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.
"It does not take a keen sense of the market to see that AG is intentionally behind this rally in order to create a new bubble ..."
keen sense of the market. i suppose that's what's missing from cnbc.
well mlsoft, Richard Russell agrees with you.
"As I watch this market, I get the feeling that something weird is going on. The action just doesn't feel 'right' or 'normal' to me. And I think what it is--is that the stock market and the bond market are both being driven, not by improving business, but by rising liquidity. A Fed-created tidal wave of liquidity is floating everything higher--housing, stocks, bond. It's a false rise, but it's happening, and in this business we don't deal with morality, we deal with reality."
shaeffers sees gold about to take off ...
http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/sentiment/printout.asp?ID=7833
wow, i knew all this chatter here reminded me of something. yahoo boards circa 1999.
> What is this market saying.....
liquidity without any good place to go. if its saying something, i think its along the lines of drunken rambling ...
"because 82.2% of all potential workers have a job, reported the bureau of labour and statistics"
imagine how lovely the productivity numbers would look then ...
re employment report: nypost carried a story about how they're changing the reporting this week. instead of seasonal adjustments (calculated by season), they're doing it monthly. not sure how this will affect numbers, but throws you a curve if you're playing that number.
re pmcs: from the perspective of fundamentals, there are problems. in particular, strong canadian dollar will hurt operating income (as noted in their 10q), since most of their operations are in canada.
on the other hand, its not really fundamentals that are moving the stock. next resistance seems like 16.
pmcs breakout. (bull flag?)
re dollar reversal
so i forget where we are now. is a strong dollar good for the market or a week dollar good for the market this week?
hmm. interesting. though still somewhat odd, since the volume numbers are all in comparision to DBB only. (i.e. so doesn't seem to correspond to "average volume", at least not in this case. although i'm just eyeballing it, but still those volume bars don't seem to distinguish themselves in any way. maybe because DBB looks abnormally low.)
> I've got a range breakout on the SP 500 which measures up to
> the 1150 level. Given the massive level of shorts and short
> side psychology in this market it wouldnt surprise me
> whatsoever to tag that target.
yah, i suppose. at this point, no amount of lunacy will surprise me. but me, i just scalp em.
> the semi's trade like schools of fish...pretty much they
> travel/trade in a similar fashion barring company specific
> news.
well, not quite true. the pmcs/mxim/rfmd group for example has been flat or slightly down for the last week. the nvls/brks group did a moonshot.
but the observation was more specific: e.g. the 5 min charts track each other precisely, percent by percent. we'll see tomorrow how company specific info affects the pmcs/mxim pair. (pmcs downgrade didn't really, so we'll see if mxim warning does).
bear!? bear!? me bear!? nah. i'm a bool. moo.
ah, well i think that goes hand in hand with where the demand is for open source: erp, if i understand it right, sort of requires a couple consultants to fit it to your enterprise; and if that's right, i can see why nobody's been motivated to do an open version of it. there'll still be markets for proprietary software - things like high performance spice simulations and so forth. but i think, for the most part, those will companies that target more niche audiences. so cad and snps and lava are probably safe. palm, i'm not so sure of: i sort of like the sharp zaurus. (heck, its a real pocket sized computer. and you can get it for like $150 now on ebay.)
> if open source developers, Intel and Apple ever got together
the odd thing is that they actually have. intel had linux running on a simulation of the ia64 before they chips were even fabbed, and it was the first OS running on the chip. (after all, were they going to really wait around for msft to do the port?) intel also ported gcc to the chip, and sell/distribute ($$ if you're commercial only) an optimizing compiler, also based on gcc. apple, on the other hand, is now built on bsd unix. and all of the utilities on the system are open source ones. in fact, apple did a "compiled headers" extension to gcc.
> Ballmer would be burning his shares for heat then, they'd be
> so worthless.
the plus here would be that lower software costs could let companies go a bit further with their existing IT budgets. the drawback is, commoditization of the software and falling prices (and, as you say, falling msft share prices.) but then, on the bright side, government hedonic adjustments would probably turn that into a huge boost in productivity. :-P
has anyone been following stocks that seem to track each other almost exactly? for example, nvls/brks seem to move completely in lockstep. a little looser are stocks in like mxim and pmcs (and several others in comm semis in general: rfmd, vtss, but not brcm). would this suggest some sort of program at work, or just my overactive imagination?
well, they *always* claimed that had an answer: their argument all along has been that the TCO of windows is lower than linux. and then slap on top of that some security, vague promises of "integration" and user friendliness, yadda yadda yadda.
although i suppose the real "warning" came when they recently lowered prices. theregister.co.uk covers quite a bit of what msft has been doing in negotiations to win against linux, one battle at a time.
well, kind of a joke, but according to something i read, apparently fleck was on cnbc today and announced he's short intc. not sure what he does for his clients :)
and mr gates also. who, i believe, has fleckstein managing some of his money. (which is suppose means that he's short intc. :)
> MS has no competitive advantage, except that they can get
> products to market faster.
actually, this is probably *not* true. in the early days ms was organized into little groups of highly independent and motivated folks who charged ahead on specific products. but now - and in part because they've purposely made their entire software line so interdependent - like all commercial houses, they'll go through functional specs and product specs and meetings between marketing and various programming groups, and refinement of the design, then architecting and prototyping, then qa. and 3 revisions to get out all of the bugs.
open source groups take the shotgun approach; people will do just what they think is needed, but leave in enough flexibility for others to add additional features. you get something working and functional much quicker, and its probably fine for 80% of the folks out there.
hey, i live on linux.
> But, in a world where operating systems and office
> applications are expected to last two years, that's not a
> real advantage.
this is hardly true. its a microsoft fabrication that you need to upgrade your operating system regularly. i'm still running redhat 7.1, and probably could for a couple more years. hey, after all, how much has solaris changed over the years? well, it has, but the changes are things you'd only really notice if you're running a high-performance server.
like the music industry, microsoft's problem is pricing. once there is competition, the monopoly collapses, and pricing power is gone.
and between open source and msft, the race is almost over. its not like a perpetual competition where msft could always stay two steps ahead. at some point, the operating system is *finished*. the office program is *finished*. most of the software that most anyone ever needs to use is *finished*. then what?
microsoft has prospered by keeping alive the illusion that by changing your oil and swapping out a few lugnuts, they're exchanging your old car for a brand new one.
grr. i'm sermonizing. stop that.
alot of this is actually know ... although the financial media don't seem to report much on it. the most telling thing ballmer said, i think, was on the competition from OpenOffice. the reuters and other stories tried to spin linux competition by focusing on the server market. however, ballmer's mention of open office as a particular program that's giving them trouble means specificially that they're losing desktops.
okay, let's say i buy that. (i will.) for the way the neckline is drawn in the last version of the chart posted, wouldn't we at least expect something interesting on the volume when breaking through the neckline? or is that also regarded as unnecessary?
call me naive, but, if that's truly an inverse head and shoulders, shouldn't the volume confirm the pattern?
yah, i'm familiar with yahoo's stuff. that doesn't seem to be accurate, though. from island:
http://data.island.com/ds/tools/timeandsales/index.jsp?width=555&links=false&html=false&...
speaking of island, its unbelievable that siri traded 43,064,155 shares on island today. this is lunacy.
of course, i'm sure tomorrow the market will look on the bright side of microsoft's news, and bid ibm back up. and probably rhat will start back towards 310.
hey michael. you can only beat your head against a wall so many times before one or the other gives way. personally, i agree with you. and personally, my own solution has been: if the market doesn't make sense, then step aside until it does. i don't mind missing all this froth because, frankly, i don't trust it. and the short positions i'm still holding, hedged, are just there, not going anywhere. actually one (pmcs) has been going nowhere fast.
hmm. not sure. the time seems to correspond to the MXIM warning. bunch of stuff has been taken down after hours (at least semis). and that's what it measures (after hours activity in nazdog-100 stocks).
hmm. so what happened at 5:45 that sent the nasdaq after hours indicator down 20pts?
http://dynamic.nasdaq.com/dynamic/nasdaq100_indicator_after.stm
hmm. isn't that a depression era song?
mlsoft,
i assume that since you're testing the waters on the short side, you're not seeing that big seller in gg today?
godfrey -
oops, i too missed the nyse member part. must be a common late night reading affliction ...
nevermind.
re insider buys/sells
what you're saying here doesn't seem consistent with what trimtabs reported. also delayed, for early may:
http://www.trimtabs.com/news/liquidity/latest.html
summary:
buying $118 million in March (not net ...)
buying $70 million in April
selling > $1.8B first week of May
[excerpt ...]
INSIDER SELLING SURGES. THOMSOM SAYS INSIDER BUYING AT MULTI-MONTH LOWS.
Now that earnings season is over, insiders have begun unloading shares big time. Thomson Financial reports that insider intentions to sell #144 shares has surged the two weeks ending May 1. Last week a client sent us the weekly Bloomberg report showing that there was $1.8 billion insider selling at just the 25 companies having the most insider selling the week ending May 2, up from $380 million at the top 25 the prior week. We expect that insiders will continue to unload as long as many stocks – particularly techs and financials – are at yearly highs.
Thomson Financial’s Insider Trading Update for April reports that buying by insiders required to report individual transactions (the top officers and directors only) fell 40% from $118 million in March to $70 million in April, one-third its five-year historical average of $182 million. The last time insider buying was this low was July 2001 – right before the market began a plunge that didn’t end until after 9/11. Prior to July 2001, the last time there was less insider buying was July 1997, which also presaged a big time sell-off.
"greenspan sees no rebound" is the title of the washington post coverage. so cnbc's certainly sounds misleading to me. but then, that's their job.
(in edit: that's the front page headline. the article title is slightly different.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7375-2003Jun3.html?nav=hptop_tb
onishcka was pretty much on target for today's move too. lets see if he's correct about how this plays out from here (c down to 1160 on ndx, i think, though my german is rusty ...)
http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/news/news/main.php?&m=3.1..0.0&action=viewnews&newsid...
re JGB
that's amazing. has anyone done the TA on the chart?
http://www.futuresource.com/charts/charts.asp?r=120&study=NONE&type=future,index&bartype...
hmm. so how are people actually going to spend this money if they don't sell? or do you think we'll get profit taking this time without popping the bubble? haven't seen any of that yet (and where i did - pmcs - it's already been ugly).
> If not for that rumor markets may have closed stronger
hmm. csco up big on little news. intc and semis were doing fine in spite of barrons articles. ...
but look at pmcs today, e.g. lots of stocks very stretched and running out of shorts to squeeze, and the longs are getting itchy to sell.
okie dokie, thanks. (me, i was thinking of gold *not* as currency, in spite of the historic fact ...)
are you referring to physical gold, miners or both? couldn't the same be said for other natural resources?
okay, now that explanation i could buy ...
re lucent convertibles
as trimtabs has noted a few weeks back, the new offerings have been totalling an average of a billion a day, which is what sent them to the bearish side mid-month.