Forum Archive Index - October 2003

[fntradingsolutions <fntrade@bigpond.net.au>]

Good Snoopy well done only your main problem is that you do not have ONE
CLUE as to how TA Chartists operate.
I could not care what AMP was the Chart was all I looked at. It could sell
bananas for all I care.
The Chart gave sell signals.
The same with Chrysler Buy signals were the go, and this was long before the
Merger.

You see my point Snoopy TA does not interest itself whether crooks run a
business or nor, just the Charts that is all I look at. The Time to Price
balance and the Cycles.
I don't even know half the time what sort of companies they are.

As for Microsoft Hell MAN! If I bought 1000 shares in 1989 and held them all
the way to now even with the plunge I would be worth Millions.

Your argument is poor Snoopy Come on do better than that. I would not even
buy an icecream on your Knowledge of TA and sure to hell would not buy
shares on your knowledge of FA.
Woody
----- Original Message -----
From: <tennyson@caverock.net.nz>
To: <sharechat@sharechat.co.nz>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] TA Rules


> Hi Woody,
>
> I think the first point to clarify in your debate is that you seem to have
> lumped F/A investors together.
>
> There are many forms of F/A.   Buying for yield is one.   Buying for
> growth another.   Buying situational shares (those involved in mergers or
> takeovers) another.    Buying GARP (Growth at reasonable price)
> another.  Buying an index another.    There are simply too many different
> kinds of F/.A to lump them all together.
>
> >
> >If I was to purchase ASX AMP on fundamentals 2 years ago I would
> have
> >lost thousands. At $36.00 it was considered the jewel of Aussie
> >investments. A strong Aussie company with a great Future. At $25.00 it
> >was still a fundamental Buy favoured by many FA traders and Brokers.
> >At $15.00 Fundamentals were still telling us how strong a company
> AMP
> >was and still BUY BUY BUY was the cry of all the experts.
> >
> >HOWEVER!!!! at $25.00 my charts were giving me Major sell signals. I
> >did not own the Stock but I then at $25.00 bought several contracts (
> >Option PUTS )  and rode them down all the way to $5.00. I banked the
> >TA story.
> >
>
> If all you heard was 'buy buy buy' from 'all the experts' then I put it to
you
> that you were hearing what you wanted to hear.    I have done enough
> homework on AMP to know that valuing it is extremely difficult.
> Because of the kind of insurance bonds they sell, for example, the value
> of AMP is linked to the value of the FTSE in England.   Now how are you
> going to predict that?   That's right, you can't.
>
> For those kinds of reasons, I personally have made a decision to stay
> well away from insurance companies in general.  Why invest in an
> industry that is so difficult to understand, when you can invest in an
> industries that are much easier to understand?
>
> >
> >Chrysler was given up the ghost by every Fundamental expert in the
> >states: The Chartists dissagreed while the TA were buying the FA were
> >selling. within a couple of years Chrysler stock went thru the Roof.
> >
>
> As a result of the Daimler-Benz merger.   Nothing to do with the
> fundamentals of Chrysler itself.
>
> >
> > Enron Fundamentally a great company However creative accountancy
> > proved otherwise, the TA Traders were selling while the FA traders
> > were buying.
> >
>
> "Enron fundamentally a great company"
>
> Please, you are making me laugh so hard it is difficult to type.     Enron
> was an extremely complex energy trading business, so complex it was
> possible to disguise massive losses as profits.   And the people who did
> it are facing criminal charges.  If  an F/A investor was to stick to what
is
> easy to understand, they wouldn't have gone anywhere near Enron.
> Crooks will rob you blind.   Wearing a white collar doesn't change that
> fact.
>
> >
> >Even Warren Buffet got it wrong with the Tech stocks. He is great
> >friends of Bill Gates However he holds no Microsoft stock. Because all
> >the FA believed that a company selling only software for Computers
> >that would be on desks!!!!! ho hum could not possibly make money.
> >
>
> Warren Buffett did not invest in Microsoft because he doesn't invest in
> businesses that he doesn't understand.    Your 'reason' is just wrong.
>
> >
> >Yet
> >a 45o line drawn from the lowest low showed a steady rally from 1989
> >till 2001.
> >
>
> And after 2001, when the price plunged?
>
> >
> > Likewise WB holds no Intel stock, no Yahoo stock, no Microsystems
> > stock, no IBM stock no Apple Computer stock and no Pixar stock, all
> > for the same reasons, the Fundamentals were not good.
> >
>
> No, Warren doesn't invest in these businesses because he doesn't
> understand the markets they are in.    Pick your area of expertise and
> become an expert in that.  I am sure there are specialist technology
> fundamentalist investors who have done very will investing in the basket
> of stocks you have listed.
>
> Your presumption that there exists some kind of single F/A that is the
> one best way to invest is faulty.  The single F/A enemy you seek to slay
> with your T/A sword does not exist.
>
> Even people like Buffett never claim they make 'optimum' returns,
> beating out all possible alternatives.   They are simply very good at
> following their own strategy, which works for them,  just you you appear
> to be with yours.
>
> SNOOPY
>
>
> --
> Message sent by Snoopy
> on Pegasus Mail version 4.02
> ----------------------------------
> "Dogs have big tongues, so you can bet they don't
> bite them by accident"
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/