Another rambling and incoherent discourse, that ranks right up there as one of your more comical posts...ever. Although, it does fall far short of your numerous attempts to rewrite the laws of physics and the dilutive effects of stock offerings.
I really don't think it's necessary to lecture me on why this company has yet to find success, or what it's going to take for this company to be profitable. Almost every suggestion that I submitted to LS one year ago is being adopted today. Everything I have ever written about this company has not only been prescient, but accurate. It only took you 5 years of hindsight and a 96% drawdown for you to realize, what I had warned about in advance had actually had merit.
That being said, technical analysis is merely a tool I employ to time my trades. If you truly understood TA, instead of just " dropping" the names of some rudimentary indicators that professional traders don’t use anymore, then you would understand. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if John Bollinger himself taught you how to use " Bollinger Bands", or Tiger Woods taught you how to play golf, because you still wouldn't be able to shoot a 59, you still wouldn't know how to construct or interpret a chart properly, and you still couldn't make any sense out of today's markets.
The current rally in the broader market has been on steadily declining volume which indicates declining investor participation. It has also taken place during a time of horrible economic fundamentals, and global news about one disaster after another. While there are times when the markets are driven by news and fundamentals, this is obviously not one of them. You may be the only person left standing, who doesn’t realize that the majority of the recent rally has been fueled by the Fed’s $6-8 billion daily injections of POMO cash, and perhaps recently by hot money from the yen carry- trade, being repatriated to the U.S. from emerging countries.
CHK and SLB went up, because the entire market went up and their sector (energy) went up. The stocks’ actual fundamentals were probably responsible for 30% of their respective increases. Just as the proverbial dart-throwing chimp could have bought any tech stock during the dot-com bubble and made money, you could have bought almost any stock during the Bernanke bubble and made money. Please don’t try to convince anybody that you are this savvy stock picker, because we have all read your compelling analysis of the markets. >>While my Short the bond market hasn't panned out yet, it's only a matter of time. Rates won't stay down forever.<<
