Replies to post #241718 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[Train Guy]

Yeah, but since we've been going up for over a year, all we need is to get stuff back under the lowest it's been since last May. Obviously with the indices holding up, most of the stuff putting in 52 week lows ain't in the indices. Whereas in Oct. 2002, the stuff in the indices continued lower, but other stuff had already headed back up. With the ten year treasury at 22 month lows, it's probably a lot of interest rate sensitive stuff getting slammed.

[shoreco]

>> Would anyone believe that the nyse high / lows undercut the october 2002 lows today <<

No, I've been questioning the numbers and I still can't get a "list" of the 700 stocks that hit new lows on the NYSE, but I can get this list of 141 stocks that hit "52 week lows" on the NYSE...

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.scan?s=TSA[t.t_eq_s]![t.e_eq_y]![as0,20,tv_gt_40000]![tl0_lt_a...

I believe that number has a whole group of new funds that aren't even a year old therefore they're hitting "new inception lows" and cannot be compared to the NYSE lows of the years past...

ie: If these new stocks/funds were around back then then maybe those numbers would have been more like -1300 new lows, or maybe they trade @the NYSE but aren't included in the index prices???

I don't know but it doesn't make sense and until we find the "real truth behind the numbers" we are all looking at bogus data...

141 new 52 week lows makes more sense at the current index prices...

An expansion of 700 new lows (comparing apples to apples) whould have the index down 10% or more IMO...

EOM
Shoreco