Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
My comment is that I don't think it is possible to moderate a message board without receiving complaints about how one is doing the moderating.
I haven't seen anything in the iHub FAQ that says authors of deleted posts routinely receive email about it. If you want to know why iHub approved the deletion maybe you should ask them.
As for the substance of your issue, my opinion is that revealing the identity of another poster violates iHub's prohibition against invasion of privacy.
Of course, I am not the moderator, so my opinion doesn't count for much.
One of the good things about the Internet is that it is possible to find out what has been swept under the rug. Larry's summary in the header of this thread is a good addition to what is available, as he seems to have done a good job of distancing himself from the emotion that surrounds this subject.
I'm willing to take a stab at moderating a board, but I'm not all that sure I want to go around "drumming up business."
OK, I did it. You can have me committed now! <g>
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1877
There is a wide area of potential discussion separating dull factoids and personal attacks. Maybe I should start a board for Brinker discussion.
On the other hand, maybe I should stick my head in a vice and tighten it. <g>
I was just thinking that it's kind of surprising iHub has not had a thread about a figure as controversial as Bob Brinker until now.
I'm not an expert on bankruptcies, but my impression is that stockholders typically get zero in these situations. (If there had been any equity left, why would they have needed to go bankrupt? I can't think of a reason.)
I was just tracking down what happened to KMAG. They emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002, and are now traded under the symbol KOMG on NASDAQ.
http://www.komag.com/investors/reports/ann_rpt2002.pdf
Looks like 1258 is history.
Here's a guy who identified it as one of two likely scenarios, based apparently on the fact that the COMP bounced down from the top of its downchannel this morning.
#msg-1244416
In edit, now there is mention of an airplane flying too close to the President's motorcade.
Bloomberg's story is that a couple of brokerage houses put in large S&P-related sell orders, and volume is relatively light, so it had a large effect on the market.
OK, cancel the indecision! <g>
Perhaps, but so far it looks more like a doji, which implies indecision.
I just noticed something and I'm wondering if it's significant. On previous occasions since the bullish trend began, each time NDX has crossed above the 13 EMA and closed there, it has formed a relatively long candle. This time it formed a short one. I wonder what accounts for the relative lack of enthusiasm this time?
That BPCOMP just does not want to cross the 20-ema.
BPSPX and BPNDX have already done so, twice each.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$BPSPX,uu[h,a]daclyyay[pc20][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,9]&....
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$BPNDX,uu[h,a]daclyyay[pc20][vc60][iUb14!La12,26,9]&....
Looks like SPX bounced off yesterday's high:
No problem. I appreciate your willingness to share your ideas.
Hmm...When you said "that's a hit" I thought you meant it was indicating a change in trend, but I guess you meant it amounted to a close on the lows. My apologies.
"Sorry, but I'm not explaining it anymore, so you'll have to do a search. I've posted it many times, so it should be easy to find. I just don't have the time to keep explaining it."
I have already read your explanations.
My understanding of the "Close on the lows/change in trend indicator" is that it is a two-step process. Once it is triggered (somewhere around 10:00 am) then he watches to see if NDX does indeed close within five points or so of the low. If it does not, then it is identified as a change in trend, and that would therefore constitute a prediction of what prices would do after that.
Of course, we have the problem that the predicted change in trend failed to materialize last time (Thursday/Friday), but I hope no one thinks they are going to find an indicator that is correct 100% of the time.
NDX closed six points off the low, but Comp only 4.6 points.
Ajtj, sorry if I have been annoying you. My questions and challenges are only meant to further understanding for all of us. You have a lot of good ideas. Just because some of us disagree on a few of them does not mean that we don't respect what you are doing.
In that case, it sounds like the change in trend indication may not be valid?
I think you're being too hard on yourself. The comp bounced off 1757 very energetically on its first visit. No one can be right 100% of the time.
The new high on the SPX exceeded the old one by only 0.008 per cent.
I agree in regard to the Comp and NDX. In our previous discussions on this, you have said that you considered the S&P 500 to be part of the "happy family" too, and it is that part which seems to get violated at major tops and bottoms.
I read your posts every day, and I've seen a lot of posts from you on happy family. Looking through them all to find something that I might have missed that would make me a believer the second time around would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I understand that you're busy trading right now, and in any case you're under no obligation to reply to my musings even when you aren't busy.
"The COMP made a new high above the May 2002 highs. Happy Family Theory of Markets mandates the NDX do the same, or we have discord in our midst. <G>"
Seems to me the only reason this happy family theory usually works out is because of Larry's law that the trend usually persists. At major turning points it seems to break down. For example, the S&P 500 retested its July 2002 low in October, and came close again in March. The Comp and the NDX did neither. A similar thing happened with the highs between March and September of 2000. Thus, the happy family theory seems to add no information that is not already contained in the statement that major momentum continues until you get a major turn.
Thanks. Great explanation of the reason for doing it that way.
Augie, what is "10-year" P/E? How is it calculated on the S&P?
Yes, I think we're all clear on that. But what about the point about an island reversal having the second gap going up to the level of the first one? This might not be an insignificant detail, depending on the reasoning behind it.
Actually, from that point of view, there isn't even one gap.
Good point. I guess ajtj is treating a gap from one hour to the next the same as a gap from one day to the next, but maybe that's not valid.
That's not an island reversal. The second gap didn't go past (or even equal) the level of the first gap.
http://stockcharts.com/education/Resources/Glossary/islandReversal.html
You've been doing well for quite a while. No one can be right 100% of the time.
When I worked for a company that did buybacks, they always said the purpose was to offset dilution caused by the employee stock plans. I don't see why the reduced dividends tax would affect that one way or the other. They tended to concentrate such purchases when they thought the stock was relatively cheap.
"Put/Call ratio hit a level today that normally marks a low in the indices:"
Yet the surveys of retail investors are saying the opposite. So do we go with the unsophisticated investors or the sophisticated ones? (Or maybe neither will be right.)
I agree that no one knows - especially me!
Cyclical bull does not = secular bull.