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 : Home Depot (HD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terrence Von Holidae who wrote (617)	5/5/1999 8:40:00 PM
From: P.M.Freedman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1169

On the charts, 50 MA is trying to make a U-turn. Next week we may see it clear. It may meet its 200 MA at $ 53-54 if the sell-off in the big markets happens.

To: Terrence Von Holidae who wrote (617)	5/6/1999 12:22:00 AM
From: Toby Zidle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1169

I seem to be the bad guy, Terrence, who seems not to understand the English language as you write it. It's nothing personal here; please believe that. You are saying: "the severity of decline in our market, as measured by the DJIA, will be at least twice that which occurred in '29. I am not suggesting the percentage of decline will be twice, or the length, twice, but that it will most likely, in its aggregate, be demonstrated to be about twice as severe. ... I do know, without question, the bear-market period will be unlike any that ever preceded." Of course the percentage of decline can't be twice that of '29, since that would yield an impossible negative DJ value ( > 100% decline). But if you are talking pure point drop, the high value of DJIA in 1929 was 381; the low DJIA in 1932 was 41. The drop was 340 points. A drop twice as severe (in points) is 680, only six percent, a drop which anyone can anticipate and survive. If severity is not measured in percentage, in length of time, or in point drop, what does "in its aggregate, twice as severe" mean? Please clarify. With claims like yours, specificity conveys more meaning than abstraction. I'd like to think we're communicating in the same language, but so far I just don't understand you.