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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bobby beara who wrote (1977)	12/15/1998 9:38:00 PM
From: Jon K.	Respond to of 99985

Hi bobby, Thanks for the explanations. I just can't understand these things yet. 184 reading of yesterday is very oversold territory and can be the area of a short term (or intermediate term) selling climax. In most cases, this should be an area of buying not selling. So, McClellan Oscillator reading of minus 150 to 200 is considered as buying area? I thought the other way. Can someone else confirm this? So I can have more assurance. (Not that I don't trust you bobby -gg-) I believe Clinton is a non-issue. Clinton has little effect on economic issues. On this one, I strongly disagree with you bobby. Any important political issue impacts the market. And as I have mentioned before, the market HATES uncertainty. Clinton issue will certainly affect the market. Just a thought, but you know what... if Clinton side wants to use the market to influence on Thursday's house decision, they will might try to tank the market tomorrow. And tell the public, "see what happens, when you guys try to impeach your president... the market will crash!" Then it make sense that they artificially hyped DJI today. (Am I reading too much novels these days? -gg- ;o)

To: bobby beara who wrote (1977)	12/16/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: Jon K.	Respond to of 99985

bobby, So, McClellan Oscillator reading of minus 150 to 200 is considered as buying area? I thought the other way. Can someone else confirm this? So I can have more assurance. (Not that I don't trust you bobby -gg-) I was going through today's postings again, and I just realized I might have offended you with above comment. As you can see this post was with "<gg>", however you might have taken this note not as I have intended. So just in case if you were offended by this, I am sorry! Please continue to give guidance, thanks.