Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.From: AJAskey@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] M
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:06:23 EST
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] M "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] M Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] M Spencer48@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] M "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]
- --part1_158.17f25e39.2b137a4f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit jans, > As far as your "gaming" comment, in general, I think less of the SEC > than I do of independent advisors even though your comment may imply the > opposite. As for the AAII survey, it seems that your "cause and effect" > is > out of focus: it is not merely the "vote" of bearishness that causes the > market to rally, it is the despondancy of investors due to a bear market > that > causes them to "vote" bearish, and which then leads (due to a turnabout in > investor psychology and a lot of money on the sidelines) into a bull > market. > I contend in the short term that it is the final vote tally that matters. I think it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If the vote says people are bearish then a large amount of money comes into the system. If the total comes out bullish then the Joe Average investor has been conditioned to become bearish over the last couple years. Are the voters bullish now? I see no evidence from the poll that leads me to think this is true other than people say so. The short interest levels listed in IBD show that we are at much higher levels than in July so people are shorting the rallies and not covering (it's off the high but the level now is much higher than it goes when the market is really bullish). The Commitment of Traders report of the S&P500 futures shows more shorts than longs (especially on the retail side). I don't know anyone in person or on the net who is go-go bullish. Those polls work on the sheep because the sheep do as they are told. > By the way, it is ironically funny that the advisors, referred to in > your E-mail, are accused of "gaming" the system with their dissemblings, > when > later it is suggested by you that you vote "bearish" just so that the > market > will turn into a bull. > I thought it was funny too. That's why I wrote it :) Andy - --part1_158.17f25e39.2b137a4f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>jans,<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> As far as your "gaming" comment, in general, I think less of the SEC <BR> than I do of independent advisors even though your comment may imply the <BR> opposite. As for the AAII survey, it seems that your "cause and effect" is <BR> out of focus: it is not merely the "vote" of bearishness that causes the <BR> market to rally, it is the despondancy of investors due to a bear market that <BR> causes them to "vote" bearish, and which then leads (due to a turnabout in <BR> investor psychology and a lot of money on the sidelines) into a bull market. <BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">I contend in the short term that it is the final vote tally that matters. I think it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If the vote says people are bearish then a large amount of money comes into the system. If the total comes out bullish then the Joe Average investor has been conditioned to become bearish over the last couple years.<BR> <BR> Are the voters bullish now? I see no evidence from the poll that leads me to think this is true other than people say so. The short interest levels listed in IBD show that we are at much higher levels than in July so people are shorting the rallies and not covering (it's off the high but the level now is much higher than it goes when the market is really bullish). The Commitment of Traders report of the S&P500 futures shows more shorts than longs (especially on the retail side). I don't know anyone in person or on the net who is go-go bullish. Those polls work on the sheep because the sheep do as they are told.<BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> By the way, it is ironically funny that the advisors, referred to in <BR> your E-mail, are accused of "gaming" the system with their dissemblings, when <BR> later it is suggested by you that you vote "bearish" just so that the market <BR> will turn into a bull. <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> I thought it was funny too. That's why I wrote it :)<BR> <BR> Andy<BR> </FONT></HTML> - --part1_158.17f25e39.2b137a4f_boundary-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email.
Next Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] M "Tom Worley"
Previous Article (by Subject): Re: [CANSLIM] M Spencer48@aol.com
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] M Spencer48@aol.com
Next in Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] M "Tom Worley"
Articles sorted by: [Date]
[Author]
[Subject]