|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Paul,
My message was kind of directed at brokers in general. Forgive me for
mixing yours and the message from Tom Alexander(also a broker) together.
Tom has given us some real gems that I copied and kept so I appreciate his
input. I’m not against all brokers, but trading is what brokers must have
in order to make money and this potential conflict of interest makes me
very cautious of them.
What you are saying is right. Positioning oneself against the trend is
generally a mistake. Last October is the exception to the rule and I
thought the market would go down then because every divergence indicator
that I have was showing a very ripe condition. By the way the WAMI
indicator is a very good and very simple divergence indicator. Not all
divergences produce reversals but at least 51% do, and with multiple
indicators showing divergences the odds are even greater. In case anyone
wants to study divergences, Cynthia Kase has to be the reversal Queen.
This Bull is simply amazing and I have those fib. numbers in front of me
all the time, and I have had some share of benefit from it. I recall 1987
and I fear that the hurt will be equally amazing when the inevitable
happens and so many experts just keep pressing the public to do more and to
treat it like bank savings.
Funny but last night I was watching a PBS program about Nature and they
said that if Tokyo were to have an earthquake above a certain level(I think
it was 7) on the Richter scale that Japan would have to cash in it's
massive U.S. Bond position virtually guaranteeing a world wide financial
catastrophe. Tokyo is in the worlds most active earthquake zone. Now if you
want to go mad try predicting earthquakes. I think I will stick to
Securities.
Best regards,
Brent
----------
> From: Paul Brittian <tradeblt@xxxxxxx>
> To: BrentinUtahsDixie <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Bullish brokers.
> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 10:20 PM
>
> That's not what I was trying to say. I am also amazed as well as scared
> at how much this market has run higher. I was just saying that many
> traders position themselves against the market with reasoning based on
> emotion rather than facts or technical data. The market should be
> traded with the same techniques and strategies that you would use in any
> moving market. If you check, almost every major sell off fit into
> Fibonacci parameters perfectly.
> Paul B
> BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> >
> > Now if you broker types want me to believe that there are no people out
> > there that have borrowed on there houses, credit cards, and insurance
to
> > invest in equities and hoping to retire on the proceeds, then I guess
that
> > no one cares. Do you tell your customers that there is a
divergence(RSI,
> > Momentum, others) on a monthly chart of the Dow for the first time in
more
> > then 10 years and that the worlds 2nd largest economy is on the brink
of
> > disaster and just had to be propped up. Or about some of the other
> > undertows like bankruptcies, credit, or commodity deflation. Then
there's
> > nothing to worry about. I for one will continue to invest in high
> > probability market moves when my indicators are ripe like the $250 S&P
put
> > that I bought last Oct. that went to $8000.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Brent
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Paul Brittian <tradeblt@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: Bull Mania Alive and Well
> > > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 2:04 AM
> > >
> > > It seems to me the real question is how high is too high...I don't
know,
> > > I do know that I've taken a heck of a lot more short orders than
longs
> > > and watched a way too many traders get mowed over because of they
> > > thought that the market was way over bought and due for a correction.
> > > I've sadly watched this go on for the last 500 points in the S&P,
nobody
> > > wants to go long, and if they do, they only take a couple points.
Why
> > > fight the trend? As long as American workers keep feeding their
pension
> > > plans, annuities, IRA's ect., this market will run.
> > > Paul B.
> > > BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > RT's,
> > > >
> > > > I have on several occasions talked about the Bull and my
apprehensions
> > > > regarding its future. I am not one of those that has a year 2000
> > phobia. If
> > > > concerns can be demonstrated to be real such as the y2k bug then
that
> > is
> > > > something to consider if not I don’t fear the round number. I fully
> > expect
> > > > some will pull there money from the markets before New Years day
2000
> > and
> > > > go set in a cave. I have thought a lot about the market crash in
1929
> > and
> > > > wondered, was there any mechanism for hedging back then like
options,
> > > > index futures, etc? How would that effect a crash?
> > > >
> > > > Or how about this, lets say you’re heavily short and it totally
crashes
> > are
> > > > you going to be holding a bunch of “I owe you’s”?
> > > >
> > > > If it were 1929 and the crash were coming this fall would everyone
> > think it
> > > > was mania? I think not. I think it's like musical chairs but that
last
> > one
> > > > sitting loses instead of wins.
> > > >
> > > > 2 cents,
> > > >
> > > > Brent
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > > From: Dennis Conn <dconn@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Bull Mania Alive and Well
> > > > > Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 3:00 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > A.J.,
> > > > >
> > > > > If the common perception of the stock market is one of
speculation
> > > > without
> > > > > risk, at least as far as buy-and-hold sales pitches imply, then
what
> > IS
> > > > > "unreasonable enthusiasm"? It seems to me that the definition
> > validates
> > > > the
> > > > > opinion that the current lofty levels of the market, combined
with
> > the
> > > > > continued inflow of funds from an ob-sessed public, constitute a
> > mania in
> > > > > the classic sense of the word.
> > > > >
> > > > > Awaiting the inevitable condemnation,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dennis C.
> > > > > dconn@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess this depends on how "mania" is to be understood.
> > "Excessive or
> > > > > unreasonable
> > > > > > enthusiasm" is what the dictionary tells us - I'd want to say
that
> > in
> > > > > this case it
> > > > > > is neither. Looking at prices in terms of "intrinsic value" is
out
> > of
> > > > > touch, as it
> > > > > > neglects to account for the driving force behind markets today,
> > which
> > > > is
> > > > > capital
> > > > > > accumulation, with dividends only representing a paltry amount
of
> > total
> > > > > expected
> > > > > > return. The "mania" is the reality here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > A.J.
> > > > > >
|