32 replies to this topic

[...]

It remains a mystery why M3 continues to expand while M1 has actually dropped over the past several years.

Since the Fed hasn't published M3 for over a year, nobody knows (and few care) what it is, considering that there are other, more relevant measures.

The Fed quit publishing it because it wasn't an optimal use of resources, something we should all compliment them for doing. Not often a federal agency voluntarily bothers to consider whether or not they should continue spending money on something and then actually voluntarily stops spending money on something they think they don't need.

Of course, to conspirazoids, the fact that they did that is suspicious in and of itself.

A relative decrease in the rate of increase or an absolute drop in M1 isn't at all surprising considering that people don't need the same volume of non-interest-bearing cash and deposits as they formerly did. Ain't technology wonderful?

As for the real topic of this thread, the fact that volume preceeds price is almost indisputable. Spike-volume lows or furious high volume rallies from lows which follow through are the rule, not the exception.

Which isn't to say that there are any hard and fast rules, just a general tendency.

[HoseB]

[quote name='...' date='Jul 8 2007, 01:08 AM' post='298066'] [quote] "... As for the real topic of this thread, the fact that volume preceeds price is almost indisputable. Spike-volume lows or furious high volume rallies from lows which follow through are the rule, not the exception...." [/quote]

Yet, there are so many exceptions...

Years ago, I had a some effective volume oscillators [custom]... but at some point they stopped working.

I've since come to the conclusion that volume considerations for the market/indices are completely irrelevant, so I don't track it at all any more.

I venture to say that a great deal of money is left on the table by technicians who look for "volume confirmation"... in my book, there is no such thing.

I know, I know... this is TA heresy. But that's my story, and I'm sticking to it..

[JAP]

or his designee

This is pure conspirazoid junk, in which the routine government wording "or his designee" becomes some sort of devious subterfuge. Which is ridiculous.

All "or his designee" does is allow the named official to send someone else from the agency to routine meetings, with the designee instructed to maintain the agency's position as propounded by the named official. A Deputy Secretary of the Treasury or another Governor (Fed) or Commissioner (SEC or CFTC.) It could even be a less-senior underling. In no case does it mean ANYONE from the private sector. Ever. Under any circumstances.

If someone wants to yammer about a PPT which may actually exist somewhere other than in their fevered imagination, they might want to look at China, a closed, non-transparent government in a non-transparent country.

Since China is now redeploying significant reserves into private equity world-wide, they have both the additional incentive and the ready means to intervene anywhere they wish. They are probably ill-advised to ever do so, as it will not meet with the approval of the U.S. and others. But, it makes for a much, much better conspiracy theory.

The idea that the U.S. government intervenes in any way other than those it has always used, that is, jaw-boning, suggestions and the proverbial winks and nods, is pure, unadultered rubbish.

Do you work for GS, PIMPCO or the Carlyle group?

[DonBart]

[quote name='HoseB' date='Jul 8 2007, 08:11 AM' post='298076']
[quote name='...' date='Jul 8 2007, 01:08 AM' post='298066'] [quote] "... As for the real topic of this thread, the fact that volume preceeds price is almost indisputable. Spike-volume lows or furious high volume rallies from lows which follow through are the rule, not the exception...." [/quote]

Yet, there are so many exceptions...

Years ago, I had a some effective volume oscillators [custom]... but at some point they stopped working.

I've since come to the conclusion that volume considerations for the market/indices are completely irrelevant, so I don't track it at all any more.

I venture to say that a great deal of money is left on the table by technicians who look for "volume confirmation"... in my book, there is no such thing.

I know, I know... this is TA heresy. But that's my story, and I'm sticking to it..
[/quote]

Now now Hose B, lets not let a silly little thing like the facts get in the way of a perfectly good myth

[Rogerdodger]

"Of course, to conspirazoids, the fact that they did that is suspicious in and of itself."

Funny how just the use of the word "conspiracy" alone is used to put down a premise you don't like.
Then call them (me) conspirazoids.
Then call the premise "junk": "This is pure conspirazoid junk"
Then say that "few care": "the Fed hasn't published M3 for over a year, nobody knows (and few care)"

So I'm a kook, in the minority, who believes junk, and therefore, you are right.
Yet you really offered no facts to disprove anything.

Guess "they" were just buying coffee and donuts:

Recent melt-down prevention --record all time borrowing last week;

Edited by Rogerdodger, 08 July 2007 - 11:33 AM.

[SemiBizz]

Years ago, I had a some effective volume oscillators [custom]... but at some point they stopped working.
I've since come to the conclusion that volume considerations for the market/indices are completely irrelevant, so I don't track it at all any more.

That would be the sour grapes conclusion... there might be an answer and an adjustment you needed to make, you just haven't figured it out yet.. and have decided to give up on it.

Volume is completely relevant.

[relax]

totally agree, but seems as if people expect volume signals and patterns to be simple

and obviously they aren't, but semi is definitely using it to his advantage

so instead of just dismissing volume as key, read semibizz' posts - always interesting

Years ago, I had a some effective volume oscillators [custom]... but at some point they stopped working.
I've since come to the conclusion that volume considerations for the market/indices are completely irrelevant, so I don't track it at all any more.

That would be the sour grapes conclusion... there might be an answer and an adjustment you needed to make, you just haven't figured it out yet.. and have decided to give up on it.

Volume is completely relevant.

[...]

no facts to disprove anything

Neither I nor anyone else can prove any negative proposition, and it's not up to me to do so. It's up to those who believe the PPT mythology to do the proving. They've had about 20 years to do so. I'm still waiting.

[Rogerdodger]

Neither I nor anyone else can prove any negative proposition

Prove it.

[da_cheif]

clx analysis is based on volume.......nothin has changed about it since the first day of the dows life....some of the finest truths about the stock market remain the simplest....