Its not 1999, its Sept 2006.

Discussion in 'Trading' started by michaelscott, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. "So your telling me that you could not predict what would happen next on the attached chart? You have the price hitting one peak, then a second peak and then sweeping up to the third peak. Each time it hit one peak, then it came down. Not just a staircase walkdown, but one big red candlestick.

    You knew that on the third peak it would get wild.

    If the gurus, hedge fund managers and critics on ET couldnt see this formation coming then I really wonder if they should be trading real money. "

    And after the 4th peak, just buy QQQQ ultrashares and hold?
    #11     Apr 26, 2007
  2. I make an analysis, form an opinion and then state my answer. I tell you the exact reasons why I believe my opinion is valid and then if Im right then Im right, if Im wrong then Im wrong. I have cash involved with everything that I post and I put my money where my mouth is.

    As for credibility, I post my real name, even include pictures of myself and invite people down to meet me in NYC.

    As for yourself, you sit behind an alias posting up general statements about the economy that seem meaningless. When the market corrects down, you post these general gloom-doom statements. When the market goes higher, then you say we are in a bubble.

    Im not right all the time and I learn the hard way when Im wrong. Thats why I work hard at learning and seeing the big picture. You sir have to open your eyes and see whats going on around you.

    Now let me give you some *facts* to back up my assertions. Im not going to post general statements, but give you facts so that you can come to your own conclusion.

    The Wilshire 5000 hit a high of 13473 (rounded up) in May 2006. Then it went down to 12250 in a short period of time.

    Now lets do some simple, basic math.

    13473-12250= 1223

    1223+13473= 14696 (this is the theorhetical warning point)

    The point where we corrected in February was 14829.

    Now lets backup even further.

    Around September of 2005, the Wilshire 5000 was at about 12500. Then it dropped to 11630.

    12500-11630= 870

    12500+870= 13370

    In May 2006, as stated earlier, the correction started at 13473.

    Therefore, we should probably be cautious not right now, but in the future. The period of caution will be when the Wilshire 5000 strikes 15840.

    14828-13816= 1012

    1012+14828= 15840

    So go on posting up your general opinions about the economy. All of which I posted is fact and not a sweeping generalization.

    You have a trend on the chart that has existed during the last two corrections. Therefore, we should be cautious on the next go round.

    As for your post about not listening to people on message boards, its your money. You can throw it away anyway you wish. Im not ignoring the charts and trying to justify my position. Im showing you the facts and your opinion doesnt change what is fact.

    #12     Apr 26, 2007
  3. Look at my chart. What did I just draw for you?

    #13     Apr 26, 2007
  4. piezoe


    Agreed, Michaelscott.

    And to whoever wrote:

    "...What matters most is US inflation ... not the dollar.

    I say, Ahem, Cough, Cough. Could it possibly be that our particular local brand of inflation is caused by devaluation of the currency via excess liquidity as much or moreso than a combination of increased domestic demand and/or a decrease in supply! :)
    #14     Apr 26, 2007
  5. What does any of this have do with the fact that you told someone to invest in QQQQs, and you guaranteed they would have a 12% return 2 months?

    No one with credibility, or without inside information, would make such proclamations of certainty.

    Now if you know with certainty who is going to win the Stanley Cup, please let me know.
    #15     Apr 26, 2007
  6. The bears keep saying sentiment is wildly bullish but the evidence doesn't support that idea. The ISEE index is tending towards mild bearishness. Many people are still jumpy because of the late Feb selloff and because of the big rally that has followed.

    Note the 52 week high and low and what the market did after those dates!!!

    ISEE Sentiment Index
    123 4/26/2007
    10-Day Moving Average 130 4/13/2007-4/26/2007
    20-Day Moving Average 122 3/29/2007-4/26/2007
    50-Day Moving Average 114 2/14/2007-4/26/2007

    52-Week High 218 5/3/2006
    52-Week Low 58 3/8/2007

    ISEE is computed by dividing opening long call options bought by customers by opening long put options bought by customers.
    #16     Apr 26, 2007
  7. deep fried your full of crap. go look at the ise track record over the past 4 years ,its got a horrible record. before the drop in may 2006 it was low and also before the feb drop it was low and showed no evidence either time the market was going to drop. its funny as hell when sentiment is 100% bullish its ok but when it gets just a tad bearish katy bar the door we're heading to the moon
    #17     Apr 26, 2007
  8. I guess I see a different interpretation.
    Showing how subjective patterns can be.
    The chart shown has (IMO) a similar pattern from the past shown on the 2nd
    Chart. The 3rd chart is the outcome.
    The pattern leading up to it, occurred right before the 90 recession (similar background, inverted yield curve, gloom and doom predictors were predicting a recession while bulls laughed).

    The third pattern shows the outcome in the 90s. Looking at it from that perspective, I just don't see it as a great "buy ultrashares and hold pt". Although, I'm sure you could find other patterns to contradict it.
    Mandelbrot: "Patterns are the fool's gold of financial markets. They are the inevitable consequence of the human need to find patterns in the patternless."
    #18     Apr 26, 2007
  9. No, if the US were to print dollars and use them, for example, to buy a new statue (or computer or desk or whatever) from Europe, the dollar would go down but inflation would be exported to europe.
    What you have in the US is that rapid consolidation is erasing competition which leads to lower output (hence lower GDP) and higher prices (hence inflation) and higher profits too, which explains why corporate profits are outpacing nominal GDP growth. In this scenario inflation should be pretty high. I don't live in the US but from what I read, it seems the data understates it a little.
    Getting back to the topic of the thread, I believe someone also said in another thread that "it's not a bubble if we don't have PEs of 100+"
    "SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Thursday was another strong day for Inc. shares, which have risen more than 40% since the company reported surging first-quarter profit and sales two days ago."
    That's 40% in two days, for a "surging first-quarter profit" that leaves it with a cool PE of 106... chart looks a little bubblicious too.
    #19     Apr 26, 2007
  10. Read the numbers, you imbecile. The 52 week high on the indicator was 218 on May 3, 2006, a couple of days before the market tanked. We're up 17% since the ISEE 52 week low in March. Is that so hard to understand?

    No indicator is perfect but no indicator is of any use at all if you can't read. I doubt you're able to get an accurate take on anything since your reading comprehension is nil.

    Additionally, you've got to chart the indicator and review how it reacts to the market.
    #20     Apr 26, 2007