SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Technology Stocks | ahhaha's ahs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: sixty2nds who wrote (20759)4/12/2012 3:13:14 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
The DOW trannies are laying out a distributive top that double double tops the cycle and decade. I rate this as extremely bearish. It is possible for it to negate the structure but it has to negate it by advancing slowly through 5400 and then 5700. Meanwhile, what is it doing? On rallies it moves up unconvincingly to put in declining tops, in Feb, Mar, and maybe now. Given the ease of rise and the fact that the previous five days sell-off literally ripped away much of what was gained over the last 3 months, I'd say you have a situation of no conviction based on growing invisibility of earnings.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: ahhaha who wrote (20760)4/12/2012 3:23:11 PM
From: sixty2nds of 23552
 
All true, but INTC is making multi year highs again. Nobody believes in nuttn.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: ahhaha who wrote (20760)4/12/2012 3:29:48 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
So far today the DOW has rallied up to its 50MA on putrid volume also in their presumed cover, the ETFs.

I notice all the pies, especially the Chinese ones, are flying high but their ET flows suck. Both the DOW and the pies aren't rising so much from short covering as they are from Lil Guy speculation. How do I know? I watch the direct flow(!) and monitor ET flow in real time, plus I've been doing this for ...Is it time to go short? No. The market is so weak that it can easily rise. Won't break without news.

Some guy is preaching the virtue of the banks on CNBC. ET flow doesn't agree. I held GS because flow was good but it reversed and I sold at the top. Thought it would merely correct but now it looks like a much more serious downside move is developing. Hard to believe from a visible fundamental perspective, but how much is invisible?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20761)4/12/2012 3:36:31 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
Valid critique but only up to the DOW trannies '07 -'08 top. INTC is at its '06 top. Its '03 top is 31.

The situation could go either way. INTC doesn't have much downside risk because it has underperformed for a decade. It's not hard to see how its '90s trend is much steeper.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: ahhaha who wrote (20763)4/12/2012 3:57:27 PM
From: cmg of 23552
 
Markets don't usually repeat 2011 and 2012 but with taxes going up next year, election etc.............. it could be a rough 2nd half like last year..........Welcome back, ahhaha.......I missed your contributions. Hope all is well.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: cmg who wrote (20764)4/12/2012 4:19:30 PM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
Markets don't usually repeat 2011 and 2012

?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: sixty2nds who wrote (20761)4/12/2012 11:27:34 PM
From: frankw1900 of 23552
 
Nobody believes in nuttn.

Somebody believes sumpin. This has a PE of 70: ARMH



Maybe this weekend I'll have time to find what the story really is.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Lhn54/12/2012 11:28:04 PM
of 23552
 
bloomberg.com 

Fracking tied to earthquake activity? The new global warming?

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Lhn5 who wrote (20767)4/13/2012 10:30:01 AM
From: ahhaha of 23552
 
The atmospheric pseudo scientists believe that the climate is finely balanced. A small perturbation could launch a cascading causal series of events that brings long term change to the climate.

Then, since you aren't even willing to pick up one piece of trash the earth hots up and burns down.

They reproduce this argument as a further argument to get you out of your car. Underground everything is finely balanced. An unnecessary explosion in order to look for fossil fuel could cause the fine balance to slip.

Then, the San Andreas swallows LA.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: ahhaha4/13/2012 11:09:14 AM
of 23552
 
I happen to know a mid manager at GOOG. We were yakking about the mechanics of Adwords. I told him that I thought GOOG's entire biz model was flawed because Adwords was a disaster. Of course, he thought i was crazy. How could I utter such heresy?

Adwords replaces Yellow Pages from physical print space with virtual print space. Yellow Pages has a fixed price model. An advertiser pays a fixed quantity of money at the beginning of the year to run an ad in the phone book for the year. In contrast, Adwords has a variable price model. An advertiser can vary the quantity of money applied to Internet search discovered ads. Yellow pages locks you into one or several page display ads. Adwords allows zillions of ads that can be changed completely during the year, both in content and presence. One can see in Adwords a great deal of flexibility and that implies a great deal of variability in total return.

As long as Adwords is in a growth period where people transition from old media to new media advertising GOOG should do well, because variability of total return is small in comparison to increments of growth. At maturity variability becomes a big problem unless there's a way to add to search discovered ad value. In pursuit of such added value GOOG has created all sorts of gadgets that change the original simplicity of search. The consequence of this need has been nothing short of disastrous as any of you can confirm or admit.

Search on GOOG is impossible. It's counter productive to its intent since it delivers endless, irrelevant, misdirected matches, no matter how you qualify your search. You find yourself chasing all over hell and gone looking for your tail. Never do you quite get to what you're looking for and usually you forget what that was way before you give up searching.

Also, the entire money pyramidal priority approach alienates the advertiser through its tendency to deeply bury a competitive ad, and the advertiser learns that there's added value by reducing CPC without reducing response!

An advertiser has a better chance with the fixed display ad model of the Yellow pages to connect with a buyer. Thus, why not emulate the display model electronically? Instead, GOOG persists with text based disaster.




Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.