Latest Forum Topics / Entertainment | Post Reply |
Fellowship of the Shares
|
|
tanglinboy
Elite |
18-Mar-2007 22:26
Yells: "hello!" |
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hey elf, Tsk tsk tsk.... your standard must be really high... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
baseerahmed
Master |
18-Mar-2007 20:03
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
elfinchilde : I have learnt a new perspective today from ur postings on HPL and STE, about how institutions and big boys work. Thank you. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
|
|
elfinchilde
Elite |
18-Mar-2007 17:33
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
sorry sporeguy, missed the one on STE: STE data is reverse of HPL. HPL registered large lots sold, small lots bought overall. But for STE: it's actually abt even no of lots bought and sold. what is interesting is if you put a limit: track trade lots of >50. (50 lots of STE at say 3.30 =>165K per trade. again, not likely retailer; if it is, it's damn bullish anyway)--the data you'll get is 1,880 lots sold, bought = 3,097 lots (or something like this.. can't rem the figs offhand). But basically, it's abt twice more bought than sold for large lots. Indication for momentum upward. Further supported by A/d, c/o, candlesticks and even MAcross--just crossed a buy on friday. again, i'm not really interested in trades of small lots since these don't move momentum much. it's large lots that swing price movement. note above all just my reading ah. I'm calling the charts as i see 'em, nothing more, nothing less. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
elfinchilde
Elite |
18-Mar-2007 17:05
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
keke. tanglinboy. $$ is of course attractive---i'd hardly think any girl would turn down prince william, ain't it? It's a measurement of strength and power; the modern calculation of the alpha male. why you're in the gym: reduce it to ancient calculation of the above: if you don't got the moolah, you can at least have the build. :P bwah ha. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
elfinchilde
Elite |
18-Mar-2007 17:02
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
argh. post got truncated. nvrmind. sporeguy, long story short: if you follow the buy/sell vols, what you get is an indication of buying/selling pressure. So if like HPL last 15 min of trade, you see large lots selling, small buying, it's an indication of institutional selling, since common sense will tell you that few retailers can afford to buy/sell 101 lots of HPL at one shot. 1, 2, 5 lot is confirmed retailers. it's an educated guess, but it gives an idea of sentiment and direction, since willingness to buy up => bullishness, willingness to sell down => bearishness. And if overall more sell, the implication is depression of price. esp large lots, since these control movement. pls note that if it is BBs selling, then they do not likely dump so straightforwardly. what you see is controlled depression of hte price: so eg, HPL: 16:57:21 trade you see 101 lots buy up, but less than 3 min later, registed sells of 99 lots, 105, 124 lots. 'cos if you sell too much at one shot, the price will spiral down out of control before you can get out. When distribution's the aim, the goal too is not to panic the market before you've completed your distribution. the thing i don't like abt HPL is the number of large lot X trades it had on friday (can't speak for days before). X lots is either married trade or cancelled trades. If it's cancelled trades, it implies manipulation. Simple psychology: a small fry wants to buy a stock, say at 4.72. You suddenly see a buy queue of block 455 lots at 4.72. You're likely to go, "Ah!!! cannot! must buy first at 4.74!". so you buy, and thereaft, the large trade is cancelled, mission accomplished. It's a bit fishy to me lah...but my experience is limited at best. you'll normally not see firehouse selling unless it's like the time of the first crash last mth, where if you had watch, you'll notice sudden large lot selling across all counters from 330 pm the day before the crash. That's pure technical screaming at you, "wtf, get out, kid". |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
|
|
tanglinboy
Elite |
18-Mar-2007 14:43
Yells: "hello!" |
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
So you all are saying that man with most $$ = most attractive to women?? Then why am I spending so much time in the gym???!! Hahaha... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
iPunter
Supreme |
18-Mar-2007 13:20
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I hope there are other forummers who have alternate views (ie. other than 'explanations') on the issue of Evolution... :) |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
iPunter
Supreme |
18-Mar-2007 13:07
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Thanks chinkiasu... :) gone to pee... be back soon ... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
|
|
iPunter
Supreme |
18-Mar-2007 13:06
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Thanks chinkiasu... :) gone to pee... be back soon ... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
chinkiasu
Master |
18-Mar-2007 12:48
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Can we apply the story of the peacock to human courtship...? If $$$ is a sign of success in today's society, cf with eyespots in the train of peacock's tail feathers (which may mean the oldest peacock), can I conclude that the man with $$$ which may mean the oldest) is gona be the most successful in procreation.. alternatively, surely than the peahen must be the dull, and most conservative..(with greatest apologies to our lady forumers (got to watch where is step) as the theory says if the species is to survive.. and I can go on and on... I punter, I say the above in jest.. to poke fun, with the intention to say that the theory of evolution can only "explain" so much... of cos you can then say the selection process in human beings are different.. and then I will say why the difference?.. is it because we humans are so "different" from animals...? |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
chinkiasu
Master |
18-Mar-2007 12:31
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
hi Victorian, glad to see you on this thread.. particularly as it adds its quality and character.. ps.. I still look forward to May when we shall have a re look/view on the SPC counter.. Meanwhile I staying hanging there..... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
chinkiasu
Master |
18-Mar-2007 12:11
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Dear Ipunter, you have requested my views on "how the peacock has evolved to it's present form?" In evolution, having traits that help one survive is very important, but it is only important so that one can reproduce and pass those traits to the next generation. For this reason, traits that enable an organism to reproduce, without necessarily helping them to survive are selected for: the ones that reproduce pass the traits that helped them to reproduce on to their offspring and the ones that don't reproduce don't have offspring, so their traits disappear from the population. Darwin called this idea "sexual selection". In the case of the peacock, the male peacock has a lot of showy feathers. One would think that these would not appear in evolution; they would be noticeable to predators and would get the peacock stuck so it would not be able to escape from predators or get food. However, peacocks use their feathers to attract peahens (female peacocks). One researcher has show that the degree of attractiveness is related to the size, quantity, and distribution of the colorful "eyespots" of the train of tail feathers (I am tempted to compare it with $$$'s but I should not: pls see my later argument). The peacocks with the showier feathers are able to attract mates, so they are the ones that have offspring, and pass on the fancy-feather genes to the next generation. However, the organism must also be able to survive. Peacocks can fold up their tails, which lessens the danger of being noticed by predators or getting caught in the bushes. In addition, as with most species where the males are colorful or fancy to attract the females, the peahens are much duller and more camouflaged (and these qualities in the peahen are equally critical to the survival to the peacock species), in a large part because they are the ones who guard the eggs and chicks. Survival of the next generation is very important. The question can then be asked why are the peahens attracted to showy feathers? One can argue that this makes sense in evolutionary terms -- the largest tail would indicate a healthy bird and a better chance for healthy offspring. Some researcher even relate that the larger the tail to the age of the peacock, i.e peahens like older peacocks. Looks are certainly important for the peacock, with his absurdly bright, burdensome train that he shows off to attract a female. But there are experiments that show that offspring of males with more eyespots are bigger at birth and better at surviving in the wild than offspring of birds with fewer eyespots... Let me now turn to your other implied question: can I apply this to us? You would note I hesitated to compare eyespots to $$$s? Why my hesitation? Let me post this first before I lose this... and have to retype all over again... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
|
|
iPunter
Supreme |
18-Mar-2007 11:42
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Victorian... |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
iPunter
Supreme |
17-Mar-2007 22:11
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
And also, if you don't mind... What do you mean by "the spiritual aspects of man"? |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
iPunter
Supreme |
17-Mar-2007 22:09
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Chinkiasu... It's good to know you subscribe fully to Darwin... Will you be kind enough then to enlighten us, from your point of view, how the peacock has evolved to it's present form? Hope those having no interest in this will kindly bear us out... :) |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
shplayer
Elite |
17-Mar-2007 22:01
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
elfie, My estimates for Stamford Land divvy can be found in 'Stamford Land - Time for re reating?' thread. Think is was posted before mid Feb. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
chinkiasu
Master |
17-Mar-2007 22:01
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Dear Ipunter, I have no problems with the theory of Evolution, in so far as it explains the origin of species (of animals & other living things) as expounded by Darwin...I happen to be a student of biology and I accept the evolution theory is currently the best theory to explain the differentiation in living things.. I just cannot accept that man who is also a spiritual being comes from monkeys. although sometimes I may behave like one...... i.e the spiritual aspects of man cannot be explained by evolution.. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
mwzl95
Member |
17-Mar-2007 21:31
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Better be cautious with HPL. Run up in price too fast too furiuos. |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
iPunter
Supreme |
17-Mar-2007 21:25
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
chinkiasu... I see you are a nature lover too... like me... that's great... I am sure there are lots of similar minded people here too... :) What do you think of the hotly debated issue of evolution (theory)? Do you believe it's assumptions or do you see any flaw in the theory? |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |
Sporeguy
Elite |
17-Mar-2007 21:16
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hi elfin, how do you know that retailers buy while instil sell in HPL. And on the other hand, retail sells while Insti buy STE? |
Useful To Me Not Useful To Me |