You need to register separately on the Chart Forum
- see Chart Forum Help
Edit Profile Profile Help Help
Forum Rules Forum Rules Advanced Help/Instructions Advanced Help
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Latest Posts Latest Posts
Search Search Forum Tree View Tree View
   
TSX Stocks 15-minute delayed

Archive through April 19, 2010

Chart Forum » Hilarius' Hall Of Fame » Our Daily Bread » Archive through April 19, 2010

««  «  Previous  Next  »  »»


Author Message

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 285
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 11:42 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio,

You probably bought my parcel of ESG - I sold them this morning!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1357
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 11:50 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM,

I'll remind you of that when it gets a take over bid.

Eugenio







Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 286
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 12:03 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



I'm sure you will Eugene! I'm sure you will!!!!

Good luck

Cheers
MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eagle
Member
Username: eagle

Post Number: 23
Registered: 02-2010

Rating: 
Votes: 2


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 01:24 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Further to discussion this week re CBOE VIX index (from Van Tharp newsletter). There were 2 charts which didn't cut & paste. The first was as per Rudy's post 3359. I've tried to replicate the 2nd chart and insert below.

Extremes in Volatility and Price Movement—Something Has to Give!

by D. R. Barton, Jr.


“May you live in interesting times.”
-- Quote originating in the U.S. in the 1930s

The quote from today has often been attributed as a “Chinese curse.” There are no credible sources that can reference the quote before 1936 – 1939 right here in the good old U.S. of A where traders are living through some interesting times indeed.

Sometimes B Doesn’t Follow A

The markets have seemed to follow this pattern recently. While many macroeconomic indicators still scream, “Recession!” the market continues its seemingly unstoppable drive higher.

Around the globe, central bank printing presses keep cranking out unprecedented amounts of paper money. The markets don’t seem to know which currencies to punish more, so they all kind of squirm without significant movement. Any school kid can see that money isn’t worth as much on face value as it was even 18 months ago.

And when we look at the technical aspects of the market, volatility is at its lowest levels since July 2007 by some measures. Indifferent to the fundamentals and technicals, the stock market keeps making new 52-week highs after one of the biggest 12 months advances of the post depression era.

As we’ll see shortly, the market is past due for an explosive move. But in which direction? Let’s look at two very interesting charts to gain some perspective.

The VIX Unvexed

Let’s take a moment to understand the VIX indicator (Symbol: $VIX).

The stated goal of VIX is to represent expected volatility for the next 30 days. From its inception in 1993, VIX did this by measuring the variation between put and call prices in the S&P 100 index. In 2003, however, some significant changes were made to the calculation of VIX:

• S&P 500 options are now used instead of S&P 100 options.
• A full range of active strike prices is used instead of just the at-the-money strike.
• The Black Scholes option model is no longer used to calculate an implied volatility. Rather, expected volatility is derived by averaging the weighted prices of out-of-the-money puts and calls.

Market pundits like to say that VIX measures the fear of participants in the market. High VIX equals fear and low VIX means complacency. In simpler terms, the old trader’s saying goes, “When VIX is high, it’s time to buy. When VIX is low, it’s time to go.”

As with all conventional wisdom, it’s usually right—at least eventually. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t tell us much about timing. VIX can be classified as a sentiment indicator and sentiment indicators are usually early.

Can You Say “Volatility Contraction"?

Let’s take two looks at the CBOE’s Volatility Index, which recently hit an interesting extreme that had technical analysts buzzing this week. This is a weekly chart of the VIX going back to mid-2005.

(The chart here is as per Rudy post)

The first thing we should notice is that VIX hasn’t been this low since July of 2007. The second is that the extreme highs reached late in 2008 were unprecedented.

Now let’s drill down and look at recent data for the move that got all of the tech analysts excited.



When the VIX has closed below the standard lower Bollinger Bands, that’s been a useful indicator of short term overbought sentiment in the markets. 12 of the last 15 such closes have led to short term corrections.

But be aware that this pattern is a relatively blunt instrument. Remember that sentiment indicators are usually early and that trading tops usually take time to develop. By no means does this tell us that the bull’s run is over but such extreme complacency does point to the high probability for at least a short term correction.

There’s a longer-term indicator that has reached overbought levels not seen since 1999. We’ll take a look at that next week. Until then…


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3365
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 01:51 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



XJO continues to play with the bears


The XJO continues to play with the bears as it also continues to play in its channel. Until the index breaks out of that channel the bulls retain the ascendency.




I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
bridog
Member
Username: bridog

Post Number: 82
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 01:59 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio, good luck . . I just bought some more LGL at $3.99


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 287
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 03:14 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hey Rudy,

Great chart on the XJO - there is heaps of support around the 4975-80 level and the bulls have held onto it really well today. It will be an interesting last hour of trade to see if they can keep defending it. I would expect it will hold (for today anyway) as I feel it would have cracked underneath by now if it was going to do so today..

Cheers
MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3366
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 03:33 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi MM,

So far that channel is holding. If you like this chart this one will tickle your fancy as well.





If by some miracle it manages to break through that 100% Fib level then the 127.2% Fib level is at 5298.7. I would have thought that it would keep that one for the next move up after our anticipated retracement.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3367
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 04:28 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Bulls have the last laugh again

No channel boundary breached today.





I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4929
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 06:02 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



It does seem as though there is no evidence of the market wanting to return to a level below 5000. But, interestingly, it does not seem to be convinced that it really wants to go higher either. It would not surprise me if we were to see quite a bit of "waffling" now, with bulls and bears pulling in both directions. It's a very crucial psychological level, as well as strategically and technically important.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3368
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 08:49 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Bear Market Rallies

Here is an interesting piece from the Chart of the Day website on Bear Market Rallies.

Chart of the Day

Today's chart illustrates rallies that followed massive bear markets. For today's chart, a 'massive' bear market is defined as a decline of greater than 50%. Since the Dow's inception in 1896, there have been only three bear markets whereby the Dow declined more than 50% (early 1930s, late 1930s until early 1940s, and during the very recent financial crisis). Today's chart also adds the rally that followed the dot-com bust during which the Nasdaq declined 78%. One point of interest is that the current Dow rally has followed a path that is fairly similar to that of the Nasdaq rally that began in late 2002. It is also worth noting that each rally lasted from about 300 to 370 trading days and then moved into a trading range/choppy phase that lasted for a year or more. In the end, the current post-massive bear market rally is by no means atypical.





I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3369
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Friday, April 16, 2010 - 09:16 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



XJO/TMF Divergence

Ody,

What is happening in the XJO at present is known as a creeping trend. Volatility is at a minimum and the market creeps up very slowly to new highs. What has been occurring of late however is that we are getting a divergence between the XJO price action and the TMF (note that the TMF is going down whilst the price action is going up).

With most indicators having the price action in overbought territory, it will mean that a downward move is inevitable. it is not a matter of "if" but "when". Whilst the index did pull up towards the end of the day, it none the less did not get a new high which could indicate that the downward move may have already started. Completion of multi-wave patterns will often occur at the 100% extension of the first wave of that pattern as may be the case in this instance. Naturally enough this will be driven by what happens with the US market tonight. It would not take much of a move down in our index to break through the lower boundary of the channel in chart that I posted earlier today. Once that occurs the chances of a reasonable move down increases dramatically.





I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3370
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 07:55 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Well, has it finally started? Should the bears get excited?

Perhaps we need to get some perspective with this 2 month intraday chart.





As we can see the S&P500 bounced off a logical support level. Now to get some further perspective on the move so far we look at the 9 month intraday chart.





I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4930
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 09:55 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



If a selldown hasn't really yet started it might be close now:

The recent milestones reached here and in New York, i.e. 5000 locally, and 11000 for the DOW, were always grasped, even by bulls, to be high levels of "achievement", and I would guess (I cannot put it more strongly) that in their hearts of hearts even optimistic investors know that it will be a great deal harder (and more dangerous) to get to subsequent figures of "beautiful numbers".

Those of us who on fundamental grounds feel that a bearish selldown cannot be indefinitely postponed, and that, indeed, the rally has already gone on for too long and too far, there is now some real hope that a trigger exists for a significant turnaround. Many major American corporations were sold down aggressively overnight, with Goldman Sachs declining by 13% after having been accused by the authorities of fraud. This will certainly focus attention on the fact that the world is NOT living in a financially soundly based economy.

The cause for the global collapse which started at the end of 2007 - and which has in no sense been adequately addressed - was that, particularly in the US, capitalism had betrayed some of the very principles which had pre Reagan made it a very workable system. As a result of that President, and Alan Greenspan, introducing the "easy money" financial "system", debt manipulation, rather than hard work and the production of real goods and services, became the basis for the creation of wealth. The people who in recent decades have thrived the most, in America and related countries, are on the whole those who most understood that the way to get one's hands on money was to borrow to the -nth degree, in the full and justified expectation that if you came a cropper the "system" would bail you out. So debt has increased to completely unsustainable levels, and the taxpayer finally picks up the tab.

After 2007 - indeed during it - governments had the chance to call a halt to the whole sick game, by letting irresponsible companies collapse when once they got into difficulties because they could not meet their debt obligations. Instead of doing this, governments made the matter yet worse by keeping interest rates low, bailing out companies with taxpayers' money, not insisting on repayment - or even exact accounts - of astronomical piles of debt, and by, unbelievably, stimulating with taxpayers money behaviour that had already been irresponsible and unsustainable, and was made the more so. Thus financial deceit and manipulation continue to flourish; and money is spent with gay abandon while debt should be paid off and money saved; the value of money is no longer recognised as such because you "cannot make money on money if interest rates are low, and therefore you use it only to borrow and spend".

Assets thus become the substitute for money in wealth creation, but on a speculative basis: buyers drive up prices for as long and as hard as they can, without regard for fundamentals, and thus assets reach values which ultimately are supported by nothing else than greed.

This is in many ways the situation the world is finding itself in. Of course there is also good and hard work done. But the prices of assets rest on a very shallow basis, and are highly vulnerable to correction. Ultimately speculators know that they are speculators, and others find them out, however hard they try to hide. People know, deep down, that we are still in a financial crisis which has not been solved but has, in fact, in principle been made worse. The printing of money - the final insult to financial prudence - will not be continued for ever. It cannot be, if there is to be any hope for sensible financial survival for most of us.

Thus the Goldman Sachs matter is merely one further piece of significant evidence in an unfolding story of financial disasters and misdeeds increasingly and inevitably coming to plague us because the whole bad scenario of economies based on debt and speculation has been allowed to continue, and indeed in a fundamental sense to get worse. Greece yesterday but also tomorrow - for nothing has been really solved there - and another G, Goldman Sachs, today and also tomorrow. China hugely over-stimulated. But so naive have people become that they now think that if money is pumped into an economy it is somehow "real" and lasting, and a sign that economies are "recovering".

The report on Wall Street below indicates how a NUMBER of matters show that things are NOT well in the land of the free. It is important to read all such materials with a clear grasp of the context within which disasters automatically will persist, and within which what looks like "good news" must never be taken on its own, but understood to be part of an environment in which debt is undertaken on too large a scale, not paid off in good time, or often at all; governments hand out money like lollies, print it at will, while creating further debt (for themselves and thus taxpayers) and causing totally skewed distortion of the "real" economy; and in which speculation has become a normal activity rather than practised by a minority: it is now normal to regard the share market as a place where you just place your money when the trend is up, no matter what companies are economies are really doing, and you just ride that trend - on and on, in the hope that it will go up and up and thus make you richer.

For a while, of course, many of such events can and do continue. But the logistics remain nevertheless what they always were, and at some stage the balloon gets pricked.

We may well still see a further bout of speculation in share markets, which do seem very determined and blind to the dangers they are creating for themselves. On the other hand, it is possible that at long last there will now be a growing awareness that the party cannot go on, and that it is taking place in a very unhealthy environment for it to continue. What is badly needed is a significant selldown to confirm that this financial crisis is very real, and has not been properly addressed. Real improvement can probably only occur if assets are significantly reduced in price from their current levels, so that enough people come to worry about the foundations of the whole "system", and do not see a selldown such as we had in 2008 as just a normal "dip", after we can just continue our game of speculation.

It is possible that the market will not really be sold down at once, as people will think further about what they have read, and may await further results and news first. But I would have thought that if we are ever going to see a "correction" it cannot now be that far away. Admittedly, I may once again underrate the appetite for risk. In some ways, if markets were to go yet higher, then that might be ultimately a good thing, inasmuch as the crash would then become a "real" one, which might just teach people a lesson they will not soon forget - in contrast to events of 2008, which to many now look as though they were just an aberration in a euphoric environment.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street overnight:

Wall St sinks on Goldman fraud charge; results drag

By Ryan Vlastelica of Reuters

NEW YORK - Financial stocks plunged on Friday in the heaviest trading this year, dramatically ending Wall Street's six-day winning streak as fraud charges against Goldman Sachs and disappointing earnings sent investors running for cover.

The decline was the market's biggest in nearly two months, taking the shine off a strong rally just as investors await a crush of earnings reports next week.

Goldman fell 13 per cent to $US160.89 in its worst one-day drop since January 2009 on a volume of more than 100 million shares after the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the Wall Street firm with fraud over its handling of a debt product tied to sub-prime mortgages.

"It's going to take a while for the markets to digest this as investors weed out what it could mean for Goldman and if other banks could be hit with something similar," Global Investment Trends president Tom Lydon said.

Financial shares around the world sank on the news as investors worried about a potential crackdown on other companies, with rival investment bank Morgan Stanley losing 4.7 per cent to $US29.42 while the KBW banks index lost 3.6 per cent. Both Goldman, which denied the SEC charges, and Morgan report earnings next week.

The CBOE Volatility index, Wall Street's favourite measure of investor fear, surged 16 per cent.

The Dow Jones industrial average was down 125.91 points, or 1.13 per cent, at 11,018.66. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 19.54 points, or 1.61 per cent, at 1,192.14. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 34.43 points, or 1.37 per cent, at 2,481.26.

After a rally that lasted six straight weeks, stocks were down as Google Inc, Bank of America Corp and General Electric Co reported quarterly results that fell short of heightened expectations.

Bank of America reported higher-than-expected earnings but said loan demand was low, while GE posted weak first-quarter revenue.

"People are looking for top-line growth more than the bottom line this quarter, and GE just didn't have what was needed," Mr Lydon said.

BofA fell 5.5 per cent to $US18.41 and was the top percentage decliner on the Dow. GE, another Dow component, sank 2.7 per cent to $US18.97.

Google lost 7.6 per cent to $US550.15 a day after it posted a 23 per cent jump in quarterly revenue, but some investors had hoped for even better results.

On the upside, Mattel Inc posted a surprise first-quarter profit, sending the stock up 0.4 per cent to $US23.84. Gannett Co Inc also posted a better-than-expected first-quarter profit, but the stock slid 0.6 per cent to $US18.04.

The Goldman news also had an impact on commodities, with crude oil futures dropping 3 per cent to $US82.95 per barrel.

In economic news, the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers showed consumer sentiment took a surprising negative turn in early April due to a grim outlook on income and jobs.

US housing starts rose more than expected in March while permits to build new homes scaled a 17-month high, according to a government report.

Trading volume was the biggest since May 8, 2009. About 13.7 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. Last year's estimated daily average was 9.65 billion.

Decliners outnumbered advancers on the New York Stock Exchange by a ratio of about five to one, while on the Nasdaq, about almost three stocks fell for every one that rose.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3371
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 11:36 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody,

You are undoubtedly aware that I share your concerns for the market both in terms of the fundamentals and many of the technicals. I think that the great lesson that would have been learnt by many (certainly by me) is that the market will do what it wants to do rather than what we believe that it should do.

We might have all the right reasons for why the market should go down but in the end money is made playing long whilst ever the market continues to trend upwards. I personally think that the market is way overdue for a retracement but we must face the reality of what it has done over the last few weeks which has clearly been trending upwards. For those interested in making money in the market the emphasis must be on closely observing what the trend is doing whilst having some idea of where it could decline to should the current move down be the 'real deal'. Whether it is the 'real deal' still has to be proven as indicated in my previous post.

In order to have some idea of where the market could decline to in the short term should this decline turn into the 'real deal' I provide the following chart.




I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3372
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 12:14 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



An EW count for the S&P500 which supports a decline

I have spoken enough times about the complexity of the wave pattern that has formed during the multi-month rally that started in March 2009. It has certainly caused most Elliott Wave analysts to forever revise their wave counts.

One wave count that would give weight to the current decline being the 'real deal' is shown in the chart below. It relates purely to the last part of the pattern that has been in play since early February 2010. It is an impulse wave that extended several times which is what led to the complexity of this part of the pattern.




I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4932
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 02:16 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy: market view

We are in complete agreement. As you say: the market will do what it will do, and that is not at all the same as what it should do, Nor has any attempt at predicting the turning point that we both expect so far succeeded in pinpointing it. So we are really travelling in an uncertain environment and with no sure sense of direction. For all we know the market could still go up to 5500 without any fall of any significance. As we do higher, and as now we have a few more truly bad pieces of news, it is perhaps somewhat more likely than before that a fall is not far off - but there are absolutely no guarantees of this, and there are a good many determined bulls.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ken
Member
Username: ken

Post Number: 626
Registered: 04-2003

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 03:12 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy,

Thanks for those charts and your observation that the market will do what it wants. I detect some regret from you not being in the market.

What works for me is the development of heavily backtested systems that do much better than I can by my own stockpicking. Each system has been optimised by, amongst other things, using index-related criteria in entries and exits. I use about 5 systems concurrently and none of them are individually in use all the time. This becomes a means of asset allocation even when I have no idea of where the market is going. So my asset allocation to shares depends on how many systems are in use. Only one system firing equals low asset allocation, and all in use I can have insufficient cash and allocation of 100% of the possible amount for shares.

In my super fund at present I have 3 out of 3 systems in use, and in my personal trading 4 out of 5 systems are giving me trades. Of course this could all change tomorrow.

I just have to be very inventive and identify the buy and sell conditions to limit the maximum drawdown for each system. If the real drawdown exceeds the previous tested maximum, then I'm out of that system. This tends to happen close in time for each system, so my trading can go on till this "bend in the end".

For some of my systems I have identified criteria for exit that, even if they don't correctly identify a top, improve the system performance. These are often what looks like a top, but doesn't turn out that way. If you are willing to take new trades after that date there is no harm done to performance.

This may be a way for you to deal with the current difficulties with your technical analysis. I know what it feels like, having sold a managed share fund a month ago and having increased my allocation to term deposits. I think you could have say a "buy on new high" system, get out when your technical analysis says to, but have a no-buy period of no more than a few days. If the market continues down you probably won't buy anyway, but if it goes up you will be in stocks again until the next technical target.

I hope this is of use to you.

Regards,

Ken


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
baysider
Member
Username: baysider

Post Number: 402
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 03:28 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody

Your last post is probably a very true reflection of the facts. With all the fundamental facts and detail you reflected in post 4930, the market should go down - but may well not. At present sentiment is still very bullish so unless more bearish news unfolds quite quickly my expectation is that the market will be bought around the old high on the S&P of 1551 which looks very close to Rudy's 38.2% retracement. All those people who missed out on the latest rally may see this as their last opportunity to get a good entry point + all the people who missed out altogether on the 2009 rally. I'll be looking for it myself I must admit. Despite everything it doesn't 'feel' like this is the end of the line - but of course you never know.

The market was massively overbought so the Goldman situation is a great catalyst to release some of that pressure and have an excuse to sell and set up some more attractive buying options in a week or two. Having sold 2/3 of my stocks yesterday I'm very happy to see the sell off and will watch closely to see where the market takes us next.

Great work by all who suggested it was time to sell on Thursday/Friday. Thanks

PS Eugenio, did you have a few brandies last night?!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4933
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 03:53 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ken: market systems

It is very clear to me, Ken, that you are very well set up, and that your systems work. What I can also see is that they have been set up to work according to your wishes for them.

But ... the human factor in the end remains paramount, doesn't it, in the sense that we all want certain things from the market and there are others that we don't. I notice with great interest the following statement:

"I know what it feels like, having sold a managed share fund a month ago and having increased my allocation to term deposits."

This suggests to me that you actually regret having done what you did. What intrigues me about this is that your human desire to expose yourself to less risk seems on this particular occasion to have overruled your system.

Personally I would not regret that, per se, for I feel that ultimately one's investing must satisfy, and be compatible with, what psychologically one wants, which in my case would be more conservative, I suspect, than yours. As I put my own desires first, I'd always want to be in charge of my systems rather than the other way round, which is why my overall "system" of investment (buying and selling) is pretty loose on the one hand, though fairly rigid on the other.

However - and this does interest me - could it be, in your case, that actually your systems are in fact perfectly set up to fulfil your needs? For if you have regrets, that, I presume, may be because you departed from the system. In that case, presumably you should give the systems the chance to do what they are set up to do and not interfere with them, right? Is that the correct reading on my part?

Incidentally, I think that to an extent it is always likely that one's wishes are not EXACTLY fulfilled in accordance with wishes as set forth to oneself at a particular time. Isn't it possible that if the market had indeed turned you would have been very happy to have got into those deposits when you did?? Things, whenever we take a decision, or whichever way we set a system (which is by itself done by decision), will work out in a particular way, and perhaps as well as we have a right to expect, but it is part of human nature to think that one could have done even better.

And no doubt, if we were perfect, that would be so. But I think that in investment the important thing remains to make sure that over time one gains more than one loses, and that one must accept that in order to achieve one's particular goal in accordance with one's comfort zone, there will always be "failures", from an idealistic perspective. So long as one's overall performance is good and profitable, and recognised for what it is (all gains and losses included), it does not matter, I think, whether in theory one could have done still better.

Which is not to deny that if one has made a mistake, AND ONE CAN BE QUITE SURE IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED, one should not try to avoid it next time round. I would agree with that.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4934
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:05 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider: markets in general

Oh, look: having seen the market go much higher than it makes sense, in my view, for it to have done, I would not be all surprised to see it go higher still. I see a sharp divorce between my own view of matters and those of the majority, and am well used to this in my life. I am quite philosophical about that.

I stated the reasons why I think that at SOME poin in logic our market ought to go down quite a bit: but I dare not presume to predict just when that will happen. I feel confident that the Goldman Sachs "business", Greece, and a few other things, will all work, even if in the "collective unconscious", to undermine confidence over time. But that does not mean, of course, that our turning point is necessarily NOW.

However, there is one figure in your post which puzzles me, and that is 1551 for the S&P500. Do you seriously mean that that index will go back there without any serious mishap on the way?? For that does seem to me like "pushing it", even if one assumes a lot of irrational exuberance.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3373
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:29 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ken,

I can understand why you use systems to invest in the market. During the period of my life when I was very interested in punting on the horses I tried every conceivable method of making money from that pursuit from in depth analysis of races to using a systems approach. By the time I actually did it professionally I found that the best methodology to for me was the use of systems.

The reason for this is that it took the human element (or judgement) out of the equation. When analysing a race you have to allocate weightings to every aspect of a horses past performance and the current race conditions. There are certain aspects that require judgement in the allocation of these weightings. I found from experience the ability to use 'judgement' depended very much on the confidence level of the analyst at the time of the analysis. During periods when undergoing a prolonged 'run of outs' it is easy for the judgement to go astray.

In the case of systems however, there is no judgement. You follow the rules for when to place a bet. If the system has problems then you may have to make some changes to it to 'tune' the system through backtesting of hundreds of races. Eventually you end up with a system that works or you throw it in the rubbish bin. That is the beauty of using systems.

Having said all of the above I can honestly say that I have yet to try investing in the share market using systems. I have since day one used various forms of technical and/or fundamental analysis. Fortunately for me this has worked for me over the years but in the last few weeks I can see that I could have created more wealth had I followed a more systematic approach. Whether this experience causes me to change to a more systematic approach in the future is difficult to say at this time.

I personally don't have any regrets about investing in term deposits for the bulk of my SMSF capital as for me safety is paramount. I do have a certain amount however that I am happy to trade when the opportunity arises. As you no doubt would have worked out I do enjoy the pursuit of excellence in share market investing and take each lesson learned as a step along the path. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3374
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:32 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody,

I think that you will find that Baysider meant 1151, not 1551 as he equated his figure to my 38.2% retracement level of 1149.2.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4935
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:37 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider, - Reading your post again I think you must have meant a different S&P number, for everything else in your post makes excellent sense to me, including your belief that there will be people looking out for an entry point who missed out in the 2009 rally.

It may just strike you and others as perhaps a bit odd that I went into that 2009 rally fairly confidently, and am much more concerned now. I think if one looks purely at what "Mr Market" does, as Benjamin Graham (Buffett's and many other people's great mentor) described the average unintelligent investor, then it would indeed make sense to such a person to go in now, while, s/he would argue, matters are "recovering".

My own reason for going in in late 2008, though much more aggressively so as 2009 progressed, was NOT that I thought things were "recovering", but that prices had gone low and as such were less dangerous for a purchaser. I believed that the market would, as always in a bear market when things are REALLY looking glum, produce a good old bear market rally. Personally I think this is still what the market presents right now (assuming the rally will still go further), though I would not describe the rally as any longer "good".

So I did not buy the fundamentals, but in essence the rally, pure and simple, on the basis of comparatively low risk (though I started - as usual - too early, i.e. at the end of 2008 rather than in March 2009). I stayed in for several months, but once I felt that prices were going too high in relation to fundamentals, I went out.

The reason for doing that, in my concept of things, is that in a bear market, which usually is part of a multi-year period of much danger and misery, the typical bear rally following the initial bad decline is promising and easy to ride when it starts from a low point, even if fundamentals are doubtful. Moreover, as - these days, certainly - governments and reserve banks provide much early help by means of fiscal and monetary steps, the risk of a collapse catching one unawares on one's way up is actually not high, particularly when the shake-out has been as big as it was during 2008.

As time passes, however, risk incurred by riding a bear market rally to my mind increases ENORMOUSLY. First, historically it is very rare for a strong bear market rally which comes after a big fall not to be followed, in its turn, by a big dip. Secondly, as prices rise, they have further to fall, and particularly if there are no strong fundamentals to support them: in essence, they are generated by sentiment - a very dangerous basis when that turns into unbridled enthusiasm without a solid economic base. Further, bad fundamentals in a bear market have a typical habit of for some considerable time getting worse, not better: it usually takes some years for them to improve. This means, then, that in effect prices go higher while fundamentals get worse. That, I believe firmly, is very largely what we are seeing.

That does NOT mean that I assume that "Mr Market" is already aware of this: on the contrary, I think the average investor is not, but is in the grip of a desire to make hay while the sun shines, a belief that economies are really improving, etc. So, yes, the market may well go quite a bit higher still, as it is "Mr Market" who typically decides, not me, as I am not typical. I try to move up with "Mr Market" when I believe that it makes sense to me to do so, not when I think that "Mr Market" is seriously wrong in his judgement, and underrates the risks of a fall. It is also typical of "Mr Market", I point out, to grow ludicrously over-confident at a time like this, but VERY QUICKLY to lose confidence when once a turn comes.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4936
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:38 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi, Rudy: I posted just a moment after you - and yes, I am sure that is the figure Br must have meant. Just a typo, obviously.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
baysider
Member
Username: baysider

Post Number: 403
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 04:40 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Sorry Ody got my 5's and 1's mixed up!

Should have been 1151 as Rudy pointed out.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
baysider
Member
Username: baysider

Post Number: 404
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 05:50 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Ody

I totally agree with everything in your last post. I remember well how you stuck with the market through 2009 with it seemed total confidence where as I was jumping at shadows. Not having been through a bear market rally like that before it was a learning experience to be sure.

Everything does seem very sentiment driven at the moment, poor old Mr Market will no doubt be clobbered again before they realise it. I must say I do think the media bare a fair bit of responsibility for this. For the unaware shows like Switzer, and the Commsec news bulletins pump out news that seems good and encourages you to join the party, 'the bull market is back' 'don't miss out'. I don't hear too much balance giving the potential down side.

Despite the facts all we can do is try and play what's in front of us and watch closely for indications that the 'big turn' may be approaching. I guess that's where Ken's systems come in useful, they cut out the noise and stop you trying to outthink the market. As you know I have been trying to use a system though I find I'm breaking the system by getting out earlier than the system tells me. None of the sells I made yesterday are 'sells' yet in the system so I may be giving up profits or I may have locked gains in, only time will tell if I was right. I hope by adding information or insights gained here that I'm improving the system - though of course there's never any guarantees. We all have to sleep comfortably at night at the end of the day. Talking of end of day, time for a cold beer I think!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4937
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 06:31 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Hi Baysider,

Breaking the systems

Isn't that interesting, that you should actually go against your own earlier decision when you now decide to exit earlier than your system tells you to? It could of course be perfectly logical. I note that Ken did the same, with some of his money, though he now regrets it (unnecessarily, I would think, but that is a personal thing). Most people who believe in systems will tell you that you must RELIGIOUSLY stick to them, so as to exclude "the human factor". That is, probably, very much a view developed by scientific minds.

I am not a scientist, and therefore perhaps more wary of trusting systems. One drawback of the approach, it seems to me, is that the systems are set on the basis of a number of assumptions/beliefs/facts at a particular time, while some time later in fact the systems would probably either work better or make one happier if one adjusted them as time passes. If I did use them, that is what I would do. OK: you may go out too early at present, and the systems may still be "right". But how sure can you be that the systems would not go on telling you to be in the market while in fact you should be getting out? In 1987 a significant amount of the then crash was due very simply to the systems - computers were already used for the purpose in the US then - having been instructed to sell if a certain stop was reached, and far too many of them having been instructed in similar ways, so that they helped to generate a proper bloodbath.

I think it is ALWAYS better to be out too early - assuming as we must that we cannot perfectly time the market - because it is downside risk which causes poverty, not missing out on some of the upside risk. What does it really matter whether, when you are in the market for a year, you make, say, 25% rather than 30%? If, however, you overstay, particularly when the market reaches high levels, you could very quickly be forced to sell to protect your profits and find that in the event you don't preserve the 25% which you might have locked in earlier.

I do NOT mean, in this, that people should not still sell when they overstay. Obviously, it is far better to lose 10%, for example, than 50%. But many of the best sellers, I have observed, are early sellers. The very worst thing that can happen, I feel personally, is to see one's profits all evaporate because one overstays, usually on the basis of the absurd belief that there is something very unwise about leaving the market. Such reasoning would have one travel all the way down in a year like 2008, in the belief that the fall "does not matter", and will "very quickly be recouped". Even if it is, why go through the experience? And the truth is that usually it is NOT very quickly recouped. Far better to get out, and buy back in at a lower level.

So I would not worry about going against your own systems. Even if your decision is "wrong", it is not psychologically wrong if you feel more comfortable that way; and always concentrate on what you HAVE made, I would suggest, and the losses you have avoided, rather than torment yourself with that extra profit that you might/would have made if you had stayed in for longer. I do not imply, though, that markets will turn already - though I do think they might, soon, for two important reasons: (1) 11,000 and 5000 seem to me psychologically important markers, and (2) while there is also positive news, the amount and seriousness of the bad news will increase, I believe, and indeed "Goldman Sachs" is a prime example of the kind of thing one can expect.

One thing to watch out for, also, is this: Rudy and I did cry, even if not for the same reasons, "wolf" too early. But a real danger now is that we might persuade ourselves that because that was so, the fall will now be a long way off. I don't think that that follows at all, though I do admit that I had certainly expected a fall before now. Just as I did at the end of July 2007. So in that respect I am not a reliable guide. I tend to get the picture right well in advance of the actual event, but am far less good at timing.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1358
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 10:05 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody,
If our market holds above 5000 on Monday then sentiment is so strong that we are clearly northbound. On the other hand if the Goldman Sachs debacle is felt as another serious crisis by the market then we shall have a real retreat.
Monday will be the decider. Tightening stops and batten down the hatches as we await Monday's market.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
rdumas
Member
Username: rdumas

Post Number: 3375
Registered: 11-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 10:28 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio,

Do you know something that no one else does? At present the ASX200 futures contract is down 48 points. The ADRs on the NYSE has BHP down 2.98% , RIO down 2.96% and WBC down 1.85%. Those ADRs point to a worse fall than 48 points on Monday for the XJO considering that the S&P500 closed down 1.61%.

Looking at the chart that I posted on Friday of the XJO, if our index falls even 48 points, it will spell trouble for our market. I would suggest that the chances of our market making it back up to 5000 on Monday would be 100 to 1. I certainly would not be taking those odds.



If it falls more than the 48 points then that gap between 4908 and 4891 is going to look very appealing.


I've given you my view based on what I know now. In another 5 minutes that view might change because of additional information. It's the best I can do - Rudy

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1359
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Saturday, April 17, 2010 - 11:04 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy,
I remember the New York Times headlines "DEWEY WINS ELECTION" and the next day Truman was President. However you are right with the odds but hope springs eternal and until it actually happens let's wait for Monday, besides we can't do anything about it anyway.

Eugenio

PS Never knew you played the Gee Gees Rudy , personally I never gamble.... I just play the market.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4938
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 07:18 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Rudy: I agree the indicators for Monday are very bad indeed. The futures (to be found on e.g. Bloomberg) are very, very much in the red (with the exception, thus far, for Japan). The figures indicate a truly bad day, and it seems as though both the significant rises on the markets and the bad news about Goodman Sachs, Greece, etc are finally beginning to make an impact, and will certainly send markets south on Monday, and possibly for longer. A good many negative comments on various weaknesses are appearing on websites in various places, as well.

If I did own shares, I'd myself take profits sooner rather than later (indeed, I would have done it by now in any case). There is probably not much upside in prospect for at least some time, and we may well be at the beginning of a correction.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1360
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: 
Votes: 1


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 11:52 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM,
As we await with baited breath tomorrow, the eve of battle on our market let me define the meaning of "girlie-boy". The first time this expression was used was by Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was running for office of the Gov. of California. It literally means men who are simply afraid. However a person who weights the pro's and con's of a serious situation and then decides what he must do is not a "girlie-boy". Selling shares when danger is present or taking a calculated risk is one thing but to be frightened on simple rumours against solid facts is being a "girlie-boy". As a example there is a medical distinction between Guts and Balls. In an effort to keep you informed, here are the definitions:
GUTS - Is arriving home late after a night out with the guys, being met by your wife with a broom, and the Guts to ask: "Are you still cleaning, or are you flying somewhere?"
BALLS: - Is coming home late after a night out with the guys, smelling of perfume and beer, lipstick on your collar. meeting your wife and saying "You're next Chubby"
Medically speaking there is no difference in the outcome. Both result in death.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
baysider
Member
Username: baysider

Post Number: 405
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 02:04 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Jaded we may need your expertise here.

I've just read on Bloomberg that NHC intends to look for other coal acquisitions if it's bid for MCC fails (as seems likely). Who else might be of a suitable size with suitable assets, preferably PCI coal?
If MCC do get taken over then maybe NHC might bid for Gloucester coal instead of MCC? WHC might another alternative. The main issue of course is that coal stocks have already had a great run so I can't see any bargains there unless there's a sizeable down day on Monday.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 288
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 02:23 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Eugenio,

I have no idea what the actual point of your last post was..

All I know is you're gonna need both guts and balls tomorrow as it's gonna get smashed!

Sleep well

Cheers
MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 121
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 02:32 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider,I'm 'at work' on BTV in the long term thread.I sold my NHC in 'anticipation' of a price fall.
Discussion on this thread re the REALITY of actual tonnage of PCI by Cockatoo [COK] was an 'attempt' by me to elicit info as a guide to possible NHC targets after MCC.
NHC will NOT takeover COK on current Market Info on COK 'Reserves" of PCI.

I know nothing of Glouster but doubt NHC wants in on it.Otherwise Why make a condition on MCC that EXCLUDES it?

I think that one should look at the several small time operations that NHC and Arrow[after the sale] will have 'interests' in.I've got a list somewhere of these but sorry,it's Sunday and I've been drinking so blessed well DYOR!!!

but realise,NHC don't throw money around for the sake of 'prestige'/empire building etc.They're New Hope nix No Hopers!!!
cheers.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4939
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 03:48 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider/Jaded: New Hope

Baysider, I agree entirely with Jaded on New Hope, particularly on the point that there is no way that the managers of NHC (60% owned by SOL) are going to spend more than what they think will quite definitely pay them well over the long run. And when I say that, I don't refer to a mentality that many have with respect to "the long run", i.e. "be prepared for a big fall first and hope that you will be ahead 10 years from now", or "buy first, think later", or "buy now, pay later". No: the outlook is that of archetypicallly long-term investors known for their caution. Question: are we paying the right (preferably a lowish) price NOW? Will this be a well-functioning business that we can keep endlessly without having to sell? (That is NOT to say they will NEVER sell, but if they do it will be for a huge profit.)

The idea of acquiring something on the basis of "we must grow and therefore buy" is abhorrent to such thinking. You buy when you see a good, valuable asset at a good - preferably too low - price; and you must feel absolutely confident about the quality and the likely longer-term prospects of what you are buying. You NEVER buy on the basis of the thought that "you must grow bigger".

So my view would be, if NHC is out, they are out. They will not be in the least concerned to the extent of feeling that they must buy something else instead. "Some other good proposition will turn up. And if it doesn't we don't squander our money."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1361
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:00 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM,
Actually I welcome a correction in the sense that this will bring out those timid investors who envied the last months results which ended in a top of 5000. Frankly I feel this is going to be a mild blip on the charts as the rush to buy "bargains" will be enormous if the prices really drop. By the end of the week I feel all will be restored and the market shall continue plunging higher. Goldman Sachs has learnt it's lesson. Wall Street will keep rolling northward providing the company results don't falter. Once the banks report a wave of confidence will spread to all corners of the market and GS will be but a brief episode in the continuing saga of the DOW. I'm ready, hope you are.

Eugenio


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
baysider
Member
Username: baysider

Post Number: 406
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:05 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody

What you wrote certainly makes good sense and inline with everything I've heard about NHC. Never the less here's the quote from Bloomberg:

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- New Hope Corp., battling Peabody Energy Corp. and Noble Group Ltd. for control of Macarthur Coal Ltd., will look for other acquisitions if it is unsuccessful in its bid for Australia’s largest producer of pulverized coal, Chairman Rob Millner said.

Macarthur said April 15 that New Hope’s revised takeover bid, which included A$950 million ($878 million) in cash, doesn’t represent an adequate premium for control of the company, and therefore will not recommend the offer to shareholders. Instead, Brisbane-based Macarthur said April 16 it intends to enter into talks with St. Louis-based Peabody, which sweetened its bid to A$16 a share, valuing the company at A$4.1 billion.

New Hope, based in Ipswich, Queensland, will continue to focus on coal acquisitions, Millner said today in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “If we can’t find anything in coal, we’ll have to go and look somewhere else.”


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 289
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:12 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Market plunging - but not higher Eugenio... Let me know when the market is sub 3000 and I'll be a buyer.... Don't know how you expect a mild blip to produce "bargains" as you mention.

Extremely overbought and will be until it falls significantly from these levels. Now it may in fact be that the market hasn't peaked yet but I expect that it will do within a month.

I note that the anniversary of the 5 month rally after the 1929 crash peaked on April 16 before dropping like a stone...Is history going to repeat??

Cheers
MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
bridog
Member
Username: bridog

Post Number: 83
Registered: 06-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:36 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider and Jaded,

I'd say the problem with Gloucester Coal for New Hope is that the Noble Group owns 88% of Gloucester and I reckon Robert Milner wouldn't want them to have a major stake in New Hope after consolidating with Macarthur. Also the critcs of the Macarthur/Gloucester deal say the Noble Group is getting a cheap entry into Macarthur.

I haven't followed Gloucester so can't add any value as to the state of their business.

Cheers


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4940
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:51 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



House prices: let us consider Adelaide - one of the dullest residential markets in the country

Our local Sunday rag, the "Sunday Mail", which, like "The Advertiser", our daily rag during the week, belongs to the Murdoch press but is not one of its greatest glories, is trying to tell us what a wonderful investment Adelaide residential real estate is.

It is worth considering the proposition with some care, as Adelaide is known, historically, for the comparative mediocrity of its residential real estate market, but also the comparative safety of that. Is all this about to change? Have we seen - are we seeing - significant price rises? Does this mean that the place is getting richer proportionately, and can afford those price rises? And so on ...

Well, the Sunday Mail has produced some interesting figures, without understanding what they mean. The most interesting general approach is that they are trying to read into the future on the basis of the past. That is, the simple projection they have spent their time on is that of calculating what prices will be if they continue to increase at the rate they have done during the past 10 years. In HUGE letters, the paper proclaims: 'HOTSPOT'S HOMES TO PASS $2M'. And, by their own reckoning, this means that there is at least a chance that the houses that have gone up the most in the last ten years will continue to do so. The price projected is simply, in each case, "what your area would be worth if it went up in price for the next five and 10 years at the same rate as it has over the past decade" (I cite literally, here). The paper does add that a suburb that has come up from a very low base may not sustain its rate, but no other figures are given.

So the figures in front of one do actually suggest that they may be accurate predictions for all areas considered. Is that AT ALL a safe assumption on a RELATIVE basis? No, of course not. Many of the suburbs that were already established "blue-ribbon" suburbs 10 years ago have not gone up that much at all, while several that must have seemed cheap to the buyers have been taken up to surprising levels on the basis of the assumption that they were "underpriced" relative to the suburbs that were always regarded as superior. In other words, I would argue that much of what has happened is unrepresentative, and askew. Several of these "undervalued" suburbs will not sustain their impetus. Unless life-styles wholly change, the (financially) better suburbs will continue to outperform over the decades. By itself, this does not mean that those will now start galloping. It is at least as likely that the "cheaper" suburbs that have been catching up will now stabilise, if not fall. In the past, they have often been the ones that fell away once the market as a whole cooled off, as a lot of speculative money had gone into them, and people once again came to look at quality. Then the quality homes would at least stay at much the same level - often over a long period - while the lesser homes would underperform. Indeed, there have also at various times been falls in the "quality" areas, notably those targeted as winners by people on margin loans. But often the non-speculative, duller quality areas have proved the safest.

And another complexity about the whole market is overlooked both by the paper and the real estate industry. It is NEVER frankly stated that many of the houses that have supposedly gone up so much in value are houses that are now simply dearer because during the last ten years people have spent so much on "doing them up".

In Adelaide, there are still a great many houses that are pre-war, solidly built, and well worth preserving. What typically happens is that the "lean-to" at the back is removed, after which another structure as large as, or at least 60%+ of the existing "core", is added. Such extensions do not come free, and I am aghast to see how many houses around me have been subjected to this treatment. The owners are without hesitation about their actions for "in our suburb you can't over-capitalise". It will be obvious that I do not at all trust the claim that on a COMPARATIVE basis the intrinsic value of the houses around me has gone up nearly as much as is so often claimed. Much of the supposed "gain" would consist simply of money spent on enlarging and modernising the homes.

Then, finally, there is the cry that actually demand is increasing, and that good ol' Adelaide is no longer what she was: even WE are benefiting from the mining boom, from immigration, and not least the new "educational hub" that Adelaide is held to be in the process of becoming (and yes, we are indeed getting more overseas students). All in all, it is reasoned, "demand" in the sense of "new buyers needing homes" is set to outrun "supply".

This all sounds very nice, in that no doubt a larger number of cheaper houses is needed. But for the housing market as a whole to do well, the first and foremost question must be: "CAN, IN GENERAL, THE SUPPOSED DEMAND *FINANCIALLY* MEET THE SUPPOSED SUPPLY?" It is all very well to reason that there will be more people than houses for them. It is a different thing again whether this means that as a result house prices will go up. It is surely possible to imagine that those theoretically in the market for houses cannot possibly meet the prices that they would need to if the market were to continue to go up at the present rate.

Let us look more closely at the past ten years. These are meant to provide a solid guide for the future - disregarding even the extra demand from immigrants, as that number is supposed to be higher for the future than for the past. So let us look at what the EXISTING/GROWING population in Adelaide had at its disposal, by way of money to buy, and how fast prices rose.

Presumably - one might at first think - house prices went up because the population of Adelaide became much richer, i.e. wages/salaries went up considerably, and as a result people paid more for their houses. It is known, indeed, that Adelaideans do their sums more carefully than almost anyone else in Australia.

However, the figures are rather a surprise. The Sunday Mail states: "The Bureau of Statistics found the median SA full-time weekly wage increased only 6 per cent a year in the past decade, compared with the annual 11.4 per cent property price monitored by APM (= 'Australian Price Monitors')."

Adelaide is a city where very few people have large amounts of capital, and not many would be able to pay for their houses by huge increases in their capital (through being wealthy CEOs, gaining a lot in the share market, etc) as distinct from the basic mechanism allowing them to pay the cost of their mortgages, i.e. their wages/salaries.

What we have, in fact, is a situation where ALREADY, in this on the whole fairly modest and cautious town, the prices of houses have, on average over the last 10 years, VASTLY exceeded the increase in people's wages. Yet the Sunday Mail (or is that the Real Estate Institute???) wants us to believe that this pattern will continue for another 10 years (even if not necessarily equally so in all suburbs). And no doubt additions and improvements will also continue to occur at the rate they have been undertaken during the last 10 years.

I don't think I need to draw further conclusions as to what kind of thing is ACTUALLY likely to be in store. But it cannot be, I dare suggest, what the Sunday Mail tries to lead us to believe it will be.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4941
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 05:15 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Baysider: NHC etc

My point was really that there is no way that NHC will overpay (according to their own valuation) for anything. I think that what you quote as said by Robert Millner does not contradict that. Of course, if they have the money - as indeed they do - to buy MCC, that means that if that deal were to fall through they MIGHT buy coal in some other form. It would be illogical if they were interested in one coal company but not in another if that represented good value. But it will be value that Millner will be interested in. If there is coal for sale at good value, he would buy. If not, he would look for other value buys if they exist. (He is not afraid of being in the market at all times, but the buying price, and the quality of the asset, must be "right"). If no value emerges in coal, he would look for other good value buys. And if none of them existed, in his view, he would stay in cash until the right buy comes along. The key issue is, for him, the question of value and quality, whatever the asset. He certainly won't be desperate to buy another coal company if that were not available as both cheap and good enough.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 123
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 05:31 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)




eblode wrote on Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 04:00 pm:

“If we can’t find anything in coal, we’ll have to go and look somewhere else.”



baysider/eblode,this is Coal to Gas that NHC will look elsewhere for.

Doing a Linc with the capital to actually do it!

There's no need to 'Take Over' anyone so NHC can do this.They just have to be confident that the application of a Billion Buck$$ will have it Happening.

Now CNX has 'improved' the system for Deep Seam Exploitation of Coal Seam Gas[with CXy and some others in on d'act] and Arrow has just sold out it's tenements for the Alternative Method of Coal2Gas.

There's some jargon UCG vs LCG or bleeding whatever BUT there's an 'Innovation' of upgrading Coal Reserves into more 'saleable' and 'enviromentally correct' Power happening that gives 'New Hope'.
There's a 'history' of the CNX/CXY/LNC 'method' but I won't go into that now.

Baysider/eblode,there's old technology,proven technology in 'distilling' coal,especially deep seam coal[unable to be 'got' at without underground mining 'dangerously' deep] that exists and only requires a Major Player to Invest In.

New Hope is in Coal to Liquids already in the US.That's because the Yanks want 'Petrol' Power Home Grown so as to not be dependant on the Middle East.
So NHC is already 'investing' in the new hope for Coal-Cleaner and Greener.

That's what,IMHO,it'll do with it's 2Billion$$[after AOE sale] War Chest now it's 'lost' MCC.

BTW we still have to see MCC accept the bid instead of 'poison pilling' by the Glouster Deal being their final decision.

baysider,there's High Finance going on in this MCC deal.Those substantial holders of MCC aren't necessarily after some Buy Out 'windfall' compared to Surety of Supply.
There's 'Forces' in play waaaay beyond 'greed' by small time holders of MCC.It's 'interesting' that the major holders are trying to get a piece of the new entity after MCC takeover instead of just the ca$h.Especially that the Peabody is Private/Non Listed Entity.

Baysider,IMHO the retail holders of MCC are being 'spun' just like the MIM holders were back in the 90's.Dark Plots,baysider,set up where one shouldn't 'Take d'Money and Run'.

but ya average retail 'investor' seems to be incapable of discernment between a dollar and value.

Frankly I think they[retailers] can't determine/decide when,at what price to Sell so they take any ca$h offer that comes out.
Sheep amongst Wolves.
Easy,Fresh Meat,be the average 'pilgrim to mammon'.

Anyhow,NHC has 'qualities' beyond such 'games' and has angles and ploys beyond what Bloombergs can or will tell ya 'til after the Event.

IMHO,that is.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
jaded
Member
Username: jaded

Post Number: 124
Registered: 03-2010

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 07:09 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Ody,re Sunday Paper Real Estate Valuations-
These articles are usually based on Valuer General statistics.
Thing is that Property Developers put in a Project like multi Townhouse 'things' [or a block of flats] and these get sold for say 50% more than the majority suburb dweelings,raise the average price and lead to headlines in rags/current affairs shows of Hot Spots.

Couple of years ago.the Brisbane suburb of Darra 'experienced' this.

My father grew up in Darra in the 1920's. He was in a 'dirt floor' hut.
I was wanting to 'downsize' from my current 'leafy suburb' house in the 1990's.
So me and d'bride looked at moving within the Brisbane still 'kinda' inner suburbs which included Darra.

However,there had been a "Development" in Darra.Some 100 Townhouses built and sold.This was the last year's majority 'action' real estate Darra and was something like a 50% increase in price compared to the General Darra Real Estate Values.

You have to realise that the general Darra house was,well,working class.Actually a lot of them were built from 'stolen' bricks.
See there was an historic brick and cement industry in the Area.So every day some of the workers brought home a sack of bricks and built a house from them,over the years,out the back of their fibro shack,and then stuccoed over the 'mismatched' bricks and had a Home.

When we were looking at Darra Real Estate,The Brick and Cement Factories were closing so me'n'd'bride were early gentrification players.

Anyhow,the General Real Estate in the Established Area was something like $80 grand BUT the Area Valuation with the Townhouses came out at $120 grand and naturally all the owners of the mentioned 'purloined' brick houses jumped from $80k to blessed $120kish.

This was in the 1990's.Not that long ago,right?

Anyway,just wanted to point out to the 'inexperienced' how newspapers using recent sales in an area,are using easily distorted prices.One has to look at the sources of this Data.Is it skewed by a Class Development and a Sales Campaign far beyond a 'domestic' real estate agent 'Sale' in the area?

Personally I think there is a 'problem' with the aspirations of newly weds and family 'starters'.
I never grew up in a house with a bedroom for each kid,let alone a bathroom for each and a Media Room plus a Parent's Retreat etc etc.

It's these types of 'houses' and sale of that illustrates how a suburb's values are distorted by newspapers mainly to keep their classified ad takers happy.

hope I've been coherent.
cheers.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
breaker_1
Member
Username: breaker_1

Post Number: 165
Registered: 10-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Sunday, April 18, 2010 - 08:03 pm:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Jaded,
my thoughts entirely, nobody builds a fibro house anymore how the average council worker /navvy can afford a house is beyond me

first home stimulus just sent prices further northward

Banks want 20% deposit,most houses in Rocky,Mackay, Clermont
400k

Rents in Dysart/ coal mining towns $500- $1000 bucks a week
Makes it hard for the average apprentice with a kid to save
Everyone needs a rich Auntie somewhere


When one door closes another door opens; but we so often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door, that we do not see the ones which open for us.

Alexander Graham Bell





Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
ody
Member
Username: ody

Post Number: 4942
Registered: 10-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, April 19, 2010 - 12:00 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Jaded:

NHC: That was very informative, and made good sense to me.

Houses: not so here! For the prices in question are NOT "Valuer General" prices in the case of the Sunday Mail/Advertiser, but the average of house prices obtained in an area over a year. However, we are of course in full agreement that even THEN these prices are highly unreliable or at least very uninformative. I already mentioned the many "improvements" that recently have taken up the prices of older homes, and this is not taken into account when, say, 30 houses have sold in an area in 1999 and they then compare them with whatever the average prices for houses sold in 2009 is. They behave as though nothing has happened to the houses in the meantime!

As you say, there are all sorts of changes involved over time, and in one suburb near us prices were greatly affected at various times because averages were in part (1) those of older houses (unimproved), then (2) of portions of whole areas lying waste after the bulldozers had demolished some huge properties, and then, finally, (3) the value of the newly subdivided individual "blocks" with totally new houses on them. The "average" figures for that suburb, over a number of years, of course fluctuated wildly. But to be fair to the newspaper, it does do the job for the whole town, and for prices actually obtained: these are easily checkable in South Australia (by law), so the prices are real. It is just that the prices mean very little, if averaged for a suburb, because the numbers of sales in a year are often too small anyway, and as we agree the prices are often those of totally incomparable assets.

I do think that the newspaper is only too happy to let the REI do the job in its crude fashion, with no questions asked. It will NEVER point out,for example, as neither will the REI, that in several older areas gentrification means spending lots of money on each house: if the price is A in 1999 and B in 2009 for the same or a similar property, they just take the prices as they are paid, without taking into account that often people will have spent a vast sum on the house that they bought by improving it in addition to what they spent on the original property!

All this is, I think, of more than theoretical interest, for I believe that Australians as a people take part in something like a communal, shared hoax when they assess prices for residential real estate. The way the supposed strength or weakness of "the market" is assessed is incredibly shoddy. Yet much of Australian wealth (something like 80%), for households, is tied up in residential property: by comparison the share market counts for little. So if the housing market is far less strong IN REAL TERMS than at a glance meets the eye, we are kidding ourselves - at least in part - by misjudging the situation. I do not mean to imply that the improvements are worthless, of course: rather, that they cost real money, which is often simply ignored when people say that houses have gone up so much in value. I can think of actual examples of people doing just that, and completely deceiving themselves about the gains they thought they had made.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 290
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, April 19, 2010 - 09:35 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Is this the start of a sell-off or a one day event? US futures are down another 0.4% in early trade so it could be more than one day.

If we get a close over the coming days of below 4875 on the ASX200, I'll be extremely bearish and it could see us fall another 10%.

So for me, this 4875 level is critical to determine the future direction of our market in the coming weeks.

Good luck

Cheers
MM


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
eblode
Member
Username: eblode

Post Number: 1362
Registered: 11-2002

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, April 19, 2010 - 09:53 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



MM,
This is a one day correction and we'll be up and running by the end of the week.
Let grab ourselves a few bargains which will be around this morning before everyone wakes up and finds that this Goldman Sachs deal is only a storm in a tea cup (like the Greek "salad" affair) and helps the media with a new topic to sell.

Eugenio







Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message
market_mad
Member
Username: market_mad

Post Number: 291
Registered: 09-2009

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0


Monday, April 19, 2010 - 10:02 am:Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    View Post/Check IP (Moderator/Admin only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only) Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)



Love your bravado Eugenio...

I hope for your sake that you are right..

Cheers and good luck

MM Aka Sherlock

 
Other Threads  
Last PosterPostsPagesLast Post
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 07, 2010rdumas50 07-Jun-10  09:57 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 03, 2010rdumas50 03-Jun-10  08:13 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through June 01, 2010rdumas50 01-Jun-10  01:39 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 28, 2010rdumas50 28-May-10  11:04 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 26, 2010ody50 26-May-10  12:20 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 21, 2010jaded50 21-May-10  03:06 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 19, 2010magnus50 19-May-10  09:16 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 17, 2010eblode50 17-May-10  07:42 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 14, 2010market_mad50 14-May-10  10:53 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 12, 2010rdumas50 12-May-10  09:51 am
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 06, 2010baysider50 06-May-10  08:20 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through May 03, 2010ivor50 03-May-10  05:02 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through April 22, 2010ivor50 22-Apr-10  02:38 pm
Our Daily Bread » Archive through April 16, 2010eblode50 16-Apr-10  11:37 am

Threads by Last Post Time:

First Previous 5 6 7 8 9 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 Next Last

Administration Administration   Log Out Log Out    

««  «  Previous  Next  »  »»