Forum Archive Index - June 2001

[jerrold poh <pohj@ihug.co.nz>]

Snoopy,

hmm ... now that i've read your post, i can now see how my previous post
could've been misinterpreted.  i know where you're coming from ...  but
it's not the same place as i'm coming from :).

actually, i think i'll stop this thread now before it starts getting out
of hand with over analysis of who said what, and what was implied by
what.  thanks for your comments though.



jerrold.


On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 08:47:29PM +0000, tennyson@caverock.net.nz wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > the thing that really amazes me is that the tops of the graph always
> > seem to be sitting on the trend line, 
> >
> >
> 
> I don't think this is so amazing.   
> 
> The logarithmic scale of the graph will tend to suppress the 
> apparent size of the higher peaks.  It will tend to linearize changes 
> in price that are not linear.
> 
> Furthermore, consider the hypothetical case where there is a big 
> jump, one way or the other, in share price.  If the share price 
> suddenly jumps in value then the old trend is over, and that new data 
> point will no longer be on the old trend line.   A new trend has been 
> started.
> 
> Given this, it would be amazing if the top of the graph *wasn't* on 
> the trend line, if the trend line is appropriately positioned (see 
> explanation below).
> 
> >
> >
> > and even more amazing that that huge drop at the very end happened
> > just before it nearly crossed the trend line ..   
> >
> >
> 
> You are referring to Phaedrus's post on Telstra dated 22nd June?
> 
> If so what about the 'even huger' drop shown at the end of July 2000?
> That was nowhere near the trend line!
> 
> Actually I think Phaedrus could have drawn the trend line in several 
> places on that graph.   He chose to draw it going through the peaks, 
> but the same line could have been drawn at any height on that graph.
> 
> And if he had chosen to put the line at a different height then the 
> most recent drop would have occurred nowhere near the trend line.
> 
> The trend defines the slope of the line.   Not, where it is 
> positioned on the vertical axis.   And the trend is calculated using 
> the graphed data, so the fact that there is a correlation should 
> come as no surprise.
>  
> > 
> >
> >it's like magic :).
> >
> >
> 
> Perhaps it's time for some revision as to what a 'trend' is and what 
> a 'logarithm' is for you Jerrold?  
> 
> It is very easy to be seduced by a fancy graph from a flashy charting 
> software package.  I am sure that I could do an even better 
> presentation of share statistics that were completely useless to you. 
>  Not that I am suggesting that Phaedrus's graph was meaningless.  Au 
> contraire, it was actaully quite interesting and could be useful, if 
> used in a measured way.   But be careful about trying to read more 
> into information than is there.
> 
> So I'd say it's more 'like mathematics'.   I can't see 
> any magic here.  Take care. SNOOPY
> 
> 
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------
> Message sent by Snoopy 
> e-mail  tennyson@caverock.net.nz
> on Pegasus Mail version 2.55
> ----------------------------------
> "Q: If you call a dog tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
> "A: Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.