The Contrarian's View is published 11 times per year on a mostly-irregular schedule, and the views expressed are those of the author and editor, Nick Chase. Because nobody can predict the future, results of past suggestions or recommendations are no guarantee of future results. Material in this publication may be freely quoted provided proper attribution is given to its source. Subscription rate: Free on the Internet through the World-Wide Web service at Assumption College. Using your favorite Web-browsing program, Open URL http://nick.assumption.edu. Mailed paper subscriptions, one year for $39 to The Contrarian's View, 132 Moreland Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. There is a limit of 50 paid subscribers at one time; please check for availability before sending any money. Sorry, Visa and Mastercard are not available. Overseas subscription rate, U.S. $54. Unsolicited material sent to us by UPS or by courier other than the postal service is refused and returned to sender! Phone: (508) 757-2881
After the talk, there was a question and answer period and, being the contrarian I am and perfectly willing to break the ice, I asked the first question. (I'm also always the first one in line at the buffet table, too.) My question was: Where does responsibility end? If you have been injured by what appears to be an inherently evil person, you can forgive that person (to the extent possible) so you can put the incident behind you, pick up the pieces of your life, and move on. But suppose the evil person moves on to a new situation in a different locale, where his evil nature is not known. Does one have the responsibility to warn the people whom the evil one has the opportunity to similarly injure that they are in danger, so they can be prepared and take defensive action? (Good question, I heard somebody in the audience murmur.)
The rabbi's answer, I thought, was a good one. He said, you should take into account motive: If your motive is to get back at the person who injured you by making his or her life more difficult in the new situation, then you truly had not yet let go and that person still has control over your life. If, on the other hand, you are truly alarmed about the welfare of others, then a warning would be appropriate.
When I asked that question, I had two situations in mind. My wife guessed the first one immediately.... the incompetent and malicious vice-principal at her former school who targeted her and harassed her to the point where it seriously damaged her health, forcing her to either leave or, most certainly, die on the job. He left that school abruptly this past summer, and is now presumably systematically destroying a school system somewhere in Ohio. Afterward, we discussed motive: "I want to screw the bastard", she said. Not the most pure of motives there.... but, considering the damage done to her, completely understandable. I, on the other hand, recognize that he's not in a position to hurt my wife any more, but I am concerned that he will target and destroy some other female whose survival skills are not nearly as strong as my wife's.
The second situation I had in mind was my role in sounding the tocsin as purveyor of bearish tidings in The Contrarian's View. Nobody loves a bear (even in a bear market), especially when the herd is wildly bullish and a mania is underway. I keep a low profile, so I'm not subject to the media blitzkriegs unleashed upon more prominent bears such as Bob Prechter or Jim Stack. Just the same, it would certainly be easier to follow the crowd and aver no responsibility should, in a crash or meltdown, misfortune befall those who mimic my position.
But perpetual bullishness is not what I see ahead (though by no means am I a permabear). Life, the economy, and fortunes fluctuate in cycles.... I see no evidence that such cycles have been repealed, and I feel obligated to report when I believe a cycle is turning. As Bob Prechter has pointed out, no serious damage is done by the person who suggests the safety of money-market instruments during a bubble, not knowing just when the bubble will pop; the only adverse result is that you may not be getting rich as quickly as you think you should be. But the wildly bullish person who puts you on board the mania, only to have you still on board when it crashes and burns, can ruin your life.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) for me, I do feel responsible. I know that people will base their own opinions based in part on the arguments for realism I present, so I try to "get it right" to the best of my ability. Especially following the near-market-meltdown on October 28, which I had been anticipating for more than two years, it would have been easy to say, "OK, Nick, you can take it easy now. You said the market would crash after a series of sawteeth, and October came close. Only the intervention of 'mysterious buyers' of S&P 500 futures (a.k.a. the Federal Reserve) on that Tuesday prevented a rerun of 1987. Events may not be unfolding exactly as I expected, but I got a lot more right than the TV airheads." Yes, I could have done that, rested on my laurels, drawn attention to myself, then adopted a wait-and-see-what-unfolds attitude.
So I thought about that for awhile. Then I decided, no, I still feel the stock market will melt down when it reaches the vicinity of Dow 7000. I willingly took on the pleasure of expressing my opinions monthly in The Contrarian's View, and with that came the commitment of calling them as I see them, the pledge I have made to my readers since the very first issue in July 1986. I'm going to stick to my guns here. I don't want to see my readers hurt.... my responsibility to offer only my honest opinions has not ended, nor do I expect it ever will.
Another two or three banks will collapse this fiscal year, to the end of next March, and the Deposit Insurance Corporation is supposed to support them, but they have no funds left. The problem has become so big that it is politically impossible to use public funds to rescue them. - Japanese economist Nobuya Nemoto
At its peak in 1989, the Japanese stock market stood at nearly 39,000 and Japan's real estate market was valued at more than $18 trillion, more than the combined value of the rest of the planet! As a trader there at the time, I was told ad nauseum about why the market would never fall, but more importantly why it COULD NEVER fall: the government would not allow it. As you know, the government of Japan controls, or tries to control, far more aspects of the economy and society than the US government would ever dream of trying to control. Shortly after the Japanese Crash began, the government began to try to put a halt to the skid. Since 1991, the Japanese government has spent more than $350 billion of the peoples' savings (the Government-run Postal Savings system and Postal Insurance system) to try to directly push up stock market prices. They have also spent more than $700 billion in "emergency budgets" and "supplementary budgets" in an attempt to reinvigorate the economy. Japan now has the highest debt/GNP of all G7 countries as measured on a yearly basis, and second highest debt/GNP on an overall basis (now above 83%). What do they have to show for it? The Nikkei is at 17,000, down 60% from its high. Real estate prices, tough to measure because so few transactions are taking place, are in many places down 85% from their 1989 highs. The economy shrank by an annualized 11% in the last quarter, and it is looking worse so far this quarter. The pension system is underfunded to the tune of a trillion dollars, and the banking system has teetered on the verge of collapse for years. So much for any government's ability to control the markets. - "A.G." (Internet posting)
I don't see a deflationary bust in this country, nothing like the 1930s. They might have something like that in Asia, if they don't take care of their problems. But I don't see it here. - Martin Zweig
The media suggest that everyone is fully invested in the stock market. I see no large-scale public participation.... The U.S. stock market will not go bust for many, many decades, and will definitely not penetrate the 1987 low for at least 100-150 years. It will most likely remain in a sideways pattern for many, many years, but at levels much greater than today's (S&P 500 to levels of 2200-3200). In fact, this Spring's lows will not be broken to the downside for 100-150 years. - Paul Zipotto
This is not the top of the Great Bull Market. Before the end of 1997, we will see just the beginning of the next leg of this bull market that will last another 14 years. The Dow will close 1997 at a new all-time high or very close to it. The Dow will reach 10,000 in the year 2000 and Dow 15,000 by the year 2005.... Faster worldwide economic growth with declining inflation and increased productivity from an explosion of technology are the single best reasons to remain optimistic about what is happening in the world today. - Donald Rowe [This quote is a candidate for the Irving Fisher PHP award for 1997. /Nick]
When Mr. Greenspan said the market suffered from irrational exuberance, he got it exactly backwards. What the market really suffers from is an insufficient appreciation of this exuberant economy.... Once stock prices begin to reflect the expectation that earnings can increase at anything like that 20% rate, then Dow 12,000 will very quickly become a reality. That's where Mr. Greenspan gets it wrong - the fact that prices reflect not just present earnings, but the growth rate of earnings. - Mike Astrachan [Another candidate for the Irving Fisher PHP award for 1997. /Nick]
The bears, in a time machine locked into the past, view this new world with total bewilderment. Attempting to bring them into this world, I would simply tell them to switch their sights to world population trends, the current sharply improved level of human intelligence, and a spreading trend toward a new level of world prosperity.... I have advanced the idea that we have a new people's market.... now, for the first time, we can see the public as the smart money and the professional element as the dumb money, a reversal in thinking of mammoth implications. - Joe Granville
The time to be concerned is when the public is fearful.... But the public is not about to turn fearful. It is far too well-educated to fall for all of the 1929 scare talk.... They have a better grasp on the market than any previous public.... They are exposed to more knowledge about the stock market than any previous public.... And it doesn't stop there. They are preparing the next generation to be even smarter. - Joe Granville
At the big August "Money Show" in San Francisco.... I asked for a show of hands by those who owned mutual funds. Virtually all hands shot up. Next question: "How many of you know the age and experience of your pet mutual fund manager?" Only two or three hands went up. Next question: "How many of you would invest in a mutual fund run by a 28-year-old?" Not a single hand in sight. Not a hand! I reminded the.... attendees that the age of the average mutual fund portfolio manager was 28 years. - Charles Allmon
For a long time I have been a follower of conventional wisdom. In the 1973-75 fiasco, I was laid off. In 1979, once again I was the guy kicked out of a job. During the 1980s I did pretty well and following conventional investment advice, I had $50,000 invested as the 1987 crash hit. It probably isn't much to you, but to me it was all I had. Then in the 1990s when IBM hit the skids, I once again lost a pretty good job. My point is this. I did alright during the good years but when markets turned and crashed, I was personally and seriously hurt. At age 54, with children yet to send to college, I am trying to be careful. I am paying down my debts, making my small independent business as tight a ship as possible.... If I follow the dictates of the fat cats of Wall Street for one more cycle, I and my family will be wiped out. Do you understand that there are people out there who do not particularly benefit from market jumps but almost always get hurt in market crashes? - "RD" (Internet post)
Of course, between 1966 and 1982 the Dow actually lost in value (big time if inflation is considered), but it is implied that investors should just sit through such a period. Fat chance of that happening, and I'm sure the mutual fund industry knows this. Investors have proved to have the patience of a Rhesus monkey on speed and will not sit on languishing investments for more than a few months, let alone years. - Marc Sexton
I went to a casino the other day and watched a friend of mine at the dice table. There were around 30 players surrounding the table. My pal picked up the dice and made 6 passes in a row, each time leaving his winnings on the table for his next throw. I turned to him and suggested that he might pocket some of his capital. He turned to me in disbelief and muttered that the streak is only beginning. The excitement started to be felt in many parts of the room as more participants began to drift over. Now more than 60 players were placing bets rooting my friend on. He made 3 passes more when I again urged him to lighten up. He, annoyed at this point, responded by telling me that I don't know how to make a really big stake. By now the excitement could be heard in every corner. The crowd began to surround us - 3 and 4 deep - in a frenzy, needing to place their bets and pick up the easy money. The "contrary" side of me forced me to try one final time to remind my friend that he was gambling. As agitated as I've seen him, he angrily turned to me and said, "You may be a great trader, but you obviously don't know how to gamble. Leave me alone!" The crowd around us started getting agitated at me for even talking to my friend. Shouts were heard from behind us to throw me out of the casino. On the next roll, the streak had abruptly ended. The roars turned to moans. A hush fell over the place. Seeing all his chips taken back by the house, my friend stared at me with daggers in his eyes, and said, "It's all your fault. I lost because you broke the spell. I would still be rolling if you hadn't jinxed the dice." When he calmed down I asked him why he didn't take any profits off the table, and he responded, ". .that the crowd was rooting me into a frenzy, things were going so well that I thought I would be able to sense when the streak was going to end. I felt I couldn't lose." Going home, I met another friend who told me how well he was doing in the stock market. I suggested to him that maybe he ought to take some profits. He turned to me and said, "You told me that thousands of points ago. I have a good feel for this market." I thought about what he said and decided, why should I persist? Ultimately I'll be blamed for starting the next bear market. - "JK" (Internet posting)
First, remember that the Fed did not prevent the 1987 crash. It happened. Many claim that the Fed averted further collapse [by buying futures on October 20, 1987], but in our opinion, it acted on the day the market was due to bottom anyway.... Second, given all the other parallels to 1929, it is interesting that we appear to be on track for a replay of what happened then, when a consortium of bankers amassed a pool of money to halt the October decline. On the strength of that buying and the resulting euphoria, stocks soared...for one day. Then they fell even harder, utterly ignoring a second attempt at "organized support" on the 28th. So history knows of a failed attempt to stop a market collapse. Third, the Fed's apparent success in 1987 will make it confident that it can stop the next crash, but this time, it won't work (more than briefly, anyway) because the wave of selling will be much bigger. When the Fed itself, then the professionals and soon afterward the public realize that the Fed's attempt is failing, the overall panic will increase, at minimum negating any bullish effects of the action. Fourth, while it is true that the Fed has an unlimited power to create fiat credit, it cannot create liquidity, as the debt already outstanding can fall in value faster than the Fed creates new credit, effecting deflation regardless of the Fed's desires. So as we see it, there are only two possibilities: (1) The Fed will act on the bottom day of the coming collapse and appear to have been effective.... or (2) it will try to stem the tide early and fail. Either way, the market's ultimate destiny will be unaffected. Only people's thinking will be affected (adversely), so that hope-filled bulls will hold on for the slaughter and irresolute bears will give up their positions. In other words, the main effect of this soothing news will be to produce a psychological deterrent to proper investment action. - Robert Prechter [August 1997]
According to ALL media we see, the "obvious" is that the market "always goes up long term" and a brief selloff has just presented "the bargain-buying opportunity of a lifetime." Our view is not only not obvious to anyone, it is in fact the focus of haughty derision. I have publicly been labeled a "goofy nut" for calling for a great bear market, while my bearish friend Jim Grant was recently accused in print of having had inadequate oral development as a child. So if there is a consensus, it is that our outlook is beneath contempt, the opposite of "obvious." I would add that in 1978 and 1982, we forecast a great bull market producing a 5x multiple, which was not obvious to anyone, either. (Now that it has reached 10x, we're dopes.) - Robert Prechter
Investment advisors have no more ability to predict the future actions of human beings than psychics and fortune-tellers. - Harry Browne
... Long-term salvation by men of business has never been highly regarded if it means disturbance of orderly life and convenience in the present. So inaction will be advocated in the present even though it means deep trouble in the future. Here, at least equally with communism, lies the threat to capitalism. It is what causes men who know that things are going quite wrong to say that things are fundamentally sound. - John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash [1954]
The world's central banks long ago severed the link between cash money and any tangible store of value, creating in its stead a New Age money system that could only be described as metaphysical in nature. The gnomes have succeeded in institutionalizing the concept of a free lunch, thereby energizing as dangerous a monster as ever stalked this planet. - Rick Ackerman
A critical imbalance is the one faced by social security.... the huge liability for current retirees, as well as for much of the work force closer to retirement, leaves the system, as a whole, badly underfunded. The official unfunded liability for the Old Age, Survivors and Disability funds, which takes into account expected future tax payments and benefits out to the year 2070, has reached a staggering $3 trillion.... Unless social security savings are increased by higher taxes (with negative consequences for growth) or lowered benefits, domestic savings must be augmented by greater private saving or surpluses in the rest of the government budget to help ensure that there is enough savings to finance adequate productive capacity down the road to meet the consumption needs of both retirees and active workers.... We owe it to those who will retire after the turn of the century to be given sufficient advance notice to make what alteration in retirement planning may be required. The longer we wait to make what are surely inevitable adjustments, the more difficult they will become. If we procrastinate too long, the adjustments could be truly wrenching. Our senior citizens, both current and future, deserve better. - Alan Greenspan [October 8, 1997]
Time for the programmers to reorganise the calender... Next year will be 199A, giving them until 199F to sort out the problems of dealing with 2000. That is until the year 20FF when it all happens again. - Andy Macklin
....[A]s the calendar moves into late 1998 and early 1999: Political leaders, being even more oblivious and pig-headed than senior corporate managers about the realities of software development, will announce emergency appropriations to solve the Y2000 problem. They'll expect applause from citizens, and a sigh of relief from beleaguered agency officials. But computer programmers across the land will look at one another and whisper Brooks' Law: adding more programmers to a late software project just makes it later. - Ed Yourdon
Alas, managers in many companies still haven't learned that you can't solve the [Y2K] problem by throwing hundreds of programmers on the project at the last moment, just as you can't produce a baby in one month by impregnating nine women. - Ed Yourdon
I've noticed that people who were easing away from me a few months ago (Oh-no, he's going to start on the Y2K stuff again) are starting to take me aside and ask questions, about this Y2K, will it affect our payroll... what about my 401(k)... I have a son on regular medication... I saw an article, would you explain .... - Cory Hamasaki
Try this one on for size. In the early 1980s, a hundred or so mainframers spent 5 years building a mission critical system; make that about 500 man-years in programming. The client attempted to replace it with a C/S lash-up [client/server networked PC-based system] with 15 man-years. They're now 300% over budget on time and dollars, there are serious architectural problems, and the legacy system *will* die in 815 days. The problem isn't C/S or the Pee Cee Wee Nee's [PC/Windows]. It's having the arrogance to think that you can replace a mega project with a couple cheap servers and some Wee Nee's on Powerbuilder. Oh, and they're still planning to pull the plug on the legacy system in 1999. - Cory Hamasaki
However, what put a chill up my back was... credit cards and their expiration dates and I decided to pull my collection out of my wallet. My inventory shows that out of eight cards, one expires in 1998 and seven expire in 1999! As I hold these cards in my hand, it is as if the companies who produced them and sent them to me for me to use are saying, "We've got a problem here, but we're going to figure out what to do about it and then we'll get you new ones later after we're done. Trust us." - Rich Young
As a computer scientist and software developer, I continue to be amazed at the apathy toward the [Y2K] problem within the industry.... I was talking this morning with our System Administrator who used to work for the [Canadian] government. He still has contacts in three government departments. Each of these departments has implemented the following strategy to "combat" Y2K. They take a couple of "life-ers" (50+ year-old civil servants) and make them responsible for ensuring that all new purchases of software and hardware are Year 2000 compliant. That's it. No strategy for legacy database systems; just a bureaucratic exercise which involves getting letters from vendors (sometimes 3 for one piece of equipment) ensuring compatability. - anonymous Canadian programmer
Listen, every computer project in this organization is late, and every project is screwed up. Always has been, always will be. I don't care what kind of official statements they make, this Y2000 stuff is not going to finish on time. No project we've ever done in this organization, in the 20 years I've been here, has ever finished on time. So if that's the way it's going to be, why should I get ulcers and ruin my life? I'm going home in the 4:42 carpool, and that's that. - government programmer
It is our prediction that it will only take five to 10 percent of the world's banks payments systems to not work on that one day to create a global liquidity lock-up.... I don't think the markets have quite grasped the implications of what will happen if the entire system goes down - Robert Lau [PA Consulting in Hong Kong]
What I'm talking about is one of the broadest, quietest investigations of a president in the history of this republic. An investigation that when it's over will accuse Bill Clinton of being one of the most corrupt public officials ever. Racketeering could be the biggest charge. President Clinton is in serious trouble. Not because he let people sleep in the Lincoln bedroom or because he used the phone in the Oval Office to panhandle. Clinton is in trouble because Ken Starr is about to tell Congress that Clinton has long been a crook and has tried desperately to cover it up. Unless the prosecutors take a dive, here's what will happen in the weeks and months ahead. Starr will issue new indictments for wrongdoing by people close to the Clintons. Hillary Clinton is a good bet to be hit with charges, as well as Webster Hubbell and others. Simultaneous with the biggest of these indictments, Starr will issue an interim report to the House Judiciary Committee - where impeachment would start - accusing Clinton of lining his pockets in Arkansas and spending the better part of the last five years covering up such things. - John Crudele
If you know where to look, there are real documents to be found on the Internet. When Americans can review the primary material for themselves, they can see with piercing clarity what they long suspected: The American media is incurious, slothful, consensual, pedestrian, biased without acknowledgement, fearful of challenging power, and not particularly honest. In other words, it behaves as the media does in most countries, most of the time, as an adjunct of the governing elite. - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Now, I would normally dismiss this dream as a figment of wishful thinking (which it may well be), except there have been several times in my life where I have been in a situation where I would suddenly recall a dream and remember that I'd "been there before". In a few cases, after beginning to live the dream sequence and remembering the outcome (in the dream), I took a different course of action to avoid the unpleasant consequences the dream had revealed to me. However, never before have I dreamt about the stock market. (After all, if I had truly clairvoyant stock-market dreams with regularity, I'd be a multimillionaire today.)
If life should unfold according to my dream, it would mean two things: (1) The stock-market meltdown will be triggered by an "external" event, or "accident", if you prefer, such as a failure in the derivatives markets, or massive indictments returned against the Clinton entourage, or perhaps sudden war with Iraq. And, (2) the Federal Reserve will fail in its efforts to reflate stocks; keeping them stable after the meltdown is the best it will be able to manage. Let me emphasize that this is not a prediction of what the meltdown will look like; the problem with such dreams is that I don't know if they're clairvoyant or not until after the fact.
Regardless of the shape of the meltdown, the odds now favor it occurring in 1998 (85%) rather than in the remainder of 1997 (20%), because the psychology of the holiday season, a worldwide phenomenon, is not conducive to meltdowns. Leading indicators suggest that the economy will be entering a recession by mid-1998, which the stock market (in its usual fashion) will probably begin discounting early in the year.
It's beginning to look like the coming recession and the Year 2000 problem will merge. That is, a 1998 recession will extend into 1999, when the first of the Y2K failures will play havoc with computer systems (fiscal years ending in 2000, 9/9/99 being recognized as "9999 = end of file", along with 12/31/99 and similar "flags", etc.). On August 22, 1999 the week-counters for Global Positioning System satellites overflow, and this will alert the public to the problem of unrepaired embedded chips. Also, by 1999 everybody is supposed to have completed Y2K code repairs and be in the testing stage.... or the auditors will be getting a bit testy, and the liability lawyers will be lining up prospective customers. So, certainly by mid-1999 the public should have a much clearer idea of which organizations will smoothly make the transition into 2000, which will not, and which will die. Consultants currently estimate that 10% to 15% of businesses in the U.S. will disappear because of Y2K.... that sure sounds like a severe recession to me.... and the U.S. is ahead of the rest of the English-speaking world in fixing Y2K, which is generally far ahead of the non-English-speaking world.
As the mainstream press "catches on" to the severity of Y2K and the public becomes more aware, expect people to be taking evasive action to minimize the impact on their lives. Massive bank runs, in the form of heavy cash withdrawals to cover living expenses for the first few months of 2000, are not beyond the realm of possibilities.
______________________________ TIMER'S TREND ______________________________
Thu 9 Oct 97 . | .# | 8061.42 *|~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 10 Oct 97 . | .# | 8045.21 |~.~+*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 13 Oct 97 . | . # | 8072.22 | . + *
Tue 14 Oct 97 . | . # | 8096.29 | . + *
Wed 15 Oct 97 . | # | 8057.98 | . + *
Thu 16 Oct 97 . |# . * | 7938.88 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 17 Oct 97 . & . |*7847.03 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 20 Oct 97 . I .# | 7921.44 | + *
Tue 21 Oct 97 . | . # | 8060.44 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 22 Oct 97 . I # | 8034.65 | .+ *
Thu 23 Oct 97 # . I *. | 7847.77 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 24 Oct 97 . & .* | 7715.41 |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 27 Oct 97 # . I| . {| 7161.15 |*-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 28 Oct 97 . #I . | 7498.32 |~.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 29 Oct 97 . I #. | 7506.67 | .- *
Thu 30 Oct 97 #. I . | 7381.67 *|~.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 31 Oct 97 . I . # | 7442.08 | - *
Mon 3 Nov 97 . | . # }| 7674.67 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 4 Nov 97 . | . # | 7689.13 | .+ *
Wed 5 Nov 97 . | . # | 7692.57 | . + *
Thu 6 Nov 97 . | #. | 7683.24 | . + *
Fri 7 Nov 97 # . I . {| 7581.32 |~.+*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 10 Nov 97 . & . | 7552.59 |+.*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 11 Nov 97 . & . | 7558.73 + . *
Wed 12 Nov 97 # . I . | 7401.32 |~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 13 Nov 97 . & . | 7487.76 | - *
Fri 14 Nov 97 . I #. | 7572.48 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 17 Nov 97 . | #. }| 7698.22 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 18 Nov 97 . & . {| 7650.81 |-. *
Wed 19 Nov 97 . I #. | 7724.74 |+. *
Thu 20 Nov 97 . | . # }| 7826.61 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 21 Nov 97 . | . # | 7881.07 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 24 Nov 97 .# I . {| 7767.92 *~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 25 Nov 97 . I #. | 7808.95 | + *
Wed 26 Nov 97 . |# . }| 7794.78 | + *
Fri 28 Nov 97 . | .# | 7823.13 | + *
================================================================================
{, } = "Timer's Trend" (4% and 10% exponential) SELL ({) or BUY (}) signal
[, ] = 4% exponential change unconfirmed by 10% exponential (not a signal).
@ = market overbought or oversold. I or & (on baseline)=10% exponential SELL.
NEXT ISSUE - will appear about December 29. /Nick Chase