|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
About the Dead Cat Bounce
What we have seen friday isn't a dead cat...imho.
The dead cat bounce seems to be much more a stock related event than a market
related one.
The Author of the S&C article suggests that the dead cat bounce is to be
explained with fundamental events.
The doubts about the former valuation of the tech stocks is not a real
"fundamental shift", as it is much more dealing with market psychology and mass
effect than new financials standards. What happened on friday looks more on an
event affecting the broad market.
By the way, I am not sure the volume was that high in comparison to the
previous, also agitated/volatile days.
I have also noted that most of the hammered stocks had already declined quite
severely the days/weeks before, which doesn't seem to match the dead cat bounce
hypothesis.
I think it is important to remember that the market often corrects its excesses
(tough sometimes in the other directions).
Another question is to know whether we are at the start (who knows?) of a
medium term bear market, or whether just some stocks would be affected (however
did the dow/S&P also fall on friday).
I am very impatient to read your comments...
AB
Augustin Bataille
Jim Greening wrote:
> Guy,
> Looks to me like today was stronger than a "dead cat" bounce, but that
> may be wishful thinking also <G>. I'm going to download my stock data and
> look at the charts and then will nibble on one or two positions. I think we
> are a long way from being "out of the woods", but today sure did look
> hopeful.
>
> JimG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 10:07 PM
> Subject: RE: New Buy Signal
>
> > Well I already own a few of those. I bought JDSU when it was way down
> > Friday as well as a couple of others. I think we might seen a dead cat
> > bounce here, but that may be wishful thinking. Meanwhile the guru on the
> > mount says he's got a buy for Monday.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Jim Greening
> > Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 11:11 AM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: New Buy Signal
> >
> > Guy,
> > I hear you, but I'm sure going to try to do better <G>. I've been
> > trying to figure out what to do from here. All my indicators tell me the
> > bear is here, but my gut tells me that we just have to be near a bottom.
> > The economy is just too good for a sustained bear market.
> > Therefore I decided to pour over the charts and look for industry
> > leaders in good sectors with good revenue and earnings growth. I also
> > wanted stocks that were right at support levels. I came up with AMAT,
> AOL,
> > JDSU, MSFT, QLGC, RDC, RFMD, and SCH. I had to fudge on earnings a little
> > with JDSU, but its prospects are good <G>. I'll post their charts to my
> web
> > site http://www.geocities.com/jimginva/ later today.
> > My thought is to sit and watch Monday and see what happens. Then
> later
> > in the week if it looks promising, I'd nibble on one or two of those that
> > looked like they had turned up but were still close to their stops so my
> > risk would be low. I'll continue with that strategy until the dust
> clears.
> >
> > JimG
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 9:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: New Buy Signal
> >
> >
> > > JimG
> > >
> > > If we didn't second guess our rules, we wouldn't be human. We still
> > haven't
> > > learned. :)
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > > Behalf Of Jim Greening
> > > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 3:11 PM
> > > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: New Buy Signal
> > >
> > > Guy,
> > > Nope, you have to stick to your system. You've been doing a much
> > > better job of that then I have been lately. I got hurt more on this
> > > pullback then I should have by second guessing on some stops and not
> > leaving
> > > as soon as I should have. I also entered some positions too far away
> from
> > > my stops and accepted more risk than was necessary. Both no, nos in my
> > > system. Maybe I'll learn one of these days <G>.
> > >
> > > JimG
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 6:37 AM
> > > Subject: RE: New Buy Signal
> > >
> > >
> > > > Oops.... Should I have waited?????
> > > >
> > > > Guy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > > > Behalf Of Guy Tann
> > > > Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:26 AM
> > > > To: Metastock User Group
> > > > Subject: New Buy Signal
> > > >
> > > > List,
> > > >
> > > > I know that everyone has been waiting for this :) but we're going long
> > on
> > > > Friday. Ta Taaaaa
> > > >
> > > > Let the games begin. We'll be buying S&P futures as well as the
> > following
> > > > stocks. My brother and I spent 3 hours tonight picking these babies,
> so
> > I
> > > > hope they don't disappoint. We are not jumping in with both feet
> > though.
> > > > Playing cautious. I originally started buying more, but went back and
> > > > changed my orders so that I will be only 25% invested (of available
> > margin
> > > > funds). I figure, this way I limit my risk if my signal is wrong, and
> > > also
> > > > provide myself with an opportunity to buy more should the market look
> > > good.
> > > >
> > > > Here is the list of stocks we're buying:
> > > >
> > > > TER
> > > > ATML
> > > > INTC
> > > > LLTC
> > > > HLIT
> > > > SFA
> > > > TXN
> > > > QCOM
> > > > AMCC
> > > > ORCL
> > > > HWP
> > > > IBM
> > > > CSCO
> > > >
> > > > We've tried to spread our exposure in those groups we're most
> > comfortable
> > > > with. Heavy exposure to the semi conductors, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I would like to think that now that we're in agreement with
> > Steve
> > > K.
> > > > and JimG, we're all in sync. Maybe working together we can stop this
> > > slide,
> > > > at least for a while. :)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Guy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
|