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: Bull RidaH who wrote (10056)	4/6/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: dennis michael patterson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

BK. Is Favors worth it for a seminar? His day-to-day stuff leaves me cold, but he is so analytical, and often right on the big picture. TIA

To: Bull RidaH who wrote (10056)	4/6/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: Vitas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

David, in as much as the 1000 net a-d rule is an attempt to filter out a day that is too strong, I would use the 3-5-99 reading of 9736 - 1152 as the first reading, then the 3/29 - 10006 - 714 as the second, and 4/5 - 10007 - 391 as the third. On 5-11-90 the net a-d of 943 was 47% of the total 2005 issues traded. On 3-5-99 the net a-d of 1152 was 32% of the total 3569 issues traded. It was a much weaker day than 5-11-90. In addition, 5-11-90 had 1282 advances and 339 declines, for a 3.78 up to down ratio. 3-5-99 was 2079 advances to 927 declines, for a 2.24 up to down ratio, again a weaker day than 5-11-90. In any event, I don't think you can use 3-25-99 because the Dow close of 9836 was not "a new high for the move" (from 3-3-99). Just to take a wild guess, I would think that the "1000" net a-d rule came from Lindsay back in the late 80's or whatever. It's a mystery. Vitas

To: Bull RidaH who wrote (10056)	4/6/1999 10:24:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

BK, since you're into elliot-waves, what do you think of prechter's prediction that the entire advance from the october lows should be retraced in the next correction? there seems to be some supportive evidence in the form of daily chart gaps on GE,T&DIS early on in the rally. furthermore, he has two alternate projections for the super-cycle top (supercycle starting from the 1932 low), one of which counts wave 5 as having started at the '74 low and projecting dow 9650, the other from the '82 low projecting dow 13000. does the fact that we have gone beyond 9650 imply that the alternate count(from 82)should now be viewed as probable, or is a 350-point deviation not significant enough? hb