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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DanZ who wrote (15366)	9/23/1998 1:36:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dan, Suppose the bid and ask are 49 3/4 and 50. Suppose they stay like that for a period of time. Suppose I want to sell. I can either set a limit order at $50 and wait my turn and sell for $50. Or I can enter a market order and settle for 49 3/4. If first case, I would be generating positive money flow, in the other case negative money flow. But my intention is the same. The real difference is between being patient and panicking. Positive money flow, especially when calculated over at least a week, indicates accumulation while negative money flow indicates distribution. I don't think I agree. In every transaction, one party is accumulating, the other is selling. I think the money flow is more about market psychology. One side acts on impulse, the other actually has a plan. I don't know how reliable the money flow theory is in the real world, but in my opinion, if the market was rational, it would a contrarian indicator. Joe

To: DanZ who wrote (15366)	9/23/1998 9:32:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

To all - since I think I may have been the first one (on this "thread") to utter the line "more buyers than sellers," a few thoughts ... There are certain concepts in economics (and finance theory) where I have found that the idea is (to me, anyway) instantaneously intuitively obvious, YET -- when someone who does not "get it" asks me to explain the thing, I find myself really fumbling for a clear explanation. It seems "more buyers than sellers" is in this category. I am not going to attempt to produce a "Bill Clinton legal team" type answer; but -- an example. If Hurricane Georges hits here (or anywhere), the price of lumber will go up. Why? More buyers than sellers. Yes, for every buyer there is indeed a seller, but, just ... quit thinking like Bill Clinton, and realize there are more buyers than sellers. Any clearer? Maybe not. Jon.