% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Message Board

  • macktp21 macktp21 Feb 26, 2006 5:43 PM Flag

    bollinger bands

    I'm no expert on tech. analysis (who is?) but what I see are slightly higher highs and slightly higher lows and a narrowing trading range which might indicate a break-out to the up side.

    Do any of you folks agree?

    Again, I do not claim to be an expert and tech. analysis is very often WRONG.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You mentioned "Bollinger Bands" in the subject. My interpretation about where UNH is in respect to Bollinger is that is does not currently show a break-out as UNH lies in the middle "waffling". I do agree we are in an uptrend, but not necessarily a sign for a brek-out.

      UNH needs a catalist for a break-out. It will not occur by reading TA or fundamentals.
      Any news to the positive side will cause the
      "break-out". Otherwisw be happy that we are in a "sluggish" uptrend

    • yes
      i expect it next week

    • Gasp

      RSI(2) with 100% LR Channels cannot be wrong. Or if it is it can only be wrong an infinitesimal percent of the time. If it is wrong, then you did not do sufficient research using the support TA.

      Another Gasp

      My previous posts have tried to point out that you need to have a logical basis for using ANY TA (unless you are a short trader and then all a TA does is try to see what a current automated buy/sell program is going to do). If you use it because it seems to work a lot does not qualify as a logical basis. I am impressed by the work that ASOKO has done but I still do not see the basis for why it should work. Saying that it reflects a pattern of purchases and this is why people will continue to putchase is not a basis. Stating that LRC defines the "true" price is not a logical basis.

    • Mack,

      I completely agree with your last statement, "Technical Analysis is very often WRONG". Plenty of fools on this board will rail against this notion, and will claim to have the so-called Magic Formula. The fact is these have been disproven time and again. Don't waste your time or your hard-earned money them.


      • 2 Replies to haywood_jibloamy
      • Well... fundamental analysis is often wrong also. I used to be purely a 'fundy', but find technical attributes of a stock and its chart help me to know when to buy and sell - the tactics of the trade, entry points, etc.

        THe fact that some - in fact most stocks adhere to certain technical tendencies are readily apparent with any chart study at all.

        I used to think it was all voodoo, but I think of it this way - if others pay attention to technical attribute in their buy/sell decisions - and use technical aspects then regardless of what you think of them they are real. Perception is reality in the market. Its not about fundamentals - its about buying volume.

        Alot of the theory of technical price action makes alot of sense coupled with other aspects

        A stock's baseing action for instance. It makes sense /why/ and by what mechanism a chart baseing pattern occurs, and its likely outcome.

        Now head and shoulders tops, and all that I dont really delve into - I think (and I may be wrong) that the more complicated the chart patterns the more the technical analysis of those patterns breaks down.

        Short-term traders also /need/ technical analysis (and not much fundamental analysis at all).

        Technical analysis is a toolbox - and in the market you can never have too many tools.

      • no technical analysis is right 90% of the time

139.77-1.02(-0.72%)11:38 AMEDT