated even further, resting at its current price of $10. Once upon a time, shares of Vivus traded as high as $41.88." The sole difference, of course, lying in the phrase, "as a result the company's share price, which stood as high as $21.50 on the day the company issued its revenue warning, fell nearly 30 percent." It should of course be amended to "gapped nearly 30 percent." Hope that helps, Ivan