dmarc117 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 The rally we see this morning is basically due to a bailout of Greece by the EU and the IMF. My questions is do we know how much of that money is coming from the IMF? Do we know how much of the IMF money is coming from the USA? How do you feel about your tax dollars supporting some idiots that refuse to face reality? if people havent asked themselves this question about the usa yet, then theyre blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 That's not exactly right. In the short-term, the market can move based on news but not in the long run and it's not absolute like some believe. In a bull market, investors will use positive news to justify buying and vice versa in a bear market. It doesn't mean that there's not negative news in a bull market and vice versa. you seriously crack me up I'm glad you posted that because it exactly supports my claim (and discounts yours and dmarc's) that stocks do not trade off news. This also makes the wave theory I follow seem more relevant - the market doesn't move on earnings or news, it moves in predictible waves based on social mood. So, just to reiterate: The Elliot Wave Theory says that news does not matter, unless in fact, news does matter (in which case the Elliot Wave Theory allows news to matter). I guess this is sort of like when the Elliot Wave Theory predicts that markets will go down, and then the markets actually go up (in which case the Elliot Wave predicts that would have happened too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 you seriously crack me up So, just to reiterate: The Elliot Wave Theory says that news does not matter, unless in fact, news does matter (in which case the Elliot Wave Theory allows news to matter). I guess this is sort of like when the Elliot Wave Theory predicts that markets will go down, and then the markets actually go up (in which case the Elliot Wave predicts that would have happened too). Sounds like arguing with my wife. Even when she's wrong, she's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 you seriously crack me up So, just to reiterate: The Elliot Wave Theory says that news does not matter, unless in fact, news does matter (in which case the Elliot Wave Theory allows news to matter). I guess this is sort of like when the Elliot Wave Theory predicts that markets will go down, and then the markets actually go up (in which case the Elliot Wave predicts that would have happened too). Nice job on picking out one post of many. In another post I clarified that on a macro level news does not matter but news can move markets on a micro level or in the short term. Why don't you find that post if you're going to dig for inconsistencies. What you fail to realize is that EW forecasts the 'big picture' direction of a market and is not concerned with short term fluctuations. So, on a macro level, exogenous causes do not cause the markets movements but they can in short-term intervals. For instance, the Greece news did make the market move down 2 weeks ago, however, in the long run, when the market continues to go down, the continued down move will not be a result of Greece or any other exogenous factor. It will be declining because of extreme pessimism of investors driving it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Nice job on picking out one post of many. In another post I clarified that on a macro level news does not matter but news can move markets on a micro level or in the short term. Why don't you find that post if you're going to dig for inconsistencies. What you fail to realize is that EW forecasts the 'big picture' direction of a market and is not concerned with short term fluctuations. So, on a macro level, exogenous causes do not cause the markets movements but they can in short-term intervals. For instance, the Greece news did make the market move down 2 weeks ago, however, in the long run, when the market continues to go down, the continued down move will not be a result of Greece or any other exogenous factor. It will be declining because of extreme pessimism of investors driving it down. doesnt that pessimism come from news? i dont think people just wake up and say, fruck it, im selling today. they read the news and see sh1t sucks right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Sounds like a kewl theory, no matter what happens, it's always accurate. It should be the Elliot Wave Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Cracker Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 It will be declining because of extreme pessimism of investors driving it down. Won't that be because there is lots of bad NEWS if that happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 you seriously crack me up So, just to reiterate: The Elliot Wave Theory says that news does not matter, unless in fact, news does matter (in which case the Elliot Wave Theory allows news to matter). I guess this is sort of like when the Elliot Wave Theory predicts that markets will go down, and then the markets actually go up (in which case the Elliot Wave predicts that would have happened too). I think Ralph Nelson Elliott described it best: Wall Street has an adage that 'news fits the market.' This means that, instead of the news 'making the market', the market forsees and appraises the importance of the underlying forces that later may become news. At best, news is the tardy recognition of forces that have already been at work for some time and is startling only to those unaware of the trend. The forces that cause market trends have their origin in nature and human behavior and can be measured in various ways. Forces travel in waves as demonstrated by Galileo, Newton and other scientists. These forces can be computed and forecast with considerable accuracy by comparing the structure and extent of the waves. The futility in relying on anyone's ability to interpret the value of any single news item in terms of the stock market has long been recognized by experienced and successful traders. No single news item or series of developments can be regarded as the underlying cause of any sustained trend. In fact, over a long period of time the same events have had widely different effects, because trend conditions were dissimilar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I think Ralph Nelson Elliott described it best: Dude - he said that in the 1940's! If you think that "the market forsees and appraises the importance of the underlying forces that later may become news." still applies in this day and age, you are blind. The market is LUCKY these days to keep up with the news, given that we're well beyond using radio and broadcast television (let alone telegraph wires which were still in use then) for our primary news source. You are way way off base trying to make that a relevant quote in the year 2010. Yet somehow I am not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Nice job on picking out one post of many. In another post I clarified that on a macro level news does not matter but news can move markets on a micro level or in the short term. Why don't you find that post if you're going to dig for inconsistencies. What you fail to realize is that EW forecasts the 'big picture' direction of a market and is not concerned with short term fluctuations. So, on a macro level, exogenous causes do not cause the markets movements but they can in short-term intervals. For instance, the Greece news did make the market move down 2 weeks ago, however, in the long run, when the market continues to go down, the continued down move will not be a result of Greece or any other exogenous factor. It will be declining because of extreme pessimism of investors driving it down. If your theory doesn't care about the short term, then why did you post last week that your theory is correct after the end of a single market closing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 If your theory doesn't care about the short term, then why did you post last week that your theory is correct after the end of a single market closing? I didn't post that it is correct, I said that the market has most likely begun it's next wave down. The market has a long way to go before my forecast is correct. But various price levels can confirm whether or not we have begun wave 3 down. I posted those levels in this thread last night (9835 in the DOW and 1044 in the S&P). I know many of you feel better about yourselves trying to prove me wrong and call me out when the market hasn't even come close to what I've predicted. Last week appears to have confirmed the next leg down and because of what happened last week, I'm trying to warn you novices of what lies ahead. But if you think you can out-smart the market by listening to CNBC and reading the WSJ, then by all means, continue that practice. There's no reason for all this hate - what will you say when my forecast comes true? Can I at least get an apology out of all you sheep? Jeesh, so much for trying to warn you all of impending market danger. Continue getting long then - there's some great prices to buy at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 Dude - he said that in the 1940's! If you think that "the market forsees and appraises the importance of the underlying forces that later may become news." still applies in this day and age, you are blind. The market is LUCKY these days to keep up with the news, given that we're well beyond using radio and broadcast television (let alone telegraph wires which were still in use then) for our primary news source. You are way way off base trying to make that a relevant quote in the year 2010. Yet somehow I am not surprised. Do you have any experience trading or investing other than having a 401k? If making money in the market was as easy as following the news then everyone would be rich from that practice. Keep pretending you know what's going on in the market - you don't know diaper dirt my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Do you have any experience trading or investing other than having a 401k? If making money in the market was as easy as following the news then everyone would be rich from that practice. Keep pretending you know what's going on in the market - you don't know diaper dirt my friend. A classic verbal skirmish between soot-stained cookware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 A classic verbal skirmish between soot-stained cookware. Keep up the pile-on you ignorant sychophant. What we have now is a bunch of know-it-alls that feel better about picking on the guy with a different idea. Yup, you're just a sheep too - way to be average Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Do you have any experience trading or investing other than having a 401k? If making money in the market was as easy as following the news then everyone would be rich from that practice. Keep pretending you know what's going on in the market - you don't know diaper dirt my friend. That's cute and all, but you completely evaded my point. Somehow I am not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) Keep up the fight, Brent. The only profession that is more wrong and gets away with it than an economist is a weatherman. Edited May 10, 2010 by TimC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 That's cute and all, but you completely evaded my point. Somehow I am not surprised. You didn't make a point. Apparently they didn't have news in the 40s, is that your point? It's unproductive to argue with someone who knows a fraction of what I know on a given topic. If you can't understand the concept of news not moving the market on a macro level, then there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. If you had a deep understanding of market behavior, it would be obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 Keep up the fight, Brent. The only profession that is more wrong and gets away with it than an economist is a weatherman. I'm not an economist. Economists never accurately forecast anything. The fact that wiegie is constantly in disagreement with me gives me extra confidence that my forecast is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I didn't post that it is correct, Maybe not but I happen to remember the something along the lines of "this makes it insanely obvious I know what I'm talking about." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 You didn't make a point. Apparently they didn't have news in the 40s, is that your point? It's unproductive to argue with someone who knows a fraction of what I know on a given topic. If you can't understand the concept of news not moving the market on a macro level, then there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise. If you had a deep understanding of market behavior, it would be obvious. You used a quote regarding how markets react to the news that was mad in the 1940's. I clearly stated said quote is completely irrelevant to your argument 70 years later. Did they have the internet in the 1940's? Did they have satellite TV in the 1940's? Does the addition of those devices and their dissemination of news have an impact on how the media operates compared to then vs now? In short, that quote is completely lacking present day relevancy and as such actually disproves what you are trying to say about markets and their handling of news. It is archaic, but if you cannot figure that out, I guess I am not surprised. Your using it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how much the news has changed since then. Heck, the news isn't what is was even in 1995. And BTW - LMAO at you lecturing someone with less experience than you while you try to lecture a f'ing economics professor after you've read a couple of books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Keep up the pile-on you ignorant sychophant. What we have now is a bunch of know-it-alls that feel better about picking on the guy with a different idea. Yup, you're just a sheep too - way to be average Musta struck a nerve on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 (edited) You used a quote regarding how markets react to the news that was mad in the 1940's. I clearly stated said quote is completely irrelevant to your argument 70 years later. Did they have the internet in the 1940's? Did they have satellite TV in the 1940's? Does the addition of those devices and their dissemination of news have an impact on how the media operates compared to then vs now? In short, that quote is completely lacking present day relevancy and as such actually disproves what you are trying to say about markets and their handling of news. It is archaic, but if you cannot figure that out, I guess I am not surprised. Your using it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how much the news has changed since then. Heck, the news isn't what is was even in 1995. And BTW - LMAO at you lecturing someone with less experience than you while you try to lecture a f'ing economics professor after you've read a couple of books. Let me explain something to you - news only moves the market when it's convenient. It doesn't matter when the quote was made, it's relevant today and will be relevant in another 70 years because markets move on mass social mood which shifts over time, not overnight and not based on one news story. It takes several years to change the collective social mood of the masses - is that concept really hard to comprehend? The real market movers (large institutions, hedge funds, banks etc...) know the news before it's distributed to you and I. You and I are just along for the ride my friend. If you think you can make money in the long run by following news, you're sadly mistaken. Some of the biggest stock market movements have occurred on days with little news relevance. If it's not obvious that the masses are behind of the curve, then I can't really help you. Do you really think that following CNBC, the WSJ and any other popular financial news sources is the path toward successful investing? Can anyone really be that naive? Again, if it were that easy, everyone would be rich. People will make small lumps of money in the short term by following the popular news stories, then when the market tanks hard unexpectedly, they lose everything in one day that it took them months or years to build up. Edited May 10, 2010 by Brentastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Let me explain something to you - news only moves the market when it's convenient. It doesn't matter when the quote was made, it's relevant today and will be relevant in another 70 years because markets move on mass social mood which shifts over time, not overnight and not based on one news story. It takes several years to change the collective social mood of the masses - is that concept really hard to comprehend? The real market movers (large institutions, hedge funds, banks etc...) know the news before it's distributed to you and I. You and I are just along for the ride my friend. If you think you can make money in the long run by following news, you're sadly mistaken. Some of the biggest stock market movements have occurred on days with little news relevance. If it's not obvious that the masses are behind of the curve, then I can't really help you. Do you really think that following CNBC, the WSJ and any other popular financial news sources is the path toward successful investing? Can anyone really be that naive? Again, if it were that easy, everyone would be rich. People will make small lumps of money in the short term by following the popular news stories, then when the market tanks hard unexpectedly, they lose everything in one day that it took them months or years to build up. The bolded part is simply Flat. Out. Wrong. In this day and age we get the news, and have access to those 'trends' at the same time as everyone else, in the day and age of blogs, tweets, etc. Case in point - Iran last summer. No one could forsee the election results or reactions, it played out moment to moment to the entire world in real time. That simply didn't exist in the 1940's making that quote very very out of date in terms of its actual relevancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Do you have any experience trading or investing other than having a 401k? If making money in the market was as easy as following the news then everyone would be rich from that practice. Keep pretending you know what's going on in the market - you don't know diaper dirt my friend. you cant really say that. stocks react after news is out most of the time. unless you have insider info, you cant profit off of some news you dont have yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted May 10, 2010 Author Share Posted May 10, 2010 you cant really say that. stocks react after news is out most of the time. unless you have insider info, you cant profit off of some news you dont have yet. Yes, but only in the short term. News does not affect the longer-term trend of the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.