H. T. Love

Is There 22% Less Volume Behind the Current S&P Rally?

On Aug 30 08:20 PM Albertarocks wrote:

><snip>

> From what I can see of your mindset though, I'd say keep doing what
> you're doing because you make sense. You seem logical, skeptical
> and careful and most important of all, you're definitely not a sheep.

In a past life, those traits were taught me by both some very smart people and my own mistakes.

> Those are all required and healthy traits. I'm certainly no expert,
> but I have studied for 40 years (off and on). And I still haven't
> made it, but getting wiser with each mistake.

Well, I'm oprating on the theory that I can tolerate a thousand small cuts, but not beheading. >8-O

I set up one account with my learning cash in it and try to make it last. That's working well so far. One of the most important things it taught me was to manage losses. When I first started, I only thought of making gains. The nice side effect of that lesson was it automatically removed the emotional component that seems to accompany the "stayed in too long" mistake.

> Let's hope I have
> some dry powder by time I've got it all figured out. :-)

If you're like me, you lose interest shortly after you've got it all figured out. It's the challenge of learning and succeeding that attracts me here I think. Especially the learning. I see no end to it, as you noted.

>
> I sincerely wish you well and the best of success with your trading.
> It can be a ton of fun or a great big bowl of anguish, can't it?

Amen brother!

> But interesting as hell, yes?

Yes.

Best of luck to you. I enjoyed the exchange.

HardToLove

Is There 22% Less Volume Behind the Current S&P Rally?

I'm still really new at this stuff. I've been studying and learning, but I am still mastering the basics and haven't broached Elliot of Fibonacci yet.

I wish I was further along, but my studying has been temporarily put aside as I watch and work with the markets on a daily basis - just making sure I stay conservative and make a little each week.

In time, I'll get back to learning - I'm happiest when learning new stuff.

But from what I've read, I'll save Elliot for last. I understand that even seasoned users of that can be fooled since it has so many subtle variations.

HardToLove


On Aug 30 06:39 PM Albertarocks wrote:

> H.T.L., I can see exactly what you're getting at about the apex.
> I know this sounds unlikely, but I thought I'd run it past you:<br/>
>
> According to Elliott Wave Theory, the shape of the price action within
> that fast rising triangle "could" be interpreted as a "leading diagonal".
> They are relatively rare, especially on such a large time scale as
> "daily", but a leading diagonal would actually be the first wave
> of a 5 wave series. If that's what this is, and I doubt it, an explosive
> thrust up could materialize. Although that scenario goes against
> every grain of my existence, it would not be impossible, especially
> considering all the stolen cash the banks have at their disposal,
> and the incentive they have to make it happen.
>
> Just food for thought. I wish I knew the answer.

Is There 22% Less Volume Behind the Current S&P Rally?

By the way, I meant to post that chart in expanded mode. When seen that way, the fast rising triangle's apex is at 1055. Note also htat price movements are consolidating within the rising legs.

I expect a break will be sudden and severe if/when it comes.

On Aug 30 05:27 PM Albertarocks wrote:
<snip>

Is There 22% Less Volume Behind the Current S&P Rally?

On Aug 30 05:27 PM Albertarocks wrote:

><snip>
> The volume on SPY peaked in Nov. '08 and has been on a down slope
> ever since. In the period of time from Nov. '08 until today, volume
> peaked in November and then a lower peak occurred in mid March of
> this year. Yes... volume peaked right at the very start of this
> rally off the March lows and has continued its decline right through
> this entire market advance.
>
> How's that for lack of conviction?

Sensible, I guess. Uncertainty does that to folks.

>
> I don't know for sure if this link will work but I'll paste it here
> in hopes you can see my chart:
>
> stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...;p=D&amp;yr=1&...

Worked great!

>
>
> If you can see the chart, scroll down to the very bottom where you'll
> see a chart of volume, complete with a 20 day SMA. A line drawn
> across the top of that SMA appears on the volume bars at the top
> of the chart. I don't know why it works that way, but that's how
> the yellow trend line (on the upper volume chart) was established.
> A mind blower, isn't it!

Indeedy! I've been focusing on the period just before the March lows, figuring that a "new normal" is in play for now and things don't behave the way tradiotional thinking would expect. I believe this is confirmed by the magnificent number of "stick saves" we've seen (MSM take - this market is *resilient*), the head and shoulders "failure", etc.

Since June, I've kept a much higher % of cash and exited positions much sooner than I normally would.

I'm less distressed sitting on cash and missing some potential upside than sitting on stocks with that sinking feeling.

Since GS has called for 1060 this year (and another GS lady called for 1100), my mind's eye has pictured them setting up their shorts so that when enough of us are sucked in they can pull the trigger - turn off the computers - and watch the market drop.

But if they are really working for the PTP/Fed/Polity, it may not work out that way.

*Uncertainty*, certainly.

HardToLove

Is There 22% Less Volume Behind the Current S&P Rally?

On Aug 30 02:49 PM Albertarocks wrote:

><snip>
> Not only has volume declined in July and August, the moving average
> of volume has been on a steady decline since the March low. The
> entire rally from March 9th has been on steadily declining bolume.

If you can use SPY as a proxy for what is going on, take a look at this chart.

static.seekingalpha.co...

If it expands and scrolls properly (not sure if SA has fixed this intermittent problem yet), you see volumes on 2/10/2009 to-date trending from546MM trades down to 8/28's 147.01MM trades and a low volume on July 17 - 138.53MM trades. Even for seasonal, this is absurdly low volume.

>
>
> I'd love to see the markets double from here, and to see everybody
> make money. But in my opinion we're about to see the markets collapse
> like a $3 tent.

Traditionally, that chart would indicate the tent should have collapsed long ago.


HardToLove

In Support of Goldman Sachs

On Jul 28 12:23 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:

> Ok so who do we blame, the Paulson who worked at Goldman or the Paulson ...
<snip>

I believe I offered one reasonable answer in my comment above:

"Unless one realizes that the government is *us*, under the constitution. That implies that *us* is the biggest problem here.

*Us* has abdicated *our* responsibility to *control* our government so that it is the *servant* of the population, as our founders intended.

Not only do we transfer responsibility for our governance to a select few, we do the same with our activism that should be addressing the issues."

HardToLove

Six Signs Economy Is Turning the Corner

More discussion, but not a lot more detail here.

247wallst.com/2009/07/.../

HardToLove


On Jul 19 06:33 PM H. T. Love wrote:

> On Jul 19 02:46 PM Old Trader wrote:

Six Signs Economy Is Turning the Corner

On Jul 19 02:46 PM Old Trader wrote:

> RiskReturn,
>
> Actually, in regards to CIT, the news isn't even that good. What
> seems likely to happen is the few "valuable" pieces of their line
> of business will be acquired, and the rest flushed down/out through
> bankruptcy. JPM is said to be interested in acquiring their factor
> business ( the purchase of accounts receivable at a discount, a form
> of business financing typically found in the garment/apparel industry).

There's hope! www.claridenleu.com/re...

$3B in short-term financing arranged!

><snip>

HardToLove

Six Signs Economy Is Turning the Corner

No, it was a result of other factors. Western Electric Co., a subsidiary of AT&T and Bell Labs, also a subsidiary, worked together to get a couple things called UNIX and 'C' out to the educational system.

This was in the early '70s onward. I distributed tapes to universities and did other things. Sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, I can't remember which, I went to GA Tech to give a 1 day class to some bright folks from DARPA who were looking into some technology solutions to make a distributd network that would be resistant to single and even multiple-point failures.

It was an easy class - those were extremely bright folks.

Long story short: in a couple years the network was in operation in the educational infrastructure, courtesy of DARPA and the universities and some additional government grants and free license to use the technology (UNIX and its underlying networking capability) from a monopoly telephone system.

Later on it was commercialized with the results we see today, both good and bad.

The "innovation" came from a monopoly industry that was permitted in order to satisfy strategic national goals since 193* - universal telephone service. They were permitteed a cost+9% (if I recall correctly) pofit annually.

The break-up of the Bell System was nothing more than the result of clamoring of new entrants that saw a profit opportunity. They promised lower cost, greater innovation, etc.

Well, the lower cost has now been proven an obvious lie. The innovation could have been provided by the Bell System, but that was suppressed to some degree by the constraints under which it operated (strategic goal and limited profit), Congress or any government entity could have encouraged the innovation by just changing the goals and accounting/profit under which the Bell System operated.

In spite of that, what you proclaim as the benefits of the new telecommunications environment was begun under the old regime. Internetworking, electronic switching, micro-electronics - all products of Bell Labs, Western Electric and AT&T. All before 1984.

Last note: wait until the next fire in a "central office" switch in underground New York as happened in 1978. See if you get your basic phone lines back in less than 3 days dealing with umpteen profit-oriented vendors.

During that "crises" we diverted No. 3/5 ESS switches in-transit and on production lines destined to other customers to New York. Programmers and anybody else in the Headquarters group that had installation experience and could be spared was TDY'd to New York to help in the rebuild process.

Our phne system was the envy of the world and our service and cost unparalleled. I seem to recall $6.96/mo included 1 handset, 1 line maintenance of all wiring, inside and out, and 1 phone number to call to get anything fixed or replaced.

Service was pretty good too.

Compare that to now.

HardToLove

On Jul 19 11:01 AM Bill James wrote:

> <snip>
> We need to tinker.
>
> The Internet boom resulted when communications infrastructure was
> de-monopolized in 1984.

In Support of Goldman Sachs

LOL! Good comment! That triggers my "associative processor"!

Let's see how this works. Companies and lobbyists give money to political candidaes and organizations in expectatn of "favors', even if only gaining audience on issues of importance to the contributos.

Exchange of "favors" for money? Sounds like they are *engaging* in prostitution, not just upholding it!

HardToLove

On Jul 18 05:09 AM Davewmart wrote:

> H T Love,
> Many cheers for all you have said.
> Financial complicity with these operators is no better than being
> a fence instead of a burglar.
>
> I think that members of Congress must have hearing defects, and instead
> of undertaking to uphold the Constitution, think that they have agreed
> to uphold prostitution! :-)

In Support of Goldman Sachs

On Jul 16 08:24 PM Kid Dynamite wrote:

> so Matt Taibbi has another piece up about GS,
>
> trueslant.com/matttaib.../

Is that the 7 part article? If so, a great piece and well-worth the read.

>
>
> and this time i think he's actually on point: he's accurate, and
> I mostly agree. However, again, he's directing anger at the wrong
> place.
>
> we need to hold those at fault responsible. that means voting out
> the politicians who authorized all this crap. Hey - if you want
> to pull your account from GS, go ahead - I'm a MAJOR proponent of
> my rights as a consumer - but you need to hold the elected officials
> accountable for their (bad) decisions.

See my reply to Davewmart. We agree.

>
> @JCC - my mistake was that I didn't buy stock in GS when it tanked
> because I thought GS was a symbol of the corrupt conservative administration
> that everyone hated, and that Big O would let them fail and make
> an example out of them - after all, it's "Change we can believe in"
> - right? how wrong i was.

Are you sure? *If* you recognize a corrupt institution and decide to support it, by buying/trading stock, doing business with them, etc., for purpose of personal gain, are you not then complicit?

I advocate that this behavior is what leads us to the current situation. "Good" men restrain the actions of "bad" men. This may be actively or by denial of support. When one's "greed" (in both the best and worst sense of the word) overrides the inherent distaste for the corrupt <fill in the blank here>, one is then offering support.

A personal example: my behavior to a credit card company. Having an excellent credit history and score, I used to receive all the usual offers that we've all seen. I had selected a small number of those and received their cards.

One of them, in the usual fine print, detailed exhorbitant fees for the usual actions. They also had the usual "default rate" actions ready to excessively penalize one for an occassional slip. But when I saw that their interest rate calculations (which would have no effect on me because I pay in full each month) were a double-cycle billing method, I realized that they set out to intentionally victimize those who typically don't read or understand all those things.

I refused to support that company by cutting and returning the card. It was a moral decision that overrides my desire for personal gain or convenience, or ...

My feeling is that any company has a "social obligation" to try and ensure that all their customers fully understand what they are getting into. The "fine print", lack of highlighting the unusual double-cycle billing method, etc. convinced me that they *intended* to victimize certain individuals.

Unlike some, I do not believe that a pursuit of profit absolves one of any moral consideration. If it did and was taken to the extreme, don't we obtain the ultimate example of the result of that - a criminal?

HardToLove

In Support of Goldman Sachs

On Jul 16 05:52 PM Davewmart wrote:

> One always has a moral duty to fight and resist the usurpations of
> the elite.
> I don't think we are in substantial disagreement.

I agree with all you said here. The ones who committed intentional defrauding of others *should* be incarcerated for a time comparable to or exceeding Madoff. Certainly the damage affected a far larger number of people and by a much larger magnitude.

They *are* responsible for their actions, regardless of how any general laxity in our oversight of the government has allowed the existence of an environment supporting these fraudulent opportunities.

> My beef is with those who seek to shift blame, by for instance blaming
> people who 'fecklessly' took on mortgages they could not afford,
> and implying that homelessness is now no more than just.

I agree. The feckless ones are a product of many societal factors that set them up for this. Our educatioanl system is a great contributor to this.

> Many of these apologists for the plunderers in the elite take no
> account of the fact that many of these homeowners would have been
> quite able to afford the expense they took on, if the economy had
> not been driven over a cliff.

I go even further. My basic humanity (empathy?) allows me to temper my "responsibility" attitude with a realization that all of us are subject to unexpected outside forces. On an individual basis, there are many deserving of assistance, I'm sure. Within each community, really the only place where this can be "fairly" decided, I hope that those who really are victims do find help. I'm not optimistic though.

We all need help, of some kind, somewhere along the road we travel.

> Much, much bigger risks were taken by the Paulsons of this world,
> but they took care to have set up contracts which freed them from
> the consequences of the ruin they have created.

Yep. It is really a shame that those who were in a position to recognize and prevent much of this, and those who actively participated in causing all this, will suffer no repurcussions at all - unless damage to their ego/image is considered sufficient. I don't consider it sufficient.

> Personally I would be quite content to see the people who made fraudulent
> mortgage applications go to jail, for, say, a year, where at least
> they can be sure of eating.
> I ask only that those who set up a system whereby no checks were
> carried out and built it so that fraud was inevitable be charged
> with fiduciary irresponsibility, investigated under Rico for criminal
> conspiracy in setting up a ponzi scheme in housing, and do their
> time, of, say, 100 years of hard time.
> Sure, others bear some responsibility too.
> But the names of the big fish are quite clear, and their guilt is
> of a different order to the general populace.

Absolutely.

> Stripping of assets, including those earnt by their conspiracies
> and passed to family members, and jail terms would seem just and
> appropriate.

I agree. And that is part of the responsibility "we" carry. To see that this is accomplished. Unfortunately, the entities we thought we had put in place to both prevent and redress such actions seem to be as corrupted as the individuals and organizations that pro-actively caused this. I include our elected officials in this. They let their "good intentions" and hubris determine their actions even when such actions directly contravene the safeguards established by our founders.

I am of the opinion that we need(ed) laws on the books that jail or remove elected federal representatives that promote rules, laws and actions that violate constitutional boundaries without obtaining the necessary amendments, fully ratified by the states. They all take an oath to uphold the constitution. If they violate that oath, through subversion of the meaning or intent of any part of that document or by willful disregard, they set the stage for the greatest damage to the fabric of our society. Our forefathers foresaw and tried to prevent this through the safegaurds they established. One could argue that the representatives bear greater responsibility for this morass than those that are commonly identified as responsible, just as one holds a commander responsible for proper oversight of those he commands.

And yet, "we" keep putting these same (types of) people back in the positions that are most important to the maintenance of a strong society.

HardToLove

In Support of Goldman Sachs

On Jul 16 11:19 AM Davewmart wrote:

> H.T. Love said:
> 'Unless one realizes that the government is *us*, under the constitution.
> That implies that *us* is the biggest problem here.'
>
> Doubtless Zimbabwe, for instance, had a wonderful constitution.<br/&g...
> that did not help when the guys with the guns pointed them at people.

I can't address that issue - no knowledge at all.

>
> If most people have no access at all to the levers of power, how
> can they be held responsible for the corruption of the elite?

We were originally *given* the levers of power, in the form of the ballot box and a limitation on the number of people each member of the House of Representatives could represent. Over time, we became apathetic and took our hands off the levers (reduced voting % demonstrates this) and early in this century an amendment was enacted that limited the house to 435 members (although I don't recall if this was ever ratified by the states). This one act removed the power further from the people and led to many subsequent "necessary" changes in the method and effects of campaign, communication and representation with/of those represented.

> It is plain that whatever the constitution may say that the oligarchy
> in fact have control of almost all of the resources, levers of power
> and the bloated military which has now been deployed on US soil.

Yes. Power will *always* rush to fill a vacum, acrete more power and strive to *never* relinquish it as long as the group is small enough.

>
> The Constitution is window-dressing, to be ignored whenever it suits,
> as can be seen in the actions of the Fed throughout this crisis.

The Fed is only the latest example (and it is unconstitutional too). Attempts to abrogate the constitutional limits have been going on, and sometimes/often succeeding, since our republic was established. Regardless, current/past abuses does not excuse us from responsibility *now*. It is never wrong to start *now* to affect the machinations via legal and constitutional means.

Discussions such as this one are one of the means granted to us. There are others.

>
> The people of the US are only responsible in the same sense as someone
> who is mugged in the street is 'responsible' - they 'shouldn't have
> been there'.

I don't buy the transfer of responsibility argument. Yes there are active and passive roles. But if I did foresee the risk (as did our founding fathers) and I ignore the good practices taught to me (by their documents - the constitution) I bear some responsibility for what has occurred. That does not make me the crook. But I do take responsibility for preparing myself for what was foreseen. That means, without any reduction of fault/guilt of the mugger or crook, I must acknowledge my share of the responsibility for what has occurred.

*If* I was ignorant of the risk, and therefore took no preemptive steps, I could reasonably argue I bore *no* responsibility.

>
> The sociopaths who are looting the country are the ones responsible,

and guilty and sinful and greedy, and ...

> which includes both members of the Financial community and legislature.

And the (non-)voting populace. And here is one possible end to the discourse. We disagree.

But if it makes anyone happy to place 100% of the blame elsewhere, go for it. After all, that is what the ruling class (politically correct) deem proper today - we are only victims and it's always someone else's fault. That way you carry no guilt, need take no corrective active and feel better 'cause you got it off your chest.

Further, it makes one more dependent on The Powers That Be because we have no responsibility for our own welfare. We have now transferred that responsibility to the ruling class. They have accomplished their goal - we now feel totally dependent on them.

An Elitists wet dream.

And human nature being what it is, guess who will take the positions of power in that scenario?


"You" is being used in a general form here, not "you" specifically.

HardToLove

In Support of Goldman Sachs

Unless one realizes that the government is *us*, under the constitution. That implies that *us* is the biggest problem here.

*Us* has abdicated *our* responsibility to *control* our government so that it is the *servant* of the population, as our founders intended.

Not only do we transfer responsibility for our governance to a select few, we do the same with our activism that should be addressing the issues.

HardToLove

On Jul 16 10:48 AM Leftfield wrote:

> I agree that GS is gaming a system that is allowed and encouraged
> by their incestuous relationship with our bloated, intrusive, utterly
> corrupt government. Pure cronyism.
> There was a time when real problem-solvers from industry took temporary
> positions in government. Industry making real products was the driver.
> Now it's revolving doors in an economy that's become a complete house
> of mirrors by financiers, lawyers and bureaucrats. What has government
> done to solve this? LOL.
> Voters have long settled for crumbs, leaders long ago sold out and
> Constitutional principles are now window dressing. I agree that
> big government is the biggest problem here.

In Support of Goldman Sachs

On Jul 16 08:53 AM Kid Dynamite wrote:

> <snip>
> @HT Love: i think what you're describing is the dilemmas of Capitalism,
> and how capitalism meshes with socialist policies. I think this
> stems from the quote in the post comment "if a company can legally
> do something to make a profit, they should do it" - which is certainly
> debatable. Still, i think much of the populist anger at Wall Street
> these days is misdirected, and should be hurled at the government
> for enabling these bailouts without foresight or real restrictions
> - not at the recipients of the bailouts.

I can respect that view even though I disagree. You stand in a store, a man with a gun comes in to rob it. What are you expected to do?

At *worst*, you try to step aside and preserve your well-being. You do *not* pick up a weapon and proceed to participate in the robbery.

If you have certain training, background, confidence, physical abilities and opportunity you might even attempt to aid the store clerk/owner.

I submit that GS and others did "proceed to participate in the robbery". This is *immoral*, not just amoral.

With their acumen, they *should* have attempted to aid ...

There is no ambiguity in this scenario *unless* one posits that "corporate entities" are subject to a different set of morals than society as a whole.

I submit that this is *not* the case. I suggest that just because an entity has an obligation to return benefit to it's "owners", it is *not* relieved of its *greater* social obligations.

This can be viewed as both an *absolute* morality imposed on all for the greater good of society and also as "enlightened self-interest" wherein the *long-term* benefits to all constituents (owners, employees, customers, community, nation, world) is realized to be supported by attention to the greater social obligations. As an example, a business can pollute short-term until the environment is so damaged that the business must re-locate to continue to operate. The community is destroyed in the process. Costs are increased *long-term* while profit is increased *short-term*.

Conversely, a business can operate in a manner which eliminates or substantially reduces this pollution. Short-term expenses are increased nd profit lowered, but long-term profits should be higher, for many different reasons. In this process the community is also preserved, good-will of the community is maintained, etc.

Regardless of that, no case has *ever* been made that elevates an entity above basic morality so that profits can be obtained.

HardToLove