According to MSN the 14 day RS values are different and cannot compare them with each other. For example , the 14 day RS low for IDT for a 1 year graph is 60 and for the last 3 months graph it is 45.
So when comparing the RS between two stocks one has to make sure that they belong to the same time range. This is important to interpret the weakness or strongness of the trend. And how low to hold on to till
the stock actually breaks the 30 day MA.
I observe that RS was around 80 when it broke off the 30 d MA on IDT, that is pretty high. From this I understand that one cannot make a definite statement about the RS, rather than declining or ascending RS for buy or sell decisions.
I feel intuitively that the 14 day RS is good for 3 and 6 month graph, because of the 2 week relative analysis.
In case of JKS, a 3 month RS shows a low of 55 and has not cut the 30 d MA.
Interesting observation.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
What it means: Increase in volume in the way above 30d Ma graph, VRX vs JKS
This is a important point one has to make a note. After a stock has double and it the stock is continuing the trend there are many volume changes that can happen. One should not hastily take an decision not to hold the equity if the graph is above the 30 d MA or may be with in 5 % below it. There are normal corrections and one should not sell the stock in this situation.
As did happen to me on the purchase of VRX at 42, the stock was still above the 30d MA. But it jump to 45 in a couple of day with large volume. It also slided back to the 41-42 range bordering the 30 d MA. Hastily I sold it off with the fear that the trend has come to an end. But large volume and sell off above or resulting in bordering 30 d MA should be taken as a normal correction on the path. Though large volume
is sometimes an indicator that people are selling and booking profits, one has to be cautious. Actually at these dip points and bordering the 30 d MA are the best stock accumulate the stock.
Then VRX moved to 59 dollars. I got into it again at 59 and now it is at 65. I lost 50 % move because of my mistake.
Now a similar situation has arisen for JKS. There is high volume sell off and book profit situation. The stock is well over its 30d MA. The stock is at 24 after the sell off. Declined 20 percent from 29.
The 30d MA is at 22. I need to give room for this stock to wobble a little bit. At least 21 something.
After the sell off is over the stock can either rise or decline further. Usually good stocks with good Investor.com rates go higher after the sell off.
The trick is to accumulate such stock during panic and sell off. But one has to learn to beat the gut reactions to sell off and book profits too soon. Of course selling to cut losses is the first thing to do if the stock heads below the 30 d MA. But if the stock is bordering then it means it will definitely rise or forming another base for another rise even with bleak volume.
It is interesting to observe the mass behavior in uptrend stocks. Lets see what happens in this case JKS.
The fundamentals seem to strong for JKS.
As did happen to me on the purchase of VRX at 42, the stock was still above the 30d MA. But it jump to 45 in a couple of day with large volume. It also slided back to the 41-42 range bordering the 30 d MA. Hastily I sold it off with the fear that the trend has come to an end. But large volume and sell off above or resulting in bordering 30 d MA should be taken as a normal correction on the path. Though large volume
is sometimes an indicator that people are selling and booking profits, one has to be cautious. Actually at these dip points and bordering the 30 d MA are the best stock accumulate the stock.
Then VRX moved to 59 dollars. I got into it again at 59 and now it is at 65. I lost 50 % move because of my mistake.
Now a similar situation has arisen for JKS. There is high volume sell off and book profit situation. The stock is well over its 30d MA. The stock is at 24 after the sell off. Declined 20 percent from 29.
The 30d MA is at 22. I need to give room for this stock to wobble a little bit. At least 21 something.
After the sell off is over the stock can either rise or decline further. Usually good stocks with good Investor.com rates go higher after the sell off.
The trick is to accumulate such stock during panic and sell off. But one has to learn to beat the gut reactions to sell off and book profits too soon. Of course selling to cut losses is the first thing to do if the stock heads below the 30 d MA. But if the stock is bordering then it means it will definitely rise or forming another base for another rise even with bleak volume.
It is interesting to observe the mass behavior in uptrend stocks. Lets see what happens in this case JKS.
The fundamentals seem to strong for JKS.
Study of JKS
Nice rally from 10 to 29, then there is a high volume sell off. People are booking profits. Stock down 15 percent, now at 24.
I am averaging at about 24 with 600 stocks. will sell 400 if stocks goes below 21.99. Stock has potential according to Investor.com ranking. Hmmm
Kind of tense situation when you are hanging on the average. 30 day MA at 22.5. That is another 7 percent down from present position. Since the company is good, where will the stock go now?
After all the selling is over, it is only left with buyers. But if the stock goes down below its 30d MA of 22.5 then it is good to sell off 50 percent of position to cut back losses. If the stock hangs around that range for some time, that means it is forming a new base. If the stock comes down sharply, to 20 or 19, then it means the trend is over for now. I have to sell off everything at 21 and get out for a modest loss.
Treasure hunt comes with a certain risk. If it is 10 percent , thats ok. One has to cut losses max 7-10 percent.
Lets see what happens. At the same time one should have the patience to hold when other are taking profits and when there is a healthy correction to the stock above the 30 d MA. Nothing wrong in that correction.
Today stock only declined 1-2 percent. Sellers and buyers on same page. Selling is almost over. Have to watch if more selling happens tomorrow. Then stock will come down, its 30 day MA. that is danger zone. But till then one has to wait. The great virtue of a true trader is to buy on those low points on or above the 30 day MA. That is the skill and power of knowledge.
I am averaging at about 24 with 600 stocks. will sell 400 if stocks goes below 21.99. Stock has potential according to Investor.com ranking. Hmmm
Kind of tense situation when you are hanging on the average. 30 day MA at 22.5. That is another 7 percent down from present position. Since the company is good, where will the stock go now?
After all the selling is over, it is only left with buyers. But if the stock goes down below its 30d MA of 22.5 then it is good to sell off 50 percent of position to cut back losses. If the stock hangs around that range for some time, that means it is forming a new base. If the stock comes down sharply, to 20 or 19, then it means the trend is over for now. I have to sell off everything at 21 and get out for a modest loss.
Treasure hunt comes with a certain risk. If it is 10 percent , thats ok. One has to cut losses max 7-10 percent.
Lets see what happens. At the same time one should have the patience to hold when other are taking profits and when there is a healthy correction to the stock above the 30 d MA. Nothing wrong in that correction.
Today stock only declined 1-2 percent. Sellers and buyers on same page. Selling is almost over. Have to watch if more selling happens tomorrow. Then stock will come down, its 30 day MA. that is danger zone. But till then one has to wait. The great virtue of a true trader is to buy on those low points on or above the 30 day MA. That is the skill and power of knowledge.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Soros Makes $100 Million Rights Gift
Soros Makes $100 Million Rights Gift
By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: September 6, 2010
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The philanthropist George Soros said in an interview that the gift to Human Rights Watch is the first in a series of large gifts that he planned to make.
Pat Roque/Associated Press
Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, which monitors rights abuses.
The largest known gift in 2010 was $200 million pledged by an anonymous Baylor University graduate, to be dispensed upon the donor’s death, for medical research at the university.
Uncertainty about the direction of the economy has made even the wealthiest individuals more cautious about making big philanthropic commitments, Mr. Rooney said.
Contrariness, however, is a hallmark of Mr. Soros, both as an investor and as a philanthropist. While others have held on to their money, he has made bigger gifts than ever. And he said in an interview that the gift to Human Rights Watch is the first of a series of large gifts that he plans to make.
“This is partly due to age,” said Mr. Soros, who celebrated his 80th birthday last month. “Originally I wanted to distribute all of the money during my lifetime, but I have abandoned that plan. My foundation should continue, but I still would like to do a lot of giving during my lifetime, and doing it this way, with such size, is a step in that direction.”
Last year, in the depths of the recession, Mr. Soros gave the Robin Hood Foundation, a charity that fights poverty in New York, a $50 million contribution that helped it raise significantly more than that amount. He also gave every family with children on welfare in New York State $200 to buy school supplies, a grant worth $35 million that enabled the state to gain access to some $175 million in federal money for which it would not otherwise have qualified.
So far this year, Mr. Soros has donated about $700 million to various causes, including the gift to Human Rights Watch. His hedge fund, Quantum Endowment, grew 29 percent in 2009, earning him $3.3 billion in fees and investment gains.
Human Rights Watch will use the gift to add about 120 staff members to its team of 300 around the world, expand translation of its reports and open new offices. The intent, said Kenneth Roth, the advocacy group’s executive director, is to increase its influence in emerging power centers. The group, which is based in New York, investigates and draws attention to human rights abuses around the world.
Mr. Roth said that South Africa had more sway in Zimbabwe than the United States and other Western powers. Similarly, India, China and Japan are more influential in Sri Lanka. “We need to try to generate pressure on those governments, those emerging powers, now, which means expanding our capacity to deploy our information,” Mr. Roth said.
Mr. Soros put it differently. “I’m afraid the United States has lost the moral high ground under the Bush administration, but the principles that Human Rights Watch promotes have not lost their universal applicability,” he said. “So to be more effective, I think the organization has to be seen as more international, less an American organization.”
He said the gift to the organization was “also from my heart,” an acknowledgment of the training in human rights issues and philanthropy that he received from the group when he was just starting to emerge as a major donor.
“Every Wednesday morning at 8 o’clock, a group at Human Rights Watch got together and discussed issues with the managers,” Mr. Soros recalled. “I was an active participant in that group, and human rights remains an important element of my foundation’s current activities.”
Mr. Roth said few people then knew who Mr. Soros was. “We were just trying to figure out what we were going to do that week and so on, and he was just a guy at the meeting,” he said.
The grant is structured as a challenge that asks the group to raise $10 million from new, primarily international sources, each year for the next decade, but Human Right Watch will receive the Soros grant regardless. Roughly 30 percent of its revenue comes from countries other than the United States, but less than 1 percent is from non-Western countries, where much of the organization’s work is focused.
Mr. Soros wants to see the organization raise more money in places like Brazil, Mexico, India and China, which will be challenging, Mr. Roth said. “This is a transformative grant in more than one way for sure,” he said.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The Real Story
Next week, President Obama is scheduled to propose new measures to boost the economy. I hope they’re bold and substantive, since the Republicans will oppose him regardless — if he came out for motherhood, the G.O.P. would declare motherhood un-American. So he should put them on the spot for standing in the way of real action.
But let’s put politics aside and talk about what we’ve actually learned about economic policy over the past 20 months.
When Mr. Obama first proposed $800 billion in fiscal stimulus, there were two groups of critics. Both argued that unemployment would stay high — but for very different reasons.
One group — the group that got almost all the attention — declared that the stimulus was much too large, and would lead to disaster. If you were, say, reading The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages in early 2009, you would have been repeatedly informed that the Obama plan would lead to skyrocketing interest rates and soaring inflation.
The other group, which included yours truly, warned that the plan was much too small given the economic forecasts then available. As I pointed out in February 2009, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting a $2.9 trillion hole in the economy over the next two years; an $800 billion program, partly consisting of tax cuts that would have happened anyway, just wasn’t up to the task of filling that hole.
Critics in the second camp were particularly worried about what would happen this year, since the stimulus would have its maximum effect on growth in late 2009 then gradually fade out. Last year, many of us were already warning that the economy might stall in the second half of 2010.
So what actually happened? The administration’s optimistic forecast was wrong, but which group of pessimists was right about the reasons for that error?
Start with interest rates. Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”
But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.
When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.
What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.
Oh, and don’t tell me that Germany proves that austerity, not stimulus, is the way to go. Germany actually did quite a lot of stimulus — the austerity is all in the future. Also, it never had a housing bubble that burst. And with all that, German G.D.P. is still further below its precrisis peak than American G.D.P. True, Germany has done better in terms of employment — but that’s because strong unions and government policy have prevented American-style mass layoffs.
The actual lessons of 2009-2010, then, are that scare stories about stimulus are wrong, and that stimulus works when it is applied. But it wasn’t applied on a sufficient scale. And we need another round.
I know that getting that round is unlikely: Republicans and conservative Democrats won’t stand for it. And if, as expected, the G.O.P. wins big in November, this will be widely regarded as a vindication of the anti-stimulus position. Mr. Obama, we’ll be told, moved too far to the left, and his Keynesian economic doctrine was proved wrong.
But politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. The economic theory behind the Obama stimulus has passed the test of recent events with flying colors; unfortunately, Mr. Obama, for whatever reason — yes, I’m aware that there were political constraints — initially offered a plan that was much too cautious given the scale of the economy’s problems.
So, as I said, here’s hoping that Mr. Obama goes big next week. If he does, he’ll have the facts on his side.
But let’s put politics aside and talk about what we’ve actually learned about economic policy over the past 20 months.
When Mr. Obama first proposed $800 billion in fiscal stimulus, there were two groups of critics. Both argued that unemployment would stay high — but for very different reasons.
One group — the group that got almost all the attention — declared that the stimulus was much too large, and would lead to disaster. If you were, say, reading The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages in early 2009, you would have been repeatedly informed that the Obama plan would lead to skyrocketing interest rates and soaring inflation.
The other group, which included yours truly, warned that the plan was much too small given the economic forecasts then available. As I pointed out in February 2009, the Congressional Budget Office was predicting a $2.9 trillion hole in the economy over the next two years; an $800 billion program, partly consisting of tax cuts that would have happened anyway, just wasn’t up to the task of filling that hole.
Critics in the second camp were particularly worried about what would happen this year, since the stimulus would have its maximum effect on growth in late 2009 then gradually fade out. Last year, many of us were already warning that the economy might stall in the second half of 2010.
So what actually happened? The administration’s optimistic forecast was wrong, but which group of pessimists was right about the reasons for that error?
Start with interest rates. Those who said the stimulus was too big predicted sharply rising rates. When rates rose in early 2009, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled “The Bond Vigilantes: The disciplinarians of U.S. policy makers return.” The editorial declared that it was all about fear of deficits, and concluded, “When in doubt, bet on the markets.”
But those who said the stimulus was too small argued that temporary deficits weren’t a problem as long as the economy remained depressed; we were awash in savings with nowhere to go. Interest rates, we said, would fluctuate with optimism or pessimism about future growth, not with government borrowing.
When in doubt, bet on the markets. The 10-year bond rate was over 3.7 percent when The Journal published that editorial; it’s under 2.7 percent now.
What about inflation? Amid the inflation hysteria of early 2009, the inadequate-stimulus critics pointed out that inflation always falls during sustained periods of high unemployment, and that this time should be no different. Sure enough, key measures of inflation have fallen from more than 2 percent before the economic crisis to 1 percent or less now, and Japanese-style deflation is looking like a real possibility.
Meanwhile, the timing of recent economic growth strongly supports the notion that stimulus does, indeed, boost the economy: growth accelerated last year, as the stimulus reached its predicted peak impact, but has fallen off — just as some of us feared — as the stimulus has faded.
Oh, and don’t tell me that Germany proves that austerity, not stimulus, is the way to go. Germany actually did quite a lot of stimulus — the austerity is all in the future. Also, it never had a housing bubble that burst. And with all that, German G.D.P. is still further below its precrisis peak than American G.D.P. True, Germany has done better in terms of employment — but that’s because strong unions and government policy have prevented American-style mass layoffs.
The actual lessons of 2009-2010, then, are that scare stories about stimulus are wrong, and that stimulus works when it is applied. But it wasn’t applied on a sufficient scale. And we need another round.
I know that getting that round is unlikely: Republicans and conservative Democrats won’t stand for it. And if, as expected, the G.O.P. wins big in November, this will be widely regarded as a vindication of the anti-stimulus position. Mr. Obama, we’ll be told, moved too far to the left, and his Keynesian economic doctrine was proved wrong.
But politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. The economic theory behind the Obama stimulus has passed the test of recent events with flying colors; unfortunately, Mr. Obama, for whatever reason — yes, I’m aware that there were political constraints — initially offered a plan that was much too cautious given the scale of the economy’s problems.
So, as I said, here’s hoping that Mr. Obama goes big next week. If he does, he’ll have the facts on his side.
Joseph Stinglitz: A real global man
http://www.josephstiglitz.com/
He has wondered all around the world and has seen the conditions all over the world first hand. He does not take sides with United states but critiques where necessary. His book " Making Globalization work" gives a true picture of the downsides of the present form of globalization and its problems and what needs to be done for globalization to work. He definitely thinks that globalization when rightly used can alleviate the poor countries but now the developed countries have greater bargaining power. This needs to be changed.
Its a wonderful book for a lay man to understand the present situation of globalization and to understand what needs to be done to remedy it.
He has wondered all around the world and has seen the conditions all over the world first hand. He does not take sides with United states but critiques where necessary. His book " Making Globalization work" gives a true picture of the downsides of the present form of globalization and its problems and what needs to be done for globalization to work. He definitely thinks that globalization when rightly used can alleviate the poor countries but now the developed countries have greater bargaining power. This needs to be changed.
Its a wonderful book for a lay man to understand the present situation of globalization and to understand what needs to be done to remedy it.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Is the war in Iraq over?
Was the whole enterprise to dethrone Saddam hussain really worth it? After more than 100000 Iraqi's dead and 4500 soldiers dead, what has the war achieved? There are warring factions still remaining and there is severe unemployment in Iraq.
Americans only think about their country and their massive economic problems. With just 10 percent unemployment rate, people in united states are baffled, what about 25 to 30 unemployment in Iraq???
The matter is not just dethroning Saddam, it has escalated and affected every middle class family in Iraq. Baghdad was one of those beautiful cities and now it is in ruins.
I hope the Iraqi's will stop fighting among themselves and bring some peace to the region which may take a long time. People need to learn to share power and live peacefully.
Americans only think about their country and their massive economic problems. With just 10 percent unemployment rate, people in united states are baffled, what about 25 to 30 unemployment in Iraq???
The matter is not just dethroning Saddam, it has escalated and affected every middle class family in Iraq. Baghdad was one of those beautiful cities and now it is in ruins.
I hope the Iraqi's will stop fighting among themselves and bring some peace to the region which may take a long time. People need to learn to share power and live peacefully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)