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 : TA Science Projects & Experimental Indicators -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (150)	6/1/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: HeyRainier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 237

Dave, I'm glad you confirmed my observations. Here's an experiment that sounds interesting: How about trying to tinker then with a Demand Exhaustion Indicator, something that takes into consideration the volume traded, the oustanding number of shares, and the price advance? I'm still not sure about the validity of the concept of overbought/oversold ranges at all. I'm not sure if it was Steinhardt who said he didn't believe in overbought/oversold indicators. I'm starting to come around to his way of thinking. Currently, it is this concept that is occupying my thoughts for the night. Regards, Rainier

To: ftth who wrote (150)	6/5/1998 7:19:00 PM
From: Spots	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 237

>>On a more philosophical note, a stock can't be overbought or oversold. There's a finite amount of shares available. When those are all spoken for, there can be no more buying. Demand exhaustion is a better way to look at it. Everyone that wants to own at these prices has. And they're either holding and total interest in the stock dries up, or buyers and sellers are offsetting each other. Well, yes, but ... Just like the Fed reserve requirements allow banks to increase the money supply by lending out cash, brokerages can inflate the share supply of stocks by lending out shares to short. Think about that. I have a lot lately. What does that do to your point? A weak parallel (maybe) but one to think through nevertheless. I'm working on that <G>. Thinking, I mean. I intend the question as serious, not as a challenge to your points. In short, my answer is "duh," and I'd like a better one. Spots