PE, for the usual reason, I'm making this a new thread. I'm replying to your post 182036 (24 March, 4:10 PM) at:
>>For sure, only housing hasn't really rebounded and some banks are still teetering, and if another shock comes, all that newfound confidence could crumble in a heartbeat and we'd be right back in the dumpster.<<
That's depressing. But I'd rather be realisticaly prepared than living in Fantasyland. And couldn't oil's continued, endless escalating bomb the precarious economy further? How do you view the rallies? AAPL got away from me while I was gone, and AKAM is still much higher than it was on quadruple witching day (last Thursday). Do these new price levels have sticking power or are they only due to the current window dressing?
>>Pretty far. There was a UK Telegraph article (of a day or two ago) that spelled it [leveraging of Bear Stearns's trillions] out unfortunately I didn't keep a link.<<
I just looked, but with no luck. Do you remember any unique word(s) in the article? In searching, I did find this UK Telegraph article, not about the Bear (although it is mentioned), but about . . .
A hedge fund based in London set up a "dirty-tricks unit" to manipulate share prices and get illicit information on companies in an attempt to make millions on the stock market, an insider has revealed.
. . .
As the official hunt began for the rogue traders who tried to bring down Britain's biggest mortgage lender, HBOS, The Daily Telegraph can reveal a whistle-blower's account of how a multi-billion pound fund allegedly used illegal tactics to drive down stock prices.
. . .
The accusations about the hedge fund form the most detailed account yet of the illicit activity carried out by the London office of a major international hedge fund. Such tactics are also thought to be used by other hedge funds.
It is criminal, through and through:
- Hedge fund staff gathered "sensitive" negative information on firms in which they had an interest in the share price falling. This information was distributed to leading investment banks whose experts were encouraged to take a dim view of the prospects of the company's shares. . . .
Does any of that sound likely regarding AKAM? And likely regarding Bear Stearns? And see how that article's info dovetails with Ben Stein's article that you posted (". . . the hedge funds and the changing of Wall Street from a financing entity to a market manipulation entity. . . . hedge funds with (supposedly) $1.5 trillion in capital, immense hedge funds within banks and investment banks.")?
I haven't read any of the Telegraph's links yet, but at least two look like must reading: "Jeff Randall: Rumour Mill mafia is destroying our savings" and "Shadows who move markets | What is short-selling?"
>>I see you're keeping up with Lucianne. The cool thing about that is they're on the drawing boards (batteries consisting of nano capacitors, millions and billions of them). Something like that is a civilization changer.<<
I was almost dumbstruck by the concept when I read your comment. How glad I am to learn it's further along than just imagination! Depending radically less on oil . . . it would be a whole new _age_. Do you have any idea, even the remotest, of when OPEC will get its comeuppance?
>>Got it, nice resource, thanks.<<
You're welcome. I wonder what is the source of that site's reports. They don't wait for the quarterly 13F reports that straggle in long after the quarter has passed.
I haven't seen a collection that complete and up-to-date anywhere else. As far as I can tell, it lists every single fund AND institution that holds shares in a company. For example, it provides data for 432 holders of ETFC vs the 388 institutions for which the NASDAQ site provides data, and 591 AKAM holders vs the NASDAQ's 468.
Yesterday I posted on the ETFC board a summary of that MFFAIS site's data, and will do similar here with AKAM's data. MFFAIS uses tabs (instead of multiple spaces) between the data, and formats the date as YYYY-MM-DD, so converting it to a spreadsheet and sorting according to date is a snap.
This is ETFC's condensed 'profile' that I posted over there:
>>Out of a total 357,779,304 shares of ETFC, 71,834,972 shares (20%) have been sold since 26 December 2007.
Out of that same total 357,779,304 ETFC, 7,927,848 shares (ONLY 2.22%) were sold during last month's window dressing!
So far, about a third of the way through this month, a net total of 989 ETFC were reported BOUGHT.<<
>>They [Royal Bank of Scotland Group] just do it. :-)<<
Sage investors, those Scots. :-) Do you think they didn't read the Fortune article ("The day $2 billion walked out the door") before they did it?
>>No, I think the DOW could dip under 12k again or bounce to 12.7k or so but probably stay in that range for quite a while. I hope I'm wrong but I don't see the underlying problem going away very fast.<<
I do not believe you're wrong. GE's report just gave us another example as to how far the subprime mortgage crisis can range. GE itself didn't participate in the greedy maneuvers, but was a victim of the fallout. What will other earnings reports be like in the next couple of weeks?
Since yesterday's market is more vivid in my memory, I was remembering the rest of the week as good. But the 5 day chart shows all the major indices trending down throughout the whole week, with some bounce only on Thursday. AKAM virtually tied with the NASDAQ, which underperformed the DJI, S&P, and NYA; and AAPL and GOOG underperformed the whole lot of 'em. Adding ETFC to that chart makes the rest look good. :-)
Well, isn't this interesting! In wandering through the stockscape I came to a headline that said "E Trade Finl Corp (ETFC) dumped by America First Investment Advisors Llc." The subhead reads "2008-04-11 - Filings made public today, showed America First Investment Advisors Llc completely dumped all -2,000 shares they owned of E Trade Finl Corp (ETFC)." Remember telling me on Thursday you thought the selloff of ETFC was probably some fund selling a lot of it? A lot more than -2,000 shares got sold in big blocks that day, but right there is one fund that sold it.
The site that reported that ETFC sale is VERY worth bookmarking!! It's called MFFAIS, "Mutual Fund Facts About Individual Stocks." When you search for a stock, it lists how many funds are brand new owners of the stock, how many increased their existing holdings, have made no change, have reduced their existing holdings, and liquidated. Then, when you scroll down the page, it lists every owner of that stock and the DATES each fund REPORTED its buy, add, sell, partial sell, whatever. Here's ETFC's page:
When I had Safari search for '2008-04', I found that on the 11th the headlined fund reported selling -2,000 ETFC, on the 10th Marathon Capital Group added 4,000, and on the 9th Lazard Asset Management sold all of their shares, fewer than 1,011. So the net trading last week was in ETFC's favor.
Hmmm. The Scots may know something. ;-) On the last day of last month, the Royal Bank of Scotland Group reported that they bought 329,421 ETFC.
Being window dressing month, a lot of activity occurred in March.
This site is so informative that I'm wondering if it is introducing itself and will eventually charge a fee.
>>I do? I guess it's just natural ebullience masking pure disgust with the market. I'll try to keep it under control. No bargain hunting here, I'm just riding the roller coaster and trying to keep lunch down.<<
LOL If it'll make you feel any better, what you just said is worth $50. Readers' Digest features a monthly page of readers' contributions called "Toward More Picturesque Speech" and yours leaps right past the 'toward'. Original picturesque speech earns $50 (first contributor of a quote gets $35).
What I was remembering was your post to stocks23453783, that you're "not sure we'll get a lot worse either . . . we could bounce around here two or three quarters easy." Was today too much bounce? :-)
>>Looks like your handle is saved for the moment.<<
Yikes, yes. And it's keeping me from pressing the 'Buy' button for ETFC. AAPL is on sale again, though very far from cheap. But I'm fence-sitting. ETFC seems to be holding at around $3.76.
You seem relatively optimistic about the market today. Are you looking for bargains yet?
>>I don't know . . . it has to be of a certain length and of a certain (rather perfect) shape and of a certain volume and only then will it take off into the wide blue yonder. <<
IBD founder Bill O'Neill, who traded by the charts along with fundamentals, was the one who 'discovered' the cup and handle formation. The volume requirerment actually prevents similar shapes from being 'valid' cups and handles. Probably some chart patterns are more reliable than others; I don't know where the cup and handle fits in.
>>I've always thought there was an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in TA, but when the specifications become too arcane they must lose their power to excite the enthusiasts to buy and fulfill the prophecy. Then they probably become just excuses for the failure of the pattern to launch a rally.<<
The more arcane the specifications, the less inclined I am to pay them any heed, that's for sure. And I believe with you that self-fulfilling prophecy figures strongly in TA. But that's the reason I pay attention to it. Since the market's big money trades by the chart, I look to the charts for clues to big money's direction. The whole go 'round is probably like the water cycle or the oxygen cycle.
So AAPL disappointed today. :-) It returned to simply going up and abandoned its nascent handle. How we gonna get rich if AAPL keeps going up without forming a handle? :-o
>>I don't know, that sounds like detecting the pattern based on the effect, any dip before a rise is a cup and handle, every other dip is just a dip.<<
That particular dip needs to be shaped like a cup (rounded bottom as opposed to, for instance, zigzagging or a head-and-shoulders) and handle, and to be several weeks wide. Most dips are briefer, except like the one AKAM experienced. And that was no dip, 'twas more like a crater.
>>Clearly you cannot just go with the shape. I see that shape all over the place and from my recent brief survey (e.g. check the AKAM thumbnail) the stock is as likely to dive as rally from it.<<
I just learned some more about cups and handles at Alan Farley's site. His name doesn't sign the article, but he wrote the book (© 2008 McGraw-Hill and Brooke) from which it was taken. I think he also teaches TA; elsewhere he's mentioned his students.
His examples don't look like perfectly rounded cups, in fact two of them have the 'V' that Investopedia says to avoid. And volume is not something in stone, though he does say that a stock's new rally needs volume to support its price in order to succeed.
And . . .
Many predictive C&H formations never meet these standard definitions. Handles can retrace deeply or actually build a base at new highs above the cup. Volume can break all the rules as the pattern forms but still show excellent accumulation by the time the breakout erupts. And a deep handle may even push toward the low of the cup's bottom before the final rally begins. . . .
The bottom line seems to be that a genuine cup and handle formation leads to a stock's new high, a significant rise. The problem is identifying them in time, not after a cup and handle is a fait accompli. Is Apple's for real? I wish I knew!
I'm looking now at AKAM's thumbnail. Might some of those be short term cups and handles indicating short term rallies, kind of like thumbnails of the full-size cups and handles?
>>I hope you're right but on that original AAPL chart I see three cups and handles the first after which AAPL climbs away, the second after which AAPL dives and this one which hasn't gone anywhere yet.<<
That first cup and handle you're looking at has a V formation at its bottom, and the Investopedia article says cups with a sharp 'V' bottom should be avoided. And the span of both of those cups is less than a month. Investopedia says their length can range between seven and sixty-five weeks. AAPL's cup is almost eleven weeks 'wide'. The article adds:
Generally, cups with longer and more "U" shaped bottoms, the stronger the signal.
Today's dip is adding to AAPL's 'handle', if it does turn out to be a cup and handle. I'll see what I can find elsewhere about cups and handles. Alan Farley will probably have way more information about them than Investopedia.
>>I haven't a clue about Chinese iPod and iPhone addiction. I only learned they even had (purloined) iPhones a few weeks ago.<<
At least you know it's an addiction. :-) iSuppli has been spying on iPhone users. Did you know that the average mobile handset owners in this country talk on their phone about 72 percent of the time while iPhone users spend _less_ than _half_ their time talking on theirs?
>>Make that below average.<<
I need to correct a volume item, too. When I read further Investopedia's description of a stock's cup-and-handle formation, I found AAPL's volume didn't conform to that of the cup and handle. Investopedia says:
Volume - Volume should dry up on the decline and remain lower than average in the base of the bowl. It should then increase when the stock finally starts to make its move back up to test the old high.
AAPL's volume was higher in the cup's base and decreased somewhat during its climb up. Maybe it's the anti-cup-and-handle?