20 replies to this topic

[TTHQ Staff]

Per the evidence presented above from Jason Geopfert at Sentimentrader.com, that assertion holds no water.

Firstly, DB, you provided a supposed, inverifiable quote from a paid service. Not only is that not evidence, but it may be in violation of Jason's TOS. Please do not try to use someone else's professional work without explicit permission.

If so that seems to send the message to me that we must never question the assertions of certain experts here so as not to offend, even if we have facts to the contrary of those assertions.

Isn't the whole point of a message board to present differing viewpoints in order to uncover the market "truth". But if presenting a differing opinion that is supported by facts and data is considered offensive and is prohibited then I think we all lose.

Secondly, Differing opinions are welcome. Questions another's assertions are welcome. Do it with respect and you will have the admiration of the entire community; do it by claiming you have presented facts when you have not will bring only the wrath of the board, and justifiably so.

Above all, civility and respect are not recommended, they are required. How you present your opinions and assertions are up to you, how they are interpreted is up to the owners and moderators of Traders-Talk, as well as those who report your comments for review.

[OEXCHAOS]

I can't vouch for Jason's work on volume, since I don't read his site, but I CAN vouch for Semi's and my conclusion is that if you think that low volume on a rally doesn't indicate SOME cause for concern (that needs to be contextualized), then you're in for a shock. We saw example after example and I've seen them over and over again here, real time. It's like anything else, however, it needs context and it needs confirmation, and sometimes it's not right or timely. Can't have everything. Nothing is perfect. Still, Semi was Bullish last week, even as he confidently noted that there's some work on the downside ahead (correct me if I'm wrong, Semi). As I think on it, volume is a lot like sentiment. Tons of folks look at it, most don't have much clue on how to use it, or worse, they totally mis read it. I posit that if you look at the real examples given here, you'll learn a thing or two. Mark

[U.F.O.]

Question. Has DonBart EVER posted a chart? I know the answer.....do you?

U.F.O.

[U.F.O.]

Everyone posting here, from me, to cheif, to anyone who can type on a keyboard says your low volume rally theory is FOS$it. Prove everyone otherwise. U.F.O.

[OEXCHAOS]

DonBart can post a chart by becoming a member and paying the modest fee for uploading the way you and Semi did. Still, Jim it's not a debate, or it shouldn't be. It SHOULD be a discussion with useful evidence provided which we can learn from. So far, you've provided us with some instructional material. Now if there are differing opinions, we should get something tangible so we can study it. But, guys, lets remember that the best way for things to go is for everyone to ease up and start over again. If things aren't better then, well, youngster knows what to do. M

[U.F.O.]

No prob Mark. I'll back off and allow proof. "Show me the money". No money? You best get the hell out of Dodge. U.F.O.

[thespookyone]

From my point of view, theories and ideas are one thing-trading is quite another. I guess I would need to know what kind of trader Jason Geopfert was, before I knew how to properly weigh his opinion. I, however have never been big at looking back in time, at totally diferent market situations-and trying to speculate that volume would react the same in all situations under different market conditions. All the examples put forward for the "low volume bull" case seem to be made from market lows-which I hardly think we are at right here. I have never had a webpage, or been a newsletter writer, but my trading expeience of over 25 years has indeed taught me not to trust in the duration of a low volume rally. If we speak of making trades strictly on volume, which I of course would not recommend-I would much prefer a high volume blow off top, or high volume capitulation bottom as a place to establish a profitable trade than I would a low volume rally. I'm not quite sure what the discussion is about, really, because even if the helium nature of this rise was not of concern-PLENTY of other things would be. I guess to not be wary of this latest rise, you would also have to be comfortable that BAD market internals were bullish, that rising inflation was bullish, slowing corporate profits are bullish, lowering of peoples home equity was bullish, negative breadth on many up days bullish, subprime and select hedge fund collapse-bullish? No snake oil for me, thanks. Spooky

Edited by thespookyone, 08 July 2007 - 07:02 PM.

[DonBart]

From my point of view, theories and ideas are one thing-trading is quite another. I guess I would need to know what kind of trader Jason Geopfert was, before I knew how to properly weigh his opinion. I, however have never been big at looking back in time, at totally diferent market situations-and trying to speculate that volume would react the same in all situations under different market conditions. All the examples put forward for the "low volume bull" case seem to be made from market lows-which I hardly think we are at right here. I have never had a webpage, or been a newsletter writer, but my trading expeience of over 25 years has indeed taught me not to trust in the duration of a low volume rally. If we speak of making trades strictly on volume, which I of course would not recommend-I would much prefer a high volume blow off top, or high volume capitulation bottom as a place to establish a profitable trade than I would a low volume rally. I'm not quite sure what the discussion is about, really, because even if the helium nature of this rise was not of concern-PLENTY of other things would be. I guess to not be wary of this latest rise, you would also have to be comfortable that BAD market internals were bullish, that rising inflation was bullish, slowing corporate profits are bullish, lowering of peoples home equity was bullish, negative breadth on many up days bullish, subprime and select hedge fund collapse-bullish? No snake oil for me, thanks.

Spooky

Hi Spooky,

Let me ask you a question. Does your 25 years trading experience teach you that bad news is usually priced in by the time everybody and his dog know about it such as the current bad news blitz on subprimes, hedge fund collapses, etc?

Furthermore I would dispute your claim of rising inflation. If one looks at the actual data it shows the cyclical peak for inlflation was back in late 2005 and has been trending down since. The ECRI Future Inflation Gauge also is forecasting falling inflation going forward.

So what are we left with for the wall of worry? Bad market internals and slowing corporate profits.

On corporate profits:

"February 6, 2005
STRATEGIES; If Profits Grow, How Can the Market Sink?
By MARK HULBERT
THE faster corporate earnings grow, the better the stock market performs. That is a tenet
of Wall Street, but like so much other conventional wisdom, it turns out to be false.
In fact, since 1927, according to data from Ned Davis Research of Atlanta, the market has
performed best during quarters when earnings are as much as 25 percent below yearearlier
levels. When earnings are growing strongly, as many expect them to do this year,
the market has tended to have below-average performance."

OK, so that one's no good either.

So all that's left to worry about is bad internals right? Which means that if the internals improve you will have no choice but to turn bullish. Or will there be some other excuse then to remain bearish?

Don

[thespookyone]

well, Don, if you dispute my claim on rising inflation, I'm curious-what are you buying cheaper now, than you were in 2005-personal aircraft?

[OEXCHAOS]

Hey, Spooky! How about houses and computers! GM SUV's? Passable Spanish wines? Netflix?