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.
LOL! I can't escape!!!!!!
One thing I'm learning about being short the Dow stuff is to take a good profit when you have it.
I blew a lot of profits on 3M covering at 104 from 115 after the dip into the upper 80s. Same with IBM, but I covered that at 96(also shorted at 115 and missing the bottom).
But I'm short IBM again from 114, have a stop in at 116.
I don't care if it happens this month next month or when ever, it's going down....Or they can scribe that on my toumb stone.
BTW, hrere's a good example of a LTB&H gone sour(yes, I own some of it- can't do anything with it, out of my control, but we haven't added since 86), anyhow, at least 5 years of gains wiped out
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=G,uu[w,a]dallyymy[d19900101,20010101][pb50!b200][vc60][i....
BTW, this chart is wrong. it closed at $25.62 today. Anyone wanna buy it?
Now Josef, what's the real reason you were drawn to this thread?
Wouldn't have anything to do with the word Guinness in it, would it?<G>
Hope you are doing fine!
Jomoney, sorry for the OT post!
Hi Bob.
Are you going to start a Cashism thread over here? Heard a good one From Art today.
You know he's been calling this rally the Peter Pan rally. To fly you just have to believe. Well today he added to that.
"What we have here is a Peter Pan rally, and Alan Greenspan is playing Tinker Bell"
Thought it was pretty cute. Thought of you. and was wondering if you started athread here just yet?
Why can't we all just get along?
Remember, Make love not war! LOL! Oh the simplicity of it all!!!!
No, I'm not suggesting that Vendit and JXM make love<GGG> but a little truce might get everyone back focused on what we all want to do, make money, not war. There, I like that better<G>
I don't know what provoked Vendit to lash out at Jorj and Attin, but judging from the public discourse, it appears that Vendit might consider apologizing for being rude. Remember Reid, you came over to the DB thread and began throwing stones. Perhaps you felt threatened, perhaps you were just having a bad day(as I was in the past- which I do believe to you I apologized)
Of course, if everyone wants to just continue on acting like children, it can be considered free entertainment. However, it does not appear that this pissing match is accomplishing anything positive. P.S> Will 3000 on the COMP make everyone happier? If so, so be it, I will allow it! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahhaha
Arhg! I need a cup of joe and more sleep!
Hell NO. But it is logging me off immediately after I login(not the usual 20 minutes).
Sometimes if I hit refresh, it relogs me in. It's gotta be a bug. I'm sure it will be ironed out soooooooon!
I'n not running through the shop line. I'm using cable.
\Thanks though. At least it's good to know I'm nopt alone.
I must be getting old, responding to myself again<G>
Oh well a touch of grey
Kinda suits me any way
AW does have a couple long positions and likes some names L/T if they ever hit his buy prices. FWIW, I am long ckfr(just a toe in the water- not even 5% of my portfolio). I also like FDC LTBH when it gets down to my price range.....maybe mid 30s. But in general, the LTBH approach will prove to be the unraveling of many investors...not just the techie LTBHs which is reeking havoc
Oh, ou ou ou. My biggest long position and doing quite well right now little old HM. I might be wrong, but it will show me a double even from here before this mess is over. maybe better.
<too much coffee this morning>
LOL. I don't remember that one, but he is always enjoyable to read, I agree.
Hope you have been well.
I still stand by my statements here a month or so ago. The Dow is not impervious.
Check it out dude. You think a PE of 20 is too high for tech stocks, but how about a PE for KO still over 50? GE, HD over 30 PE. and the list moves on. Dow is just getting ripe on the tree. Watch IBM, IMO spank spank spank.
Anyhow, for trading, I don't care about PEs. Look at the moves in the high PE stocks last week. CIEN, RIMM, BEAS SEBL MUSE yada yada yada. High PE techs are the ones that are the most volatile, make the best traders, both ways. We just don't want to get caught holding the long bag when the doo doo gets too heavy for the bottom to hold.
<end of morning rant>
P.S> CSCO warning was much much worse than anyone expected. JC has lost all face with wall street. My bet is it sees $8 long before it sees $20. Probably never see more than 35 for another ten years
Hey now! Here is some light reading
New Economy goes from Boo.com
to boo-hoo
By DAVE BARRY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's take a look at your investment portfolio. In the current market, you should have most of your money in something fairly conservative, such as a coffee can buried under your house. If you want to diversify, you might consider investing in two separate coffee cans. Whatever you do, do NOT put money in the stock market.
The reason you should avoid the stock market is that -- to put it in technical terms -- nobody knows anything. This is abundantly obvious from the financial reporting on the TV news. No matter what the stock market does, the TV news always boils down to this:
TOM BROKAW: The stock market today went either down or up, and nobody on this earth knows why. For more, here's our financial expert.
FINANCIAL EXPERT: Tom, analysts attributed the movement of the market to a market movement, in which the market moves either upward or downward, depending on the direction of the market, although sometimes it holds still.
BROKAW: And is this expected to continue?
FINANCIAL EXPERT: Tom, it's too soon to tell.
In terms of solid information, we're in the same situation as members of a primitive tribe seeing their first solar eclipse. We're sitting around, pounding roots, when suddenly ... the sun is going out! We don't understand! We're scared!
Fortunately, we have witch doctors. They explain that the sun is being swallowed by a giant worm, and that they can scare it away by performing certain dance steps while waving a magic feather and wearing a hat made from the skull of a weasel. We believe them, because, hey, they must know something, right? How else could they become professional witch doctors?
It's the same with the stock market, except that instead of a giant worm, we have a recession; and instead of witch doctors, we have expert financial analysts; and instead of a weasel skull, we have Alan Greenspan. What we DON'T have is any kind of clue as to what the stock market is going to do.
That's why, for quality entertainment, you can't beat TV commercials for large investment institutions. They all have the same message, which is: ``These are scary times for investors, so GIVE US YOUR MONEY! You can trust us, because we have a large building.''
Sure! We can trust these institutions! We know this because 18 months ago, they all ran commercials that said: ``Sell your stocks right now! The market is about to go into the toilet!''
Remember those commercials? Ha ha! Of course not. Eighteen months ago, the same institutions were running commercials that said: ``Everybody is getting rich in the stock market, so GIVE US YOUR MONEY! Then go shopping for your helicopter!''
The thing is, they meant it. Eighteen months ago, the experts sincerely believed that we were in a New Economy, and the way to get rich was to invest in a new business model, a business model based on a revolutionary economic principle: stupidity.
This was the principle behind the dot-com boom, a wonderful example of which was an internet company called Boo.com. According to an article I read in The New York Times, Boo.com was conceived as an Internet site that would sell, at full price, ``urban chic clothing ... that was so cool it wasn't even cool yet.''
In other words, Boo.com was going to sell, with no discount, clothes that most people were not wearing! This idea was so obviously stupid that it was irresistible to the financial experts. Big investors, including the prestigious financial firm J.P. Morgan, hurled millions of dollars at Boo.com; Fortune Magazine named it one of the ``Cool Companies of 1999.''
Using modern, New-Economy business practices, Boo.com managed to go through $185 million in 18 months. Among the vital things it spent money on was an official cartoon mascot named Miss Boo. Fashion and hair consultants were flown from New York to London and paid thousands of dollars per day to work on Miss Boo's ``look.'' It really paid off, too! Miss Boo is a real looker, as you'll see if you visit the Boo.com site, which is less ambitious now, and under new management, since the original company went bankrupt, along with the rest of the New Economy.
But J.P. Morgan is still here, and so is Fortune Magazine, and so are all the other financial experts, dancing around, waving their magic feathers. They no longer believe in the New Economy. I don't know what they believe in at the moment, but I'm sure they believe in it very deeply. And despite the skepticism I've expressed in this column, I believe there ARE some good investment opportunities in today's market. I myself am heavily into Maxwell House.
http://www.miami.com/herald/special/features/barry/2001/docs/apr15.htm
Glad you got them, liked them.
No special requirements to planting them. Just make sure they get plenty of water first year or so. If you plant them in a shady spot, they will retain their red color longer through out the season. If they are in full sun they will turn more greenish as the summer carries on.
BTW, IH is messed up. It keeps logging me off and I have to log back in. What's up with that!
Hey Josef, The first link to the Techniclone thread doesn't seem to work for me.
Foutunately I have it in my bookmarks page over there. Is this the one you want?
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/subject.gsp?subjectid=14222
Or at least this one works for me.
Cheers!
Bob it this the place where we can ask stupid questions like when we will get preview? Or how to clear our subjects page in one fell swoop? And other suck things that might make the experience here more plesant?
Thanks and again congrats on the new position.
(Bob) Can I be one of the directors for this thread<GGG>
Seriously, congratulations on the new position.
And remember, the BEER thread is in the sheriff's office!
Stop by. First one is on me!!!
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/board.asp?board_id=373
Call it skeptical. Okay?
Here's the tough thing. I think the charts might get snookered this week; they say down, but news is abound. I'm fully prepared for a rally tomorrow and possible the rest of the week.
<font face=Algerian><font color=green><font size=20>August</fonts></fonts></fonts>
<font face="Arial Narrow Special G2">August</font>
I wonder if this guy will ever stop looking up?
Other companies, like Cisco, simply never deserved the market abuse they’ve taken. The bottom line is that the Internet is still growing and Cisco is still what most people want to grow it on.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010312/tc/technology_is_far_from_dead_1.html
You know I will find something to disagree with here<NG>
Let's start here:
>>The drop below 2,000 is irrational pessimism about the future state of the economy and purely emotional.<<
I won't agrue the emotional part. Too down too fast. Definitely oversold territory and definitely due for a rally. But for that person to say that the market is being "irrationally pessimistic" is total crap. What can he base this on? Historical records of growth statics? Boy, they aren't kidding when they say "it's different this time". What if growth turns flat or negative? What then? Wouldn't one be able to agrue " show me the signs of continued unprecidented growth before I invest"? <<out of time on the edit>>>>
>>The lower the market goes the better bounce when we finally hit bottom.<<<
That is total and 100% bull poop! Further, even if they are right, who is going to be there to ring the bell and tell everyone we have bottomed? How are we going to know? I mean if we buy now(because no one can pick the bottom) and the markets drop another 50% that means we will need a 100% "bounce" just to get you back to even. And if you buy little by little, you can almost garuntee yourself of running out of money before we bottom.
Also. There is no law that says we need to bounce , or even recover(in a timely manner) from any type of bottom. That's plain ignorant to think we *have to*, just because.
Only way we get a nice recovery is for growth to pick up. And even at that, so many of these tech companies are so highly valued it will take years for their earnings to catch up to their prices(using traditional valuation methods)
I'm not even going to comment on their assesment of AAPL.
<<If you have your entire wealth in the stock market right now with no chance of ever having cash to work with you will have a long wait, but it will come back. It might take several years for the NASDAQ to see 5,000 again, but it will get there.>>
Mose BS. Even when the COMP gets back to 5K, what are the chances of one's portfolio having shares in the leaders? Further, what about CSCO? Anyone want to bet with me it doesn't see $80 again for 10+ years, if ever? How about MSFT? When is that thug gonna ever get over $100 again? Look at how many people hold LU!!!!! Some one want to *promise* me that a LU ionvestment a year ago will show me a return in the next seven years? How about the widow's and orphans stock, T when will that one recover? Point I'm trying to make here is that the old leaders *probably* won't be the leaders in seven years.
<<Thinking along these lines, any continuation of the NASDAQ's drop below 2,000 represents a chance to make profits on the way back up. The further it falls, the more you will make.>>>
Finally, the more you think you will make. The more chance you have to lose.
This worked for them in 87, but he feels we're a little smarter this time.
With all due respect, the COMP is down 60%+ from its highs. In '87, it was a 22% capitulation day. I don't think "smart" is the right adjective!!!! This is NOTHING like '87.
FWIW, I'm starting to give up on the capitulation theory. Capitulation is what you get in a correction. We are in a bear market.
About two weeks ago, on this thread, I asked someone if she was afraid of the Dow. I got no reply. Look at the Dow today. Down about 900 points from my post.
Is anyone scared of it here under 10K? Does anyone here *really* think it can drop under 7000? I wonder, will it make one feeble attempt up to 10.3K before going the path of the comp? Or am I just trying to scare people?
How about the Dow?
The naz scares me too,
How about the day of the week where the time stamp is and omitting the word "date":?
ie:
Tues, 3/7/2001 1:38:38 AM (ET)
or
Tues, 3/7/01 1:38 AM(ET)
P.S> I don't mind the seconds showing up, makes it kinda interesting for grubbing purposes, should that ever happen here, but it does seem to make that area a little busy. Could even reduce the year "2001" to just '01 also.
Just thinking out loud if anyone is listening.
EDIT, naaa, I like toe 2001 in there. nix that one.
RIght. But can you draw parrallels to that and the comp?
If I were to try, and I did, I see us right about where it is showing Dec. of '73(maybe April '74 though). That's why I would like to see some capitulation soon. Because you know the market compresses time now a days<G>. Of course, one might argue that we are in like Dec '74. I'm just throwing ideas around.
P.S> Here's another one. Time stamp for message we are replying to should be there when responding to a message.
Check this out.
But before you do. Take note not to look at any dates or numbers before guessing what time frame and dates you are looking at.
http://www.sharelynx.net/Charts/USDJIND1974cr.gif
Let me respond here!(BTW, I just found a bug in their "[" i"]" script. See if I can get around it in this post)
I'm trying to simplify my life, that's why I only used the candles<G>
So, after a bullish out look in the last post, I have to call into question today's formation. http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$COMPQ,uu[w,a]dhclnnmy[db][p]
Second gap up in two days. Both days couldn't hold their daily highs and closed about where they opened.
Anyhow, this would support my thesis that we need some sort of capitulation. We have a gap to fill back at 2125 at best right now. If it doesn't happen this week or next, than we will probably not fill it before the fed meets on the 20th. at which time we could be close to 2500. Than we're going to need some really good news to keep this thing afloat.
This is assuming we get 50 beepers on the 20th. 25(which is a possibility) would take a lot of wind out of the bulls sails.
Oh, we need preview too!
Oops, must be getting old<G>
Here's something i started looking at Sunday evening, FWIW.
Reference this chart: http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$COMPQ,uu[h,a]mhclnnmy[pf]
Focus on this one:
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$COMPQ,uu[h,a]mhclnnmy[df][pf]
First off, I'll say I'm looking for capitulation of sorts-maybe 1850-1900. Not that it is necessary, but would make me feel more comfortable going forward.
So to the theory: Compare feb '00 with Feb '01, and fill in the rest of March '01 opposite of March. That's why I think we need a little(if there is such a thing) capitulation. Continuing on, it might suggest that April through August '01 would base round 2300-2600 which in turn could support a fall rally.
The debt factor in this country is what keeps my reservations alive about any healthy recovery. How will lower rates get us out of debt? Would it not only spur more spending putting us further into debt?
Hi. FWIW,
Check out the date on this post . It might be different this time. But worth a thought at any rate. Good luck.
To:Web Myst who wrote (486)
From: AugustWest Monday, Sep 11, 2000 11:29 PM
View Replies (1) / Respond to of 493
Hey, thanks for posting me. Haven't been paying attention here.
4.8MM short? That's almost half the float. That's a whole lot of covering.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=14366625
Have a good vacation.
Are you still holding your core long positions?
What do you think the chances are for NASD 1800 on Monday? I do.
Think I'm over shooting the situation? Is there any logical or illogical reason for us not to fall?
yep. I posted that on another thread just a bit ago
http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=53947
Have a good evening. I'm out to shoot some pool and put back a few BEERS.
A different downturn
The record expansion and sudden slowdown in the US economy breaks with the pattern of the past 50 years, says Gerard Baker
Published: March 1 2001 20:06GMT /
Last Updated: March 1 2001 20:16GMT
Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, seemed to disappoint financial markets this week when he indicated he was in no hurry to cut interest rates again before the scheduled meeting of the central bank's policymaking open market committee in three weeks' time.
After a renewed slide in stock prices that has taken the Nasdaq near to its lowest level in two years, much of Wall Street had been begging the Fed to do something it has not done in more than a decade - cut interest rates at two consecutive "inter-meeting" periods. Mr Greenspan and his colleagues reduced the federal funds rate - the key money market interest rate instrument - by 50 basis points two weeks after their December meeting, and followed that up with another 50 basis points at their January gathering, to bring short-term rates to 5.5 per cent.
But while Mr Greenspan indicated, in an update of his half-yearly monetary policy report to Congress on Wednesday, that more rate cuts are likely - presumably at the March 20 FOMC meeting and beyond - he gave no sign that he was thinking of more precipitate action.
In part, this reflects a concern about symbolism. To cut rates soon after a meeting at which policymakers had decided to leave well alone can be portrayed as flexibility. To do it twice - after the very next meeting - might look like panic.
Even so, the Fed chairman seemed eager to dispel a little of the gloom that seems to have settled over the US in the last few weeks. He noted that while consumers have become much more pessimistic about the economic outlook, households had not yet cut their spending significantly. He again characterised the slowdown as largely a correction to the unsustainable build-up of inventories last year, and expressed optimism that the underlying improvement in economic performance of the last few years assured the US of a return to elevated rates of growth.
Financial markets fell following the chairman's observations and Wall Street economists remain divided over over the prospects of a return to growth in the short term. Some believe the worst may already be over; that, with a supportive monetary policy, the conditions exist for a "V-shaped" recovery. Others argue that, without much more aggressive action by the Fed - and soon - the chances of a prolonged downturn and a nasty recession are rising.
What unites almost all analysts and investors is a firm belief that the Fed holds the key; that, as in all business cycles since the second world war, judicious exercise of monetary policy will eventually allow a recovery to take place.
But what if this near-universal faith in the power of the central bank to stimulate demand proves misplaced? What if there is something different about this turn of the century economic cycle that may limit the ability of monetary policy to produce the desired response?
It is certainly clear that the gestation of the current period of economic weakness is rather different from those that have occurred throughout the postwar era.
For most of the last 50 years, recessions have been caused by a familiar process. As the US economy has expanded, consumer price inflation has built up, prompting the Fed to raise interest rates to squeeze price pressures. The rate of inflation has varied widely over the years, from close to 20 per cent in the cycles of the 1970s to 6 per cent in the 1960s and late 1980s, but the faster growth-accelerating inflation combination was always the same.
In the current cycle, however, the "overheating" that occurred as the economy accelerated did not bring any significant increase in price inflation. Between the beginning of 1999 and the middle of last year, the consumer price index edged up by less than 1.5 percentage points; the core rate, excluding the effect of volatile food and energy costs, showed even less acceleration.
As a result, the Fed did not force interest rates much higher. From the middle of 1998 to the middle of 2000 short-term rates rose by just 1 percentage point - a very modest tightening by postwar standards.
Instead of a familiar demand-side price inflation forcing a Fed response and causing a recession, the current weakness began as a result of an over-accumulation of supply, fuelled by the rise in business investment of the 1990s. Real productivity-enhancing investments in technology prompted companies to invest in far more capacity than could be required, even at faster rates of growth. It is this process, rather than a crushing of inflationary pressures, that is unwinding in the shape of a steep fall in stock prices and a sharp retrenchment in business investment.
Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in New York, argues that this cycle is much more like those that were familiar before the second world war. For most of the first half of the 20th century, he says, "inflation was not a problem and monetary policy had a much more limited role in demand management". Indeed, in the early part of the century only 18 countries in the world had central banks. "It was only in the period after 1950 that central banks became inflation-fighters," he adds.
Supply-side-led recessions of the low-inflation era tended to be longer and deeper, Mr Roach notes, but also self-correcting. It was not a more accommodating monetary policy that produced recovery but the working out of the excesses of over-accumulation and speculation. Recessions were caused not by an aggressive monetary shock but by the unsustainability of internal imbalances in the private sector.
In this respect, the current US difficulties bear a passing resemblance to the policy challenge that faced Japan in the late 1980s. The Bank of Japan did not act to burst a speculative bubble in land and other asset prices because it was largely focused on broader price inflation, which, throughout the period of speculative excess was, in effect, non-existent. Consumer price inflation in Japan was zero between 1985 and 1988; while real growth of gross domestic product accelerated to 5 per cent a year.
As Yutaka Yamaguchi, deputy governor of the Bank of Japan, told the Fed's Jackson Hole monetary policy symposium in 1999: "Pre-emptive policy to achieve sustained price stability would probably have been desirable but must have been very hard to initiate."
In the face of the collapse in asset prices that followed, aggressive monetary easing by the BoJ was ineffectual. The unwinding of the excess proved a much more powerful force than its efforts at demand stimulus.
This is not to suggest that the US is about to face a Japan-style slump. Nor is a return to the wild fluctuations of output that characterised much of the pre-second world war period all that likely.
Few economists now doubt that, unlike Japan in the 1980s, America has experienced real changes in the last 10 years that have raised the long-term growth rate. The excess rate of growth in the year or so up to the middle of last year was not that far above potential growth and the subsequent shake-out may be brief and relatively shallow.
But in the context of the US economic history of the last 50 years there clearly is something different about this cycle. Until now, attention focused mainly on the fact that it was longer than previous cycles, and that recent recessions have been shorter and shallower. Now, however, for the first time in more than 50 years the US is experiencing a downturn against a background of suppressed inflation. And just as the Fed's role in producing this period of weakness was relatively limited - compared with the financial problems associated with the supply explosion of the last few years - so it may also be not much more than a bit-part player in determining how quickly it ends.
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3HI6VVSJC&live=true
Never mind. I figured it out.
Hope I don't get in trouble.
<img src=http://mars.dead.net/site/images/6004.gif>
Hey I want to play too!
Tough market, huh!
Oh Boy!
Since things are slow here, how about if we just collect clown posts to kill the time?
I'll start
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=15440569
LOL. Hi underscore<G>