SUMMARY - "PIG":
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
Frankly, I'm not interested in whether or not our so-called "world leaders" save face, for the intensified ethnicide and consolidation of control by the Serbs within Yugoslav borders, which any birdbrain could figure out would occur as soon as the bombing got underway, but the logic of which escaped our "leaders", demonstrates that indeed they are foolish and weak, and they deserve to be fired by the voters at the next convenient opportunity.
I am interested in seeing people learn from the experience, and in seeing that the conflict does not mushroom into World War III. One thing we can learn is that the nation's founders knew what they were doing when they invested solely in Congress the power to declare war, because they knew that any war would have to have popular support to reach a favorable conclusion. Since World War II the war-making powers have been abrogated to the executive branch of government, and perhaps this was necessary during the Cold War and nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, when there was less than 15 minutes' warning before any nuclear attack. But the success record on limited wars is mixed. Korea was a draw; Vietnam was expensive and, ultimately, a failure due to political ineptitude and (eventually) lack of will. The Gulf war and the invasion of Grenada were successes; Lebanon, Somalia and Haiti have been failures; for Bosnia and the occasional lobbing of cruise missiles into wayward nations, we don't know yet.
But certainly we've seen that where waging war has been the prerogative of the chief executive, the proper choice of where and how to fight depends greatly on the quality of the executive. For example, the Gulf war was successful because Iraq was clearly an aggressor, vital U.S. interests (oil) were at stake, George Bush was able to solidify public support before the war began, the mission was clear (though once the war began, I would have opted for occupying Iraq), and the military was allowed to do its job as it deemed best. In contrast, the war with the Serbs was lost before we even began, because there is no clear mission, there is little public support (still!),the military is handcuffed, and the motives of the commander-in-chief for initiating combat are suspect. I, for one, feel that for these limited wars, Congress should be formally declaring war as the Constitution stipulates, so at least the chief can't go charging off unless the majority of Indians (the public) are right behind him.
You readers know that I'm fascinated by the "herd instinct" in the stock market, particularly when it leads to excesses such as the current bubble, complete with even crazier side manias such as the Internet-stock feeding frenzy. But the "herd instinct" has its more dangerous side, as when nations are pulled.... reluctantly, it would sometimes seem.... into war.
Consider: Bill needs a little diversion away from his domestic troubles, and a "legacy" to satisfy his narcissistic drives. A brief skirmish with Albania.... er, sorry, scratch that, that was in "Wag the Dog", I mean with Serbia.... seems perfect. He ignores the advisers who tell him it's a blunder, listening only to those who tell him what he wants to hear.... a brief air campaign, the enemy capitulates, victory, he'll be a hero. The project is an easy sell to NATO, which otherwise has nothing to do and might have to go out of business.
Once the war is underway, the military back their commander-in-chief, because they have no choice. The politicians' criticism is muted because they don't want to be seen undercutting "our boys" in the armed services. The media support the war because it's good for ratings and business. After awhile the public gets sucked in, figuring that if so many people at the top are for this campaign, it must be the right thing to do.
WARNING! DISCONNECT! This is how we got sucked into Vietnam. Only after the body bags arrived home in great numbers, seemingly with no end in sight, did public pressure to stop the carnage become so great that Richard Nixon was forced to ignominiously pull our troops out of 'Nam with the enemy in hot pursuit.
At least with Vietnam, the war was waged in the context of a struggle between two superpowers, between the relative freedom of capitalism and the slavery of communism. The "domino theory" that much of Southeast Asia would become communist if South Vietnam went under was proved essentially correct, though with the collapse of the Soviet Union this became a much less important issue. So the objective for fighting in Vietnam was not without merit, though ultimately it was not worth the price paid.
And what is the objective in Yugoslavia? Ostensibly, "humanitarianism", despite the great powers' looking askance at numerous other ethnicides and genocides that have occurred over the past two decades. What bull. I suspect the war is being waged (a) because Bill's trying to leave an imprint in history [boy, he will!]; (b) for NATO to test-run its weaponry for a possible more serious future conflict; (c) as a proxy war against Russia, to blunt the return of its influence into the colonies it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Well, I've never been part of the herd, nor am I about to be now. Let me be the first to say: Neither the stated
objectives for war with the Serbs, nor the hidden agendas, are important enough to justify the price we will
eventually pay if we don't stop the war now, but allow ourselves to get sucked in deeper and deeper.
I couldn't have told you whether the missile attack was a U.S. Navy test gone awry (there were exercises in the area at the time) or a deliberate provocation by a foreign power, but that a missile did take down TWA 800, I didn't have much doubt, and I said so at the time (but not in The Contrarian's View). As further evidence came to light, it only reinforced my view.
Then, during the course of the government's "investigation", it became clear that "mechanical failure" was the preferred outcome. Anybody who supported the missile theory was labeled a "kook" or "right-winger" (a sure sign that the truth is about to suffer), and the government's propaganda efforts even extended to a CIA-produced cartoon designed to convince the witnesses they didn't see what they really saw.... or, at least, to convince other people the witnesses didn't know what they were talking about. (The CIA is supposed to spy on other countries, not produce domestic propaganda.)
Commander William S. Donaldson, an experienced Navy crash investigator (now retired), was originally a supporter of the exploding-center-fuel-tank theory.... until he found that government officials were lying to him. His further investigations have led him to conclude that the government knew from the first that a missile or missiles had brought down TWA 800 and that they had subsequently engineered a cover up, as he makes clear in a recent letter to officers at Boeing and TWA, which I have reproduced as an addendum to this month's issue.
Note especially item 7 on page 2: "We can provide testimony that immediately after Flight 800 was shot down, Mr. Clinton called an FBI command post supporting the Olympics and informed them Flight 800 was downed with shoulder-fired missiles."
Let's see. 1984 has come and gone. I am not a subject of the Evil Empire.... it died, remember? This is the
United States of America, a government of and for the people.... it would never tell a big lie to its own
citizens, right? Just like it would never be an aggressor without provocation.... We really are the "good guys"
- there really is a difference between "us" and "them" ....right? RIGHT?
Why the mania? Stocks have changed as an investment vehicle in the last 10 years. Stocks used to represent an opportunity for steady growth and income (remember dividends? Haven't seen any in a while). Recently the trend is to look at stocks, not based on the underlying value of the company for the long term, but rather based the probability that the value of the stock itself will go up. This is pure speculation and has turned the main stock market into something like the futures market.
Institutional investors and small investors have bought the line of the past 10 years to "buy and hold" or "buy on the dips." Funny, you never heard the phrase "buy and hold" before 1985. Every time the market goes down, there's still enough money out there to cause a new round of buying to further prop up the house of cards. But it's not a healthy type of buying. It's financed mostly through debt and derivatives.
Will it come down? Eventually, when fear overcomes the greed. Options and futures are a way to make a lot
of money quickly, but approach with extreme caution - you can lose your shirt and a lot more.
The first terminals showed up in this timeframe. Mostly these were typewriters hooked up at 10-15 cps, make it 300 or 600 baud. Interestingly, most peripherals were unbuffered. A characteristic of the IBM S/360 channel was that it could sustain single-byte transfers directly into the host's memory without interfering with CPU operations. Byte multiplexor channels handled single- and two- or three-byte transfers very efficiently. The Selector channel did the same for blocked data from faster, record oriented devices such as tapes, disks, and drums (or fixed-head storage).
At the dawn of time, 1964, until the early 1970s, the only game in town were mainframes. Large enterprises computerized by building systems using chisels and hammers. Databases showed up toward the end of the 1960s, as DL/I, IMS, CICS/DB, VSAM, MarkIV....
A high performance database was hand-built out of assembly language and DBAM or EXCP. I was there, I used these.
In addition to IBM, RCA's Spectra, GE, Honeywell, Amdahl, Magnusson, Itel, Control Data Corporation and others built mainframes.
In the 1970s the second leg of enterprise systems forked out: Minicomputers. Data General, Digital, Apollo, Wang, Series/1, System 3, there were others.
Every year, the inventory of code increased. I've never done COBOL. I've held the hands of COBOL programmers and helped them debug their applications. In some circumstances, machine-language mechanics can debug and fix code faster than COBOL'ers can. I did a year of Fortran IV, followed by PL/I. I've written fairly large systems in PL/I and even after 15 years on C (and recently C++) can still code PL/I faster and safer than C.
C was a step back and even C++ does not have the expressiveness and power of PL/I, but I digress....
In the 1980s a bad thing happens. Mainframes get very large and inexpensive. The mainframe applications get so large that they essentially define the organization. Sometime in the 1980s, IBM finally makes mainframes reliable.
The result is dangerous. The things are cheap, reliable, powerful enough to run entire organizations, and already host the aggregate data and software logic of 20 years of corporate history.
Add to the mix the 1980s PeeCees and Un*x; the new talent is siphoned off. I took the last mainframe computer science graduate level class offered at GWU. This was about 1985. Except for a few schools, there have been no CS graduates who understand mainframes, they all want to click on Visual BASIC or write the next Quake....
What do these mainframes do? They do the heavy lifting of commerce. Utterly reliable, fast enough to drive all the corporate data through a single point, dirt cheap to run and maintain. Mainframes are the secret weapon of the Fortune 5,000. There are 50,000 IBM style mainframes. These are supported by 400,000 AS/400s and millions of other midicomputers.
Banking, insurance, manufacturing, reservations, chemicals, electronics, communications, any business that was big in the 1960s and 1970s and has a large records problem depends on its mainframes....
Single point of failure. The ideal target. At the beginning, banks and other firms used to proudly display their mainframes in glass rooms at street level. I don't think there has been a hit on a mainframe but the risk is so great that now you will never see a mainframe, unless you work on them.
Mainframes are hidden away behind locked doors. Usually there is no external indication that there is a mainframe at the location. There might be a sign reading XYZ Corp Annex-2 but more likely it's just a street number.
Most people working at firms with mainframes do not know that the system exists. It's a secret.
So now, with an inventory of 50,000 mainframes and 263 Days, 6,335 Hours, we don't have time to find and fix all the source and data.
I believe that there are Fortune 5,000 firms that have not yet started. Perhaps the CIO plans to retire, perhaps he doesn't know, perhaps a consulting firm has promised that they will implement SAP or run the code through a factory. For whatever reason, they have not done the work and will fail on rollover.
I believe that there are Fortune 500 firms that are done. I expected BankBoston to announce completion a few months ago, perhaps their acquisition by Fleet muddied the water. I know of two other Fortune 500 firms that are done, remediated, tested, independently certified. I know when they started and how much effort they applied. I don't know why they haven't announced the "Great News!" Perhaps they are retesting or perhaps my info isn't as good as I thought.
Whatever. Here are the facts. Some large percentage of the systems running on the 50,000 mainframes and several millions of minis (or midis) will fail. The nature of the failures will be such that they cannot be fixed, patched, restarted in 3-6 hours. In some cases, these systems will never be fixed, the owning organization will fail and there will not be the resources to execute the repairs.
Experts in embeddeds, LANs, PeeCees, Telcos, power generation, whatever, if your area is fine, good for you. I'm telling you that the enterprise systems are not OK. I expect a major bank to fall over, same with a major insurance company, brokerage house, chemical manufacturer, etc. I am not optimistic about the prospects of any sector. Something bad is about to happen.
Perhaps there is enough parallelism that even when we see multiple failures, as happened with S&L's, we will be able to jump to the surviving firms.
Perhaps when the economy tanks as a result of the widespread failures that we will be able to restart it, as we weren't able to do in 1929-1939.
Who knows, I don't. I'm glad that there are big-brains out there who are certain that everything will be fine. Please, denialists, keep flooding [us] with your "Great News!", I need the laughs.
Something bad is about to happen.
We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers [Somalian warlords].... When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers. I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks. - Bill Clinton [as recalled by George Stephanopoulos in his book All Too Human]
[Clinton] is in terrible trouble mentally and psychologically and is a completely hollow narcissist and egomaniac. And he thinks that the best therapy for it is being president. My view is that presidential therapy hasn't worked for him and shouldn't have been tried. But he certainly does need professional help. - Christopher Hitchens
Remember the Bosnia crisis a couple years ago? The big problem there was the Bosnian Serbs wanted independence. The U.S., NATO, and the U.N. said no, while supporting limited military actions to prevent the Serbs from advancing on their goals for autonomy. In Kosovo, ethnic Albanians want independence from the Serbs. We said yes -- and even went to war to support their bid for self-determination. Now what's the difference? Is it only Serb independence movements we oppose? Is it only radical Islamic independence movements we support? What's the principle for which we are fighting? - Joseph Farah
In the fog of war propaganda, let us remember the facts. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is in the wrong. NATO is in violation of the United Nations Charter, which forbids military aggression against a sovereign state at peace with its neighbors. Yugoslavia was at peace with its neighbors.... The United States, which has orchestrated this war against Yugoslavia, has no legitimate vital, strategic or even marginal interests in the Balkans.... Clinton has poisoned the future. People who said character doesn't matter were wrong. - Charley Reese
Listen, my fellow Americans, this criminal psychopath in the White House is well on the way to bringing this nation to our knees. He has stripped the military of half their most vital supplies, overcommitted them all over the globe, sold our best and most deadly technology to our sworn enemies, committed the nation to spending vast sums we can ill afford to finance his dangerous and ill-advised foreign adventures, and put us at risk in the face of the open hostility of such nuclear-armed foes as North Korea and China. This Kosovo business could well sound the death knell for America. It has got to stop. Now. Before it's too late. - Phil Brennan
Is anyone for this war besides Clinton, some of the Congress, and the media, especially the media? I don't understand why the media have endorsed this war so solidly! I have not talked to a single person that believes we should be there. Is it just me, or is it this way all over? - Wayne Mann
The Congress shall have Power.... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.... - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
The war was started unilaterally by a discredited, impeached President, devoid of any moral authority.... a proven liar, held in contempt, who has bombed a sovereign nation which has never remotely threatened the United States or any of its allies or interests.... Mr. Clinton's aggression was not authorized or recommended by the Constitution, by the United Nations, by Congress or even by his own military advisers. He has tried to justify the wholesale slaughter of innocent people as a "moral imperative". What utter nonsense. Is he giving himself a pep talk? All he has done is united a divided Yugoslavia behind President Milosevic and ensured that US troops have to sort out the mess he has created.... As the rest of the world already knows, he is, of course, quite insane. - Steve Myers
The political and military asses currently leading NATO into its first defeat are displaying a degree of cowardice and incompetence unseen in Europe since the 1930s. Unable to win this war without committing ground troops - which should have been done six weeks ago - NATO keeps hoping its futile, 'lite' bombing will give it a bloodless victory. Meanwhile, the alliance is cracking apart as its weak sisters whine for peace at any price with the Balkan nazis who are burning people alive, running rape camps, and committing what the UN calls 'near genocide'. - Eric Margolis
We have started a war to protect a people, and we know that, far from being protected, the people are being slaughtered and driven destitute from their homes to starve in the hills. We know that there is no sign that Serb forces are being hurt enough to force their retreat. But we must stick to the plan. We must fly high in the air, even if this means that we cannot effectively kill Serb troops who are killing ethnic Albanians, and even if this means that we ourselves sometimes kill ethnic Albanians by mistake, as NATO has finally admitted. We must not send in soldiers. Because these things are dangerous. We could get hurt. - Michael Kelly
Clinton's war in Kosovo will cost at least $8 billion,wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy and sucking up the lives of a generation for yet another useless war abroad. If we had offered $800 million to Milosevic for all of Kosovo, the fat communist might have taken the money and called us "suckers". If we had spent $800 million arming the Maoist heroin smugglers that portray themselves as the Kosovar Liberation Army (KLA) then Milosevic would be fighting for his life in the streets of Belgrade. Clinton's "McWar" in Kosovo is in his classic Waco-kid style. Bomb Kosovo to save Kosovo. Burn the women and children alive to keep them from being abused by that mean old bad guy. Create the crisis and then rush in (with cameras rolling) to solve the crisis. - Charles R. Smith
Clinton has managed to single-handedly revive the Cold War. - Mikhail Gorbachev
[Clinton's] political motives are so blatant that they would be farcical if we weren't talking about the lives of American soldiers.... There wasn't that much respect for the man to begin with. What little there was is long gone now. - Arnold Crittendon [retired intelligence analyst]
I've been around the military for more than 30 years and I have never seen morale this low. Bill Clinton has destroyed the soul of our armed forces. - Al Simonson [former Navy captain]
Bill Clinton and his North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies are racists, I presume. Let's be logical. They justified NATO's unprecedented and illegal attack on a sovereign state on the basis that 2,000 dead in a civil war constituted a humanitarian crisis sufficient to justify going to war. Well, 700,000 Tutsis were slaughtered -- men, women, children and babies -- in Rwanda, and that only rated a bit of rhetoric from Clinton and his racist buddies. By my math, that means that, in their minds, one European life is more valuable than 350 black lives.... I point this out because it is always important to know when your government is lying. I don't know what the real reason for the attack on Yugoslavia is, but it darn sure isn't because of a humanitarian crisis. - Charley Reese
This week the TV has been filled with images from Denver, of kids who bombed their high school and slaughtered their classmates, followed immediately by images of blasted Belgrade and skyscrapers burning.... If I thought more highly of the president, I might rest a speck easier about it all and could hope that, holding the special position of responsibility that is his, and being a wise leader and great statesman, he would certainly be doing the right thing. But when he speaks, I hear only sanctimonious gibberish, and the feeling haunts me that he hasn't a clue, that no one is minding the store, and that things are getting "curiouser and curiouser" with every turn of the planet on its axis. - Barry Bercier
I here repeat my charge that the associates of Bill Clinton were actively, and with taxpayers' money, spreading
false information against truthful female witnesses. They sought to destroy the characters of these women by
off-the-record briefings, and by underhanded denunciations. - Christopher Hitchens
Most major tops peak within 13 months of divergence. The 1929 top (crash and a depression following) came in the 16th month of divergence. If the typical divergent situation prevails, then the big-cap stocks will finally have peaked by May 1999, with the crash arriving (most likely) in July. If we do a rerun of 1929, then the final top will not arrive until August or September 1999.... with the possibility that we could see another couple thousand Dow points tacked on in a final, mad blowoff.
But since this mania is bigger than any ever seen before, and since the Federal Reserve seems exceedingly reluctant to provide the monetary "pin" to pop the bubble, it's always possible we could go right up to the end of the year with the mania in place.... though I would give the likelihood of this very low (single-digit) odds. Regardless, I view January 2000 as a "drop-dead" date for this so-called "bull" market.. It is impossible for stocks to continue to rise in view of the systemic nature of Y2K failures, and while it is possible for us to sail right into the new year with the public still largely ignorant of the scope of the Y2K problem, no "bull market" can survive the enormous shift in psychology that will occur when Y2K failures degrade the economy. I have staked my reputation (such as it is) on this; if we have not had the crash by the end of January 2000, paid subscribers will receive the free extensions to their subscriptions that I promised some time ago. (Would they still want them?)
In the meantime, my attitude is: The bigger it gets, the harder it falls. "Fair value" for stocks has not changed much in the past two years, Dow 3400 to 3800 depending on corporate earnings and competing short-term interest rates. With earnings actually declining and interest rates creeping upward, we've moved to the lower end of that range, 3400 to 3600 for the Dow. From this, you can surmise that the coming crash will be a real humdinger, much worse than in 1929.
What puzzles me still is, what on Earth was the Federal Reserve thinking? This mania should have been
nipped in the bud, back in the spring of 1995. If we collectively put our trust in a central bank to keep the
economy on an even keel, then it should "lean against the wind", as it did in the 1950s, to keep such bubbles
from occurring in the first place. Even the Japanese central bank bit the bullet in 1989, risking a depression
(which looks like it has occurred) for the long-term health of the Japanese economy. When I view Alan
Greenspan and the current crop of Federal Reserve governors, I think "Squawk! Squawk!".... chickens.
Original cost: $ 8,090.45
Present value: $ 5,754.73
Increase: $-2,355.72 [-28.87%]
The performance of this portfolio and its predecessors ("Hedger's Delight", "Present and Future Income", "Crapshooter's Folly") from January 1987 to the present is -19.34%, for a compound annual rate of return of -1.72%. COMMENT on "Phoenix": No change from the last issue. (Cash balance is not up to date.)
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG":
Original cost: $ 8,675.00
Present value: $ 7,909.99
Increase: $ -765.01 [-8.82%]
COMMENT on "PIG": The PIGs directed me to sell Alkermes at a favorable price, which I did on April 9 @ 28. Sorry, the Fidelity web site is acting up, so I'm not able to give you the exact proceeds, but the cash
balance and stock values are up to date.
The PIGs' Web page is at
http://www.assumption.edu/HTML/Faculty/Kantar/WPigs.html
C. Roth rollover IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $10,650.85
Increase: $ 2,324.66 [+27.92]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors)
from January 1, 1987 to the present is -2.88%, for a compound
annual rate of return of -0.23%.
D. CREF Pension plan; I switch between indexed stock/bond/money funds:
Date Sold Bought
13Mar1992 stock @ 56.65 MM @ 13.41
29Apr1992 MM @ 13.48 bond @ 31.19
19Jun1992 bond @ 32.14 MM @ 13.55
29Jun1992 MM @ 13.57 stock @ 56.74
24Jul1992 stock @ 56.76 MM @ 13.61
29Oct1992 MM @ 13.72 stock @ 58.61
23Dec1992 stock @ 61.48 MM @ 13.78
16Jan1995 MM @ 14.83 equity-index @ 26.44
20Jan1995 eq-index @ 26.19 MM @ 14.84
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 bond@47.56 (27.17%)
30Oct1997 MM@ 17.24 i-i bond@26.12 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 bond@ 48.84 MM@17.52 (27.17%)
11Feb1998 I-I bond@ 26.23 MM@17.52(27.17%)
16Jun1998 MM@ 17.84 TIAA Traditional (45.87%)
Values, 23Apr1999: stock, 183.47; MM, 18.62; bond, 52.29;
inflation-indexed bond, 27.29; TIAA current yield in SRA, 6.00%
Gain, 1988: 18.91%; 1989: 14.48%; 1990: 8.28%; 1991: 27.93%; 1992: 10.20%; 1993: 3.08%; 1994: 4.07%; 1995: 4.80%; 1996: 5.28%; 1997: 5.38%
Gain, January 1 through December 31, 1998: 5.72% (5.72%
annual rate of return)
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (11 years): 174.03%
Compound annual rate of return: 9.60% (My long-term target: in excess of 15%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained
442.42%, for a compound annual rate of return of 16.62%.
E. Current unfilled portfolio good-til-cancelled orders: None.
COMMENT on "Timer's Trend": In spite of the "Timer's Trend" BUY signal of April 16, we're still on crash watch. Further new highs (2000 more Dow points, even) in the popular averages are possible.... as is a meltdown with virtually no warning. This is a mania..... watch the "computer warmline".... treat all sell signals with the greatest respect.
I have updated the computer program which calculates "Timer's Trend" to handle Dow values above 9999.99, and also NYSE up or down volumes greater than 99,999,900 shares (these volume figures are not used for calculating "Timer's Trend, but for doing other things in the program). So far, we've had only one down day.... in the October 1997 crashette..... where I had to hand-truncate the down volume, so let's just say I'm getting my program ready for the upcoming crash. I have also changed the DJIA plot below from 5 Dow points per asterisk (a good setting for the 1970s) to 25 points per asterisk, so you will now see a lot fewer "interruptions", marked by dashed lines, in the plot.
______________________________ TIMER'S TREND _________________________________
Mon 19 Oct 98 . | #. | 8466.45 |-. *
Tue 20 Oct 98 . | # | 8505.85 |+. *
Wed 21 Oct 98 . #| . }| 8519.23 |+. *
Thu 22 Oct 98 . |# . | 8533.14 |+. *
Fri 23 Oct 98 .# | . | 8452.29 + . *
Mon 26 Oct 98 . |# . | 8432.21 + . *
Tue 27 Oct 98 . # . | 8366.04 |-. *
Wed 28 Oct 98 . |# . | 8371.97 + . *
Thu 29 Oct 98 . | # | 8495.03 + . *
Fri 30 Oct 98 . | . # | 8592.10 | + *
Mon 2 Nov 98 . | . # | 8706.15 | + *
Tue 3 Nov 98 . | # | 8706.15 | .+ *
Wed 4 Nov 98 . | . # | 8783.14 | . + *
Thu 5 Nov 98 . | .# | 8915.47 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 6 Nov 98 . | # | 8975.46 | . + *
Mon 9 Nov 98 . # . | 8897.96 | .+ *
Tue 10 Nov 98 . # . | 8863.98 | + *
Wed 11 Nov 98 . |# . | 8823.82 |+. *
Thu 12 Nov 98 . |# . | 8829.74 |+. *
Fri 13 Nov 98 . | # | 8919.59 |+. *
Mon 16 Nov 98 . | # | 9011.25 |+. *
Tue 17 Nov 98 . | #. | 8986.28 | + *
Wed 18 Nov 98 . | #. | 9041.11 | + *
Thu 19 Nov 98 . | # | 9056.05 | + *
Fri 20 Nov 98 . | . # | 9159.55 | .+ *
Mon 23 Nov 98 . | . # | 9374.27 | .+ *
Tue 24 Nov 98 . | #. | 9301.15 | .+ *
Wed 25 Nov 98 . | # | 9314.28 | .+ *
Fri 27 Nov 98 . | .# | 9333.08 | .+ *
Mon 30 Nov 98 .# | . | 9116.55 | + *
Tue 1 Dec 98 . |# . | 9133.54 |+. *
Wed 2 Dec 98 . # . | 9064.54 |+. *
Thu 3 Dec 98 . #I . | 8879.68 + . *<
Fri 4 Dec 98 . | . # | 9016.14 + . *
Mon 7 Dec 98 . | # | 9070.47 |+. *
Tue 8 Dec 98 . |# . | 9027.98 |+. *
Wed 9 Dec 98 . | #. | 9009.19 | + *
Thu 10 Dec 98 .# I . | 8841.58 |+. *
Fri 11 Dec 98 # I . {| 8821.76 + . *
Mon 14 Dec 98 # . I . | 8695.60 | - *
Tue 15 Dec 98 . #I . | 8823.30 | - *
Wed 16 Dec 98 . #I . | 8790.60 | .- *
Thu 17 Dec 98 . I# . | 8875.82 | - *
Fri 18 Dec 98 . I# . | 8903.63 | - *
Mon 21 Dec 98 . I # | 8988.85 + . *
Tue 22 Dec 98 . #I . | 9044.46 + . *
Wed 23 Dec 98 . I .# | 9202.03 |+. *
Thu 24 Dec 98 . I .# | 9217.99 | + *
Mon 28 Dec 98 . I# . | 9226.75 | + *
Tue 29 Dec 98 . | # }| 9320.98 | + *
Wed 30 Dec 98 . | #. | 9274.64 | + *
Thu 31 Dec 98 . | . # | 9181.43 | .+ *
Mon 4 Jan 99 . | # | 9184.27 | .+ *
Tue 5 Jan 99 . | . # | 9311.19 | .+ *
Wed 6 Jan 99 . | . # | 9544.97 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 7 Jan 99 . |# . | 9537.76 | . + *
Fri 8 Jan 99 . | .# | 9643.32 | . + *
Mon 11 Jan 99 . # . | 9619.89 | .+ *
Tue 12 Jan 99 .# I . {| 9474.68 | + *
Wed 13 Jan 99 # . I . | 9349.56 |-. *
Thu 14 Jan 99 # . I . | 9120.93 |~-~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 15 Jan 99 . I . # | 9340.55 | - *
Tue 19 Jan 99 . I #. | 9355.22 |-. *
Wed 20 Jan 99 . I #. | 9335.91 |-. *
Thu 21 Jan 99 .# I . | 9264.08 + . *
Fri 22 Jan 99 # I . | 9120.67 + . *
Mon 25 Jan 99 . & . | 9203.32 |-. *
Tue 26 Jan 99 . & . | 9234.58 |-. *
Wed 27 Jan 99 .# I . | 9200.23 | - *
Thu 28 Jan 99 . & . | 9281.33 |-. *
Fri 29 Jan 99 . I# . | 9358.83 |-. *
Mon 1 Feb 99 . I# . | 9345.70 + . *
Tue 2 Feb 99 # I . | 9274.12 |-. *
Wed 3 Feb 99 . I# . | 9366.81 + . *
Thu 4 Feb 99 # I . | 9304.50 |-. *
Fri 5 Feb 99 # I . | 9304.24 | - *
Mon 8 Feb 99 # I . | 9291.11 | .- *
Tue 9 Feb 99 # . I . | 9133.03 | .- *
Wed 10 Feb 99 # I . | 9177.31 | . - *
Thu 11 Fab 99 .# I . | 9363.46 | . - *
Fri 12 Feb 99 # . I . | 9274.89 | . - *
Tue 16 Feb 99 .# I . | 9297.03 | . - *
Wed 17 Feb 99 # . I . | 9195.47 | . - *
Thu 18 Feb 99 .# I . | 9298.63 | . - *
Fri 19 Feb 99 .# I . | 9339.95 | . - *
Mon 22 Feb 99 . I #. | 9552.68 | - *
Tue 23 Feb 99 .# I . | 9544.42 | - *
Wed 24 Feb 99 # I . | 9399.67 | - *
Thu 25 Feb 99 # . I . | 9366.34 | .- *
Fri 26 Feb 99 #. I . | 9306.58 | .- *
Mon 1 Mar 99 #. I . | 9324.78 | . - *
Tue 2 Mar 99 # I . | 9297.61 | . - *
Wed 3 Mar 99 # I . | 9275.88 | . - *
Thu 4 Mar 99 . & . | 9467.40 | .- *
Fri 5 Mar 99 . I . # | 9736.08 |-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 8 Mar 99 . I #. | 9727.61 + . *
Tue 9 Mar 99 . #I . | 9693.76 + . *
Wed 10 Mar 99 . I# . | 9772.84 |+. *
Thu 11 Mar 99 . |# . | 9897.44 |+. *
Fri 12 Mar 99 . #I . | 9876.35 + . *
Mon 15 Mar 99 . & . | 9958.77 + . *
Tue 16 Mar 99 . #I . | 9930.47 + . *
Wed 17 Mar 99 .# I . | 9879.41 |-. *
Thu 18 Mar 99 . I# . | 9997.62 |-. *
Fri 19 Mar 99 # I . | 9903.55 |-. *
Mon 22 Mar 99 # I . | 9890.51 | - *
Tue 23 Mar 99 # . I . | 9671.83 | .- *
Wed 24 Mar 99 # I . | 9666.84 | . - *
Thu 25 Mar 99 . & . | 9836.39 | . - *
Fri 26 Mar 99 # I . | 9822.24 | . - *
Mon 29 Mar 99 . I# . |10006.78 | .- *
Tue 30 Mar 99 #. I . | 9913.26 | - *
Wed 31 Mar 99 #. I . | 9786.16 | - *
Thu 1 Apr 99 .# I . | 9832.51 | .- *
Mon 5 Apr 99 . I #. |10007.33 | - *
Tue 6 Apr 99 . #I . | 9963.49 | - *
Wed 7 Apr 99 . #I . |10085.31 | - *
Thu 8 Apr 99 . I# . |10197.70 |-. *
Fri 9 Apr 99 . I #. |10173.84 + . *
Mon 12 Apr 99 . | #. |10339.51 +~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 13 Apr 99 . |# . |10395.01 |+. *
Wed 14 Apr 99 . | #. |10411.66 |+. *
Thu 15 Apr 99 . |# . |10462.72 |+. *
Fri 16 Apr 99 . | # }|10493.89 |+. *
Mon 19 Apr 99 . | # |10440.53 | + *
Tue 20 Apr 99 . |# . |10448.55 | + *
Wed 21 Apr 99 . | .# |10581.42 | + *
Thu 22 Apr 99 . | .# |10727.18 | .+ *
Fri 23 Apr 99 . | # |10689.67 | .+ *
Mon 26 Apr 99 . | .# |10718.59 | .+ *
========================================================================
"Timer's Trend" is based on 4% and 10% exponential moving averages of the New York Stock Exchange advance/decline line (that is, the ratio of advancing to declining stocks). There are many symbols shown above, but the ones that count are the braces: {, } = "Timer's Trend" (4% exponential confirmed by 10% exponential) SELL ({) or BUY(}) signal.
NEXT ISSUE - will appear about May 31.
/Nick Chase