|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=1 color="#000000" face="Arial">norman well spoken!!!<br><br>----------<br>> From: nwinski <<u>nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</u>><br>> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <<u>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</u>><br>> Subject: Re: MKT: How High The Moon<br>> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 1997 9:21 PM<br>> <br>> <u>invstr@xxxxxxx</u> wrote:<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > >Dan,<br>> > > Seems I've heard this song before. So, how about the panic of 1873<br>> > >which led to 23 years of prolonged depression? Was that the Fed?<br>> > >And then there was the big 1854? top. And the 1837 bank panic which<br>> > >almost bourght down the entire financial system. and so on and so on.<br>> > >And before that there was the South Seas Bubble, the Mississippi Bubble,<br>> > >and the Tulip Bulb Bubble. Where was the Fed during those panics?<br>> > >Or have we truly enterd a permanent plateau of prosperity as was<br>> > >declared<br>> > >in 1928-29 just before the crash? Seems I've heard this song before.<br>> > ><br>> > >Singingly,<br>> > ><br>> > >Norman<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > <br>> > Dear Norman,<br>> > <br>> > Your point? I didn't say that I had an explanation for every economic<br>> > crash in the last 200 hundred years. I was simply responding to Chris's<br>> > analysis of the '29 crash. Crashes can and do occur without the Fed, but<br>> > the one in '29 was directly related to a restriction (strangling) of loose<br>> > credit provided by the fed during the previous 10 years.<br>> > <br>> > Dan<br>> <br>> Dan, <br>> My point is that out of all those panics, recessions, and depressions,<br>> the Fed can only be implicated one time and then, according to you,<br>> they worked at it one whole decade before they had any results. Seems to<br>> me that given all the other evidence, the Fed is has been indicted based<br>> on circumstantial evidence. History has repeadetly shown that the real<br>> villian of the business cycle is the mass psychology of human nature.<br>> Mr. Shakespere said, "all the world's a stage and all the people its<br>> players". It seems to me that in many ways, the script was written<br>> millions of years ago and that each generation acts out the same play<br>> perhaps with a little differenct spin according to their own<br>> interpretation. If the Fed did tighten in the late 20s, on a<br>> subconscious level, it was only to facilitate the correct end of the<br>> play. There is<br>> always an excuse after the fact, except of course when there isn't. <br>> Just read the Wall Street Journal. They are masters of excuse<br>> manufacturing. Except, ever now and then the market has a big move<br>> and they just kind of throw up their hands and don't know why it moved.<br>> Ain't human folly grand?<br>> <br>> Cheers,<br>> <br>> Norman</p>
</font></body></html></x-html>From ???@??? Wed Jul 30 09:22:42 1997
Received: from smtp2.nwnexus.com (smtp2.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.18])
by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA19673
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list.listserver.com (list.listserver.com [198.68.191.15])
by smtp2.nwnexus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA18158
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:52:38 -0700
Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by list.listserver.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA01544;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:51:52 -0700
Received: from mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.33])
by list.listserver.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA01427
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:50:48 -0700
Received: from worldnet.worldnet.att.net ([207.147.201.2])
by mtigwc04.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 )
with ESMTP id AAA27118; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 15:51:26 +0000
Message-Id: <19970730155124.AAA27118@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:24:38 -0700
Reply-To: GoodLuck.JustStart.@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "ELI WEISS" <GoodLuck.JustStart.@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MKT: How High The Moon
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01BC9CC2.0533CA80"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-To: <nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-UIDL: a1a39bb747d38b85e45db7cc700736f7
Status: U
<x-html><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font size=1 color="#000000" face="Arial">norman well spoken!!!<br><br>----------<br>> From: nwinski <<u>nwinski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</u>><br>> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <<u>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</u>><br>> Subject: Re: MKT: How High The Moon<br>> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 1997 9:21 PM<br>> <br>> <u>invstr@xxxxxxx</u> wrote:<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > >Dan,<br>> > > Seems I've heard this song before. So, how about the panic of 1873<br>> > >which led to 23 years of prolonged depression? Was that the Fed?<br>> > >And then there was the big 1854? top. And the 1837 bank panic which<br>> > >almost bourght down the entire financial system. and so on and so on.<br>> > >And before that there was the South Seas Bubble, the Mississippi Bubble,<br>> > >and the Tulip Bulb Bubble. Where was the Fed during those panics?<br>> > >Or have we truly enterd a permanent plateau of prosperity as was<br>> > >declared<br>> > >in 1928-29 just before the crash? Seems I've heard this song before.<br>> > ><br>> > >Singingly,<br>> > ><br>> > >Norman<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > <br>> > Dear Norman,<br>> > <br>> > Your point? I didn't say that I had an explanation for every economic<br>> > crash in the last 200 hundred years. I was simply responding to Chris's<br>> > analysis of the '29 crash. Crashes can and do occur without the Fed, but<br>> > the one in '29 was directly related to a restriction (strangling) of loose<br>> > credit provided by the fed during the previous 10 years.<br>> > <br>> > Dan<br>> <br>> Dan, <br>> My point is that out of all those panics, recessions, and depressions,<br>> the Fed can only be implicated one time and then, according to you,<br>> they worked at it one whole decade before they had any results. Seems to<br>> me that given all the other evidence, the Fed is has been indicted based<br>> on circumstantial evidence. History has repeadetly shown that the real<br>> villian of the business cycle is the mass psychology of human nature.<br>> Mr. Shakespere said, "all the world's a stage and all the people its<br>> players". It seems to me that in many ways, the script was written<br>> millions of years ago and that each generation acts out the same play<br>> perhaps with a little differenct spin according to their own<br>> interpretation. If the Fed did tighten in the late 20s, on a<br>> subconscious level, it was only to facilitate the correct end of the<br>> play. There is<br>> always an excuse after the fact, except of course when there isn't. <br>> Just read the Wall Street Journal. They are masters of excuse<br>> manufacturing. Except, ever now and then the market has a big move<br>> and they just kind of throw up their hands and don't know why it moved.<br>> Ain't human folly grand?<br>> <br>> Cheers,<br>> <br>> Norman</p>
</font></body></html></x-html>From ???@??? Wed Jul 30 09:22:44 1997
Received: from smtp2.nwnexus.com (smtp2.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.18])
by mail1.halcyon.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA27647
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from list.listserver.com (list.listserver.com [198.68.191.15])
by smtp2.nwnexus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA19532
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:11:56 -0700
Received: from host (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by list.listserver.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA02406;
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:11:05 -0700
Received: from Kitten.mcs.com (Kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90])
by list.listserver.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA02343
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:10:20 -0700
Received: from foremost.mcs.net (foremost.pr.mcs.net [205.164.5.157]) by Kitten.mcs.com (8.8.5/8.8.2) with SMTP id LAA00909 for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:11:01 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970730112425.007ce250@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 11:24:25 -0500
Reply-To: foremost@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Denise Beebe Throntveit <foremost@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moving Averages & the Like
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: foremostffltrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-UIDL: abbc64ede1a3995194a3fbd069ab7f0c
Status: U
<x-rich>Hello Everyone --
Thank you for all of your responses regarding my EMail dated 7/22/97. To
refresh your memory I had asked ....
"Could someone also help me with finding a more current study -- or your
opinion on -- the value of the more complicated moving average studies
vs. the simple moving average. According to my research, the simple
application of two simple moving averages is just as dependable as the
more complicated moving averages, including exponential, weighted and
geometric averages."
THE RESULTS...Exponential -- 6 Simple Moving Average -- 4
and several requests to post the results.
1. Suggestion to look into DEMA - Dynamic Exponential Moving Average in
the Sep/Oct 96 issue of TS Express.
2. Suggestion to look into VIMA - Variable Interval Moving Average at
<<www.fascination.com/pub/polyd>. 10 arithmatic moving averages plotted
to form an 11th which is further adjusted.
3. Suggestion to look into Ending-Point Moving Average. Believe this to
be an exponential MA -- couldn't find while searching TASC. However,
trader stated "not much difference between the exponential and the simple
moving averages".
4. Several individual opinions.
So...
<bold><underline><bigger>In my opinion
</bigger></underline></bold><bigger>... which makes it 6 EXP to 5
SIMPLE
</bigger>For long-term to intermediate term positions (about 1 wk to 6
wks) I believe that using a combination of two simple moving averages is
appropriate. However, I don't want to enter a position using only one
technical analysis technique.
<bold><underline><bigger>Now, for another question...
</bigger></underline></bold>
What do you think about combining a moving average study (which lags the
market) and a probability indicator? Which TA indicator performs best
according to your experience -- Bollinger Bands? Envelopes? Something
Else?
Thank you for you response in advance. The postings regarding the moving
average were very informative and meaningful for this forum.
Thank you again,
Denise
Denise Beebe Throntveit
President
FOREMOST FUTURES. LTD.
223 West Jackson Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60606
800-227-0335
EMail: foremost@xxxxxxxxxxxx
</x-rich>
|