Ibm

Discussion in 'Stocks' started by S2007S, Jan 9, 2007.

  1. S2007S

    S2007S

    I dont follow IBM but it looks like 100 could hapen today.
     
  2. Strictly speaking of this matter chartwise and not looking at anything else such as the analysts or fundamentals, I would say crossing over into the 100 dollar territory will be difficult. Its going to take a lot of volume. It does look like a double top.
     
  3. Yep. Im looking at the running chart right now. As it approached the 100 dollar line it pulled back. Im guessing that traders dont want the same thing happen to them as in early 2005 where IBM suddenly took a dump 20 points. The P/E ratios and fundamentals were similiar in both time periods.

    Now we have talk about landings, soft landings, hard landings, etc. How can IBM be a screaming buy when folks are talking about landings? How could IBM thrive in this type of environment?
     
  4. S2007S

    S2007S


    I believe IBM is going to need a heck of an earnings report to push it higher, it has quite a run from its last report.
     
  5. Im thinking thats what everyone is waiting for. If you were a fund manager, wouldnt you want some confirmation before piling your money into a company that definately appears to have a double top on the chart? Maybe Jim Cramer wont look at the chart...
     
  6. S2007S

    S2007S


    I would wait for confirmation however cramer has been bullish on IBM.
     
  7. S2007S

    S2007S

    new intraday highs at 99.69
     
  8. I suspected such...they got it up there with small amounts of shares. Then right when it hit 100, they stuck in a block of 56000 shares so they could demonstrate that there is lots of interest up there. Now lets see who takes the bait.
     
  9. S2007S

    S2007S

    $100 it is.


    bought at $99.82 sold at 100
     
  10. S2007S

    S2007S

    it was stuck at 100 for about 25 seconds when volume rushed in, however it didnt do what I thought it would do, the volume wasnt there like you said, I could see if it was trading 10million+ but volume was not there.
     
    #10     Jan 9, 2007