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.

Non-Tech : Invest / LTD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: drsvelte who wrote (7189)	2/5/1999 8:05:00 PM
From: Thean	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14427

Doc, What about INTV? From the chart pattern it looks like up 40%, down 60% from here. A short term range is bounded by its recent low in the 10's and the 12's. Have been out of it since Oct. Today's action on the techs side was definitely nervous. The pullback by the semi's in the pm were not like what we have seen, whereby they recovered strong and close near the day's high. VTSS is more an exception (in the same class as MSFT and INTC) than the norm. MU is more like the norm today. Agree with Mike that Monday will likely tell the rest of the story. If the buy on the dip sentiment still holds, we should see a recovery Monday and a continuation Tuesday. If that does not happen, SOX may break below to another level. Actually had an order to sell Feb 20 put on GALTF this pm at 1 1/2. But pulled the order 30 minutes into close though. Also thought about writing Feb 20 calls simultaneously and fetch about 3 1/4 pts of premium for 2 weeks. Didn't do it. Too nervous. Shorted PCTL however. The biotechs I think represent some better short opportunities. A quick observation on the drillers: RIG is now just 1/2 pt higher than DO. I think RIG has been higher than DO since the fall of 1997, always 1-5 pts higher. If this gap gets any closer, one can play the very conservative long RIG short DO spread. Everything being equal RIG is preferred over DO, unless some buyout is in the work for DO which I highly doubt.