HOLY SMOKES : Did i read this right? Dow below 10,000 S&P;1,100 Nasdaq 1500. Is this possible by October?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I may start a thread with Jon Markman's columns. The quality of his writing lately has been outstanding. (It might not be him, I think those guys use ghost writers often).



<a href="http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/bundle-up-for-a-deep-credit-freeze.aspx">Bundle up for a deep credit freeze</a>



An eerie calm descended over the stock market in the first part of this week, or at least what passes for calm lately. Beneath the relatively placid surface, though, dangers continued to boil in the mysterious and savage world of credit, where companies get financed when they're not on federal welfare rolls.



The disconnect between the two worlds stems in part from the fact that, even after a year of living dangerously, most stock market participants still don't understand how terrible the bond market has become. And bond people are so despondent they don't have the heart to explain.



I hate to be the one to break the news, but here it is: Despite everything you've heard about how massive infusions of hot new money printed by the Federal Reserve and other central banks have thawed the chill in interbank lending, veteran credit analyst Brian Reynolds says credit markets have just experienced their worst two weeks of all time and show no signs of improvement. None.



Unless they improve soon, you'll have to brace yourself for new lows in stocks as equity investors begin to anticipate the same severe recession that bondholders envision.





More...
 
I am going to admit some ignorance here: I did not know the futures markets for the equities indices had limit down sales protection. I have never seen that happen before even with all the termoil lately. The markets are currently limit down. Today is going to be very ugly...
 
Speaking of futures. DOW down 500 pts (max allowed). I've never witnessed this in my life. We can see a 1K drop instantly!



My problem? I only have a few puts! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Sucks. We can see a big whipsaw upwards too, or simply a sell off all day long. (missed opportunity)



Either way, I can't wait till the bell ring. This can be history.
 
3 Minutes in DOW down -400, Nas down -100.



The market might have enough steam to break through 7800 resistance. If it does, look out below as the next support level is around 6400)
 
[quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1224880437]3 Minutes in DOW down -400, Nas down -100.



The market might have enough steam to break through 7800 resistance. If it does, look out below as the next support level is around 6400)</blockquote>
I sold 4 of my 5 puts on the Dow and S&P at the open because I sensed that we wouldn't crash and I wanted to lock in some profits (about $4,500 total). I'll probably hold the remaining 2 puts I have for a bit for the hell of it.
 
[quote author="usctrojanman29" date=1224882728][quote author="blackvault_cm" date=1224880437]3 Minutes in DOW down -400, Nas down -100.



The market might have enough steam to break through 7800 resistance. If it does, look out below as the next support level is around 6400)</blockquote>
I sold 4 of my 5 puts on the Dow and S&P at the open because I sensed that we wouldn't crash and I wanted to lock in some profits (about $4,500 total). I'll probably hold the remaining 2 puts I have for a bit for the hell of it.</blockquote>


Nice play man.



Based on a -500 futures DOW I honestly thought we would open -1000, but I guess we are holding in. We'll see what happens in 2 hours, should be an interesting finish.
 
I just found out about the <a href="http://www.nyse.com/press/circuit_breakers.html">NYSE "ciruit breaker"</a>



Is the point drop they are refering to have to happen in one day?
 
I've got a question for a stock market guru. How can a stock have more than 100% institutional ownership? I don't normally consider that to be an important statistic, but I'm curious. The only possible explanation I can come up with is high number of (and naked?) short positions. But I'm not familiar with the analytical work that goes into stock reporting, so maybe there is a better explanation. Example: WSO (I own a small position -- no debt and nice dividend) is reported as having around 120% institutional ownership by Fidelity and Yahoo sites... "Only" 95% at Google site, but that still seems mighty high.



Anybody have an explanation?
 
What are these supports you guys keep talking about?



I have no idea why, but at the beginning of this week I felt calmer about the market. Friday last week I was fearing Great Depression bottoms (Dow 3000, 4000). But then over the weekend, it just seemed like DOW 8000 was a "real" bottom (in terms of where the market should be in a normal world). And I thought, we're not going to go below 6000. (no basis for that, just a gut feeling). I was looking at some of the big stocks and their balance sheets, returns, and I thought... yeah, that seems about right, to maybe undervalued even with a fairly bad recession ahead of us. (8-9% unemployment).



I guess I also looked at the Great Depression graph and looked at its extreme lows, and the fact that they lasted less than a year, and I thought psychologically I can handle that. I can handle a year. I can't handle 3 or 4 years at DOW under 5k. Too freaky.



That being said, I often think about gambling on a crash. Though I still don't understand how you guys do that. If you had 10k, do you say, I bet the dow will hit 6000? Then you sell it when it hits 6000? I still don't get it. I just have retirement accounts you know. I did just buy apple at $92 through my Roth from my college days. (My best working portfolio. I went all in to Pixar when they were just starting out. Then that got converted into Disney. So I just sold out of Disney into Apple. We'll see if that was a moron move in a few years).



I think I might be happiest if I bet on a super crash, because then I'd have made some money on a super crash which would make me less depressed about losing almost all of my retirement. And then if the dow goes back up then I'll be happy because my retirement account is still around.
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1224897822]I've got a question for a stock market guru. How can a stock have more than 100% institutional ownership? I don't normally consider that to be an important statistic, but I'm curious. The only possible explanation I can come up with is high number of (and naked?) short positions. But I'm not familiar with the analytical work that goes into stock reporting, so maybe there is a better explanation. Example: WSO (I own a small position -- no debt and nice dividend) is reported as having around 120% institutional ownership by Fidelity and Yahoo sites... "Only" 95% at Google site, but that still seems mighty high.



Anybody have an explanation?</blockquote>


no clue... google search yielded this from investopedia which claims the answer is wrong data.

<em>

Investopedia FAQs

A company I recently looked up showed institutional holdings of more than 100%. How is this possible?

It is obviously not technically possible for any shareholder or category of shareholder to hold more than 100% of a company's outstanding shares. Therefore, when you see investment information websites reporting institutional holdings exceeding the 100% mark, something is wrong with the data. There are two likely sources that are responsible for the reporting errors.



First, the figures in an institution's report correspond to an "institutional holdings date". These can differ somewhat among the various institutions holding a company's stock, resulting in differences that could impact the reported percentage for institutional holdings. The data presented is updated monthly with an approximate lag of four weeks. As a result, even a slight imprecision in the reporting dates among one or more institutions could throw off the count.</em>
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1224899583][quote author="GoIllini" date=1224897822]I've got a question for a stock market guru. How can a stock have more than 100% institutional ownership? I don't normally consider that to be an important statistic, but I'm curious. The only possible explanation I can come up with is high number of (and naked?) short positions. But I'm not familiar with the analytical work that goes into stock reporting, so maybe there is a better explanation. Example: WSO (I own a small position -- no debt and nice dividend) is reported as having around 120% institutional ownership by Fidelity and Yahoo sites... "Only" 95% at Google site, but that still seems mighty high.



Anybody have an explanation?</blockquote>


no clue... google search yielded this from investopedia which claims the answer is wrong data.

<em>

Investopedia FAQs

A company I recently looked up showed institutional holdings of more than 100%. How is this possible?

It is obviously not technically possible for any shareholder or category of shareholder to hold more than 100% of a company's outstanding shares. Therefore, when you see investment information websites reporting institutional holdings exceeding the 100% mark, something is wrong with the data. There are two likely sources that are responsible for the reporting errors.



First, the figures in an institution's report correspond to an "institutional holdings date". These can differ somewhat among the various institutions holding a company's stock, resulting in differences that could impact the reported percentage for institutional holdings. The data presented is updated monthly with an approximate lag of four weeks. As a result, even a slight imprecision in the reporting dates among one or more institutions could throw off the count.</em></blockquote>


I've watched this particular stock for a couple of years, and these high numbers are consistently reported. I would think that a problem in the timing of the reporting would be self-correcting.
 
[quote author="jefa" date=1224898024]What are these supports you guys keep talking about?



I have no idea why, but at the beginning of this week I felt calmer about the market. Friday last week I was fearing Great Depression bottoms (Dow 3000, 4000). But then over the weekend, it just seemed like DOW 8000 was a "real" bottom (in terms of where the market should be in a normal world). And I thought, we're not going to go below 6000. (no basis for that, just a gut feeling). I was looking at some of the big stocks and their balance sheets, returns, and I thought... yeah, that seems about right, to maybe undervalued even with a fairly bad recession ahead of us. (8-9% unemployment).



I guess I also looked at the Great Depression graph and looked at its extreme lows, and the fact that they lasted less than a year, and I thought psychologically I can handle that. I can handle a year. I can't handle 3 or 4 years at DOW under 5k. Too freaky.



That being said, I often think about gambling on a crash. Though I still don't understand how you guys do that. If you had 10k, do you say, I bet the dow will hit 6000? Then you sell it when it hits 6000? I still don't get it. I just have retirement accounts you know. I did just buy apple at $92 through my Roth from my college days. (My best working portfolio. I went all in to Pixar when they were just starting out. Then that got converted into Disney. So I just sold out of Disney into Apple. We'll see if that was a moron move in a few years).



I think I might be happiest if I bet on a super crash, because then I'd have made some money on a super crash which would make me less depressed about losing almost all of my retirement. And then if the dow goes back up then I'll be happy because my retirement account is still around.</blockquote>


Support/Resistance levels are formed when a stock/index can't penetrate through a particular level downard or upward. For example a simple "support" level for DOW the past few weeks is 8,500 or so as it has trouble breaching that. As soon as it does it gets pushed right back up. However today it finally pushed past it and we really need monday to confirm it. If it doesn't go back up on Monday, it will attempt to "re-test" its previous resistance when it dropped to 7800 (intraday) but closed higher. However, 2002/1998 and 1997 all have 7500-7800 resistance levels. It will be very very hard to penetrate through 7500, but if it does say goodbye because the next support is 6500 around yr 1997 (a very weak one too) and a bit stronger one at 5.5K around 1996 then to 3800 roughly in 1994.



Again the real strong support is around the 7500 level because nothing seems to be able to penetrate it. That is your defensive wall, your moat, castle whatever you want to call it. If it breaks through that I think we will have a real mass panic and you will see a 1500-2000 DOW as other supports are garbage. But thats just my opinion.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1224899583][quote author="GoIllini" date=1224897822]I've got a question for a stock market guru. How can a stock have more than 100% institutional ownership? I don't normally consider that to be an important statistic, but I'm curious. The only possible explanation I can come up with is high number of (and naked?) short positions. But I'm not familiar with the analytical work that goes into stock reporting, so maybe there is a better explanation. Example: WSO (I own a small position -- no debt and nice dividend) is reported as having around 120% institutional ownership by Fidelity and Yahoo sites... "Only" 95% at Google site, but that still seems mighty high.



Anybody have an explanation?</blockquote>


no clue... google search yielded this from investopedia which claims the answer is wrong data.

<em>

Investopedia FAQs

A company I recently looked up showed institutional holdings of more than 100%. How is this possible?

It is obviously not technically possible for any shareholder or category of shareholder to hold more than 100% of a company's outstanding shares. Therefore, when you see investment information websites reporting institutional holdings exceeding the 100% mark, something is wrong with the data. There are two likely sources that are responsible for the reporting errors.



First, the figures in an institution's report correspond to an "institutional holdings date". These can differ somewhat among the various institutions holding a company's stock, resulting in differences that could impact the reported percentage for institutional holdings. The data presented is updated monthly with an approximate lag of four weeks. As a result, even a slight imprecision in the reporting dates among one or more institutions could throw off the count.</em></blockquote>


What acmpe posted. Impossible to have 120%. As far as naked or short reasoning; anytime you are naked there is a debit/credit in shares. You are borrowing them so that doesn't create more shares.



The data you are seeing is inaccurate. My brokerage firms shows stats of 95% held by institutions. I called a buddy of mine at Bloomberg and he also comfirmed 95%.



EDGAR Online is the supplier of data for Google, Yahoo and even NASDAQ. So they will all have 120%.
 
<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/hang-seng-below-12000-regional/story.aspx?guid={9A530A21-01F9-4DE0-A439-504B07C91216}">Hang Seng gets whacked again, down 12.7%</a>.



Is it time to buy FXI yet?



Gold is down to $713.



The dollar is up.



Once again, the anti-Panda are up again. Thanks Panda.
 
Graph, my Boy!! Why you gotta make fun of me all the time and hurt the Panda's feelings. I may be Big, Round, Furry, and Fat, but I am very sensitive.



Let me give you four facts.



1) I do not own any FXI Shares, only in my investopedian Panda-less Challenge account which i bought at $32.

2) I did not buy Gold and Hard Currencies at March of 2008.

3) You are only a fool if you buy high and sell low. Panda hasn't sold anything. Well, I did sell out of all my positions in MCHFX and FXI in 2007.

4) You are a day trader. I am long-term investor. Do i really care that Gold goes down to $280, when i know in the long run Gold Prices will soar to $2000, $3000, $4000 an ounce? No, not really.... That's when i will be selling my Gold to you.



You seem to report your great gains in Shorting the market, but i have never seen you report any of your great losses. Hmmm, perhaps you own a Time Machine???
 
<strong>Panda Challenge Time Machine</strong>



<img src="http://www.tamegoeswild.com/photos/coppermine/albums/200707/brendan_joseph-panda.JPG" alt="" />



When this baby hits 88 MPH, you're gonna see some serious sh--
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top