Jump to content



Photo

history of out flows


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,509 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 11:43 AM

https://www.siliconi...?msgid=32438822



#2 12SPX

12SPX

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 854 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 02:38 PM

And this tells you?



#3 gismeu

gismeu

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 699 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 02:50 PM

The way I read this is that at that level of outflows we generally have a market bottom, meaning here that despite a top, market should move up. Unless this time is DIFFERENT

gis
If you can't buy Happiness, STEAL IT!

#4 bigtrader

bigtrader

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 357 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 06:44 PM

And this tells you?

bet all your money on one indicator and watch the sky


KISS my avatar!!!

#5 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,509 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 08:40 PM

 

And this tells you?

bet all your money on one indicator and watch the sky

 

uhhhhhhh   how many???   lmao



#6 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 480 posts

Posted 29 November 2019 - 11:10 PM

A couple of observations: If the chart's not in constant dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) it's misleading since the further to the right you go, the less significant the amount is; 2012 had a healthy pullback immediately after.



#7 da_cheif

da_cheif

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 9,509 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 06:33 AM

A couple of observations: If the chart's not in constant dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation) it's misleading since the further to the right you go, the less significant the amount is; 2012 had a healthy pullback immediately after.

doubting thomases havent enjoyed the last 20k pts up  .....why is that....6750n0



#8 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 480 posts

Posted 01 December 2019 - 09:40 AM

You didn't address my observations but just replied with a non-sequitur; why is that? 666xyz