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 : Tech Stock Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce Tiemann who wrote (56555)	10/28/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: James Strauss	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58727

New Highs 14 New Lows 10 The New Lows continue to dry up... The New 13's are on the rise... Any dips in the market are now in the context of a Bull move... Jim

To: Bruce Tiemann who wrote (56555)	10/28/1998 12:24:00 PM
From: Tundra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 58727

Bruce, My post was written during the morning session. So focus on that part of the chart. It is a shame you can't enlarge it, so it would become more clear. I watched it real time, so it was much easier to see. I did not see much evidence of pension fund activity in the afternoon session. The break between the sessions is represented by that long horizontal line. The morning session started down slightly. Thus no overt huge enthusiasm at the open that could account for a "gap open." It then proceeded to "spike" upwards in an almost vertical fashion. First clue. While not always indicative, markets don't usually move in that straight up fashion. Usually, there are at least small zigs and zags along the way. After the spike, the market then proceeded almost directly down for quite awhile. Second clue. Something is up. Same comments for downspiral as the upswing. The same thing happened again to a lesser extent later in the morning session. Unforunately, the magnitude of the initial upswing tends to get lost when viewing the day in its entirety. That is why I think, but don't know for sure obviously, that you might have appreciated it a bit more had you seen it live. The move was in excess of 100 points; a substantial vertical swing. I hope this helps explain what I think I see. Take care. Regards, Tundra

To: Bruce Tiemann who wrote (56555)	10/28/1998 6:35:00 PM
From: Tundra	Respond to of 58727

Bruce, Bruce, It is funny. I heard Pisani on CNBC late this afternoon describe the type of pattern I described. This, however, centered upon rumors about Telebras and Brazilian intervention. Usually he irritates me a bit but this time...heh. I have no idea as to the veracity of those rumors. I would like to make a few further points. The existence of significant pension fund activity cannot reasonably be disputed. Related newspapers are awash with this fact from time to time. If I had been a participant in this thread over the last several months, I could have posted countless articles discussing their "involvement". Some may have used the word "manipulate", most did not. Yet, in my view, it was the underlying theme in many. This always appeared underreported in the US to me, but Bloomberg's, for example, has mentioned it quite often over the last few months in market summaries. To a degree, its existence is old news. To be fair, I think my most aggressive reasoning is my use of the word "manipulate." As I see it, anyway, it is the weakest link in my argument on this topic. It bothers me not at all if others would care to characterize it otherwise; it is an individual decision, like so much of the investment process is or should be. Two general points to hopefully buttress the argument I make. The first has to do with the nature of the pension investment in this case. It likely was massively in the futures market.(in recent past cases, it has been) Pension money. I don't know the detailed history of the funds with respect to this type of behavior but it nonetheless raises a flag to me. It likely creates the biggest bang for the buck. It is certainly not conservative. I am aware in a general sense of the coterie of funds and banks (with their massive cross-shareholdings) that generally supported Japan's markets during its rise to its bubble phase about 12 years ago. At that time, the market was at approximately 38k.Since then, it has been gradually downtrending. Imagine. Twelve years. I think the coterie has been fighting the downtrend in varying degrees during that period. I think it likely has increased (at least with respect to the funds) for reasons previously stated. As an aside, one reason I am so bearish on Japan is the past involvement of the banks and my guessitmate of their future involvment. (Earlier this week prior to the start of the business week, I even made a prediction as to the possible results for the Nikkie for the week. Just whether it would be up or down. I have typically resisted doing that lately simply by virtue of seeing things I don't really understand). As you may be aware, Japan made an accounting change recently (within a year, I believe)concerning bank standards. Banks no longer have to value securities held at current market value for capital adequacy requirements. They can do it at the -purchase price- of the security. Imagine the affect of this. As stated, the market has been downtrending for years. It is widely viewed as an attempt by Japan to avoid the international capital adequacy requirement for banks of 8%. I agree. Thus, under international standards, many Japan banks are likely technically insolvent right now. Accordingly, I see a competing priority for these members of the historical coterie. Survival. The second point is even more amorphous. As is its answer. I internally frame it in this fashion; Is the investment made with a reasonable expectation of profit within a reasonable time period? Others may frame it a bit differently, but I am sure you see the general idea. In my view, charts come in handy with respect to this exercise. For reasons primarily earlier stated, my answer is in the negative. I at least think the primary reason for the timing of the investment lies elsewhere. The foregoing comes with the usual caveat; I could be wrong. I acknowledge I may be in the minority. I apologize for the length of this post, but b/c of my use of a controversial term, wanted to better express myself. Regards, Tundra