Monday, December 28, 2009

Tim Sykes' ATHX trade, Dec 23, 2009

ATHX intraday chart
ATHX day chart Tim Sykes trade
This is the ATHX trade as posted on Tim Sykes' front page: Tim bought at $5.88, sold at $6.04. However, based on Tim's posts, it looks like the story was more complex with more individual trades -- but TimAlert subscribes were kept up-to-date.

As is often the case, the time scale of these trades is finer than is resolved on the day chart. The bottom line is that I learn very little here -- except that this is the type of a stock event that triggers a speculative trader's attention -- which is obvious.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Tim Sykes' IFNY trade, Dec 21, 2009

IFNY day chart Tim Sykes trade
This is Tim's second trade in this stock in December (see the previous one). Again not sure whether this is a long or short, but judging from the posts on his site (responses from TimAlert subscribers) the sentiment was bullish this time, and the trade idea was out already on Friday. Tim bought at $1.85, sold at $2.17 -- a profitable trade.

Tim Sykes' SNSS trade, Dec 16, 2009

SNSS day chart Tim Sykes
Another winning trade in SNSS, closed Dec 16. As you see, the trade took advantage of only a fraction of the day's range; most likely this is a short -- but one has to see intra-day data; the scale of price change (sold at $1.71, bought at $1.67) corresponds to the daily scalping time scale, given the overall volatility of the stock.

Tim Sykes' SNSS trade, Dec 15, 2009

SNSS day chart Tim Sykes trade
A successful short trade; Tim sold at $1.99, covered at $1.85. The date he publishes on his site is the date the trade is closed; looking at the chart, one can guess when the trade was entered: most likely, the day before. In that case, the decision must have been influenced by the stock's intra-day dynamics the day before, which shows up on the day chart in the peculiarity of the day candle on the day the stock made a top.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Tim Sykes' RWC trade, Dec 10, 2009

RWC day chart Tim Sykes trade
This one just looks like bad luck. Most likely the intention was to short the stock, and the overall trend agrees with that, but the timing looks wrong -- or rather, the stop-loss chosen is too tight for these volatile stocks. Sold at $3.89, bought at $4.12, .

Tim Sykes' LZB trade, Dec 9, 2009

LZB day chart Tim Sykes trade
This trade was a loss. I find some of Tim's losing trades just as instructive as the winning ones to look at. Perhaps I should classify these little posts according to whether the trade was a win or a loss, in addition to ticker and market. Can't think of a reason for a technical, short-term speculator to open a position in this stock around Dec.9 -- which is when the position was closed according to Tim's log on his site. According to his log, the buy level was $10, sell $9.82.

Tim Sykes' BIOF trade, Dec 7, 2009

BIOF day chart Time Sykes trade
This trade was a loss; technically (with the benefit of hind-sight of course) I don't see a compelling reason to short this stock on Dec 7 -- it's not clear though that this when the short position was opened. It's possible that the short was opened the day before. According to Tim's log, the buy level was $3.06, sell $2.92.

Tim Sykes' IFNY trade, Dec 7, 2009

IFNY day chart Tim Sykes trade

This is one of those trades where one misses the intra-day data -- the scale of the trade (both time- and dollar-wise) looks lost in the chart. Judging from Tim's comments on his site, this was a short. Sold short at $1.50, bought to cover at $1.47. Nevertheless, the context in which the trade was placed is clear -- it is also clear after the fact that one should have been buying. But Tim managed to extract a bit of a profit out of this trade.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Russian sociologist Andrei Fursov on the "tasks" of the financial crisis

I've found this recent (appeared yesterday) and thought provoking piece of analysis by Fursov on Translating from the Russian:

The tasks of the financial crisis

In the recent months people say more and more often that the crisis is abating, that the remission has come, that the crisis was not too dangerous, that now one can take a breather and stop worrying.

To me, this resembles one familiar story about a boy and the wolves. The boy used to cry "Wolf!", but there were no wolves, people stopped believing him, and when the real wolves showed up, nobody came and the wolves ate the cattle. This resembles today's situation when people are comforting themselves. At first people cried -- "Crisis, crisis!" -- yes, certain phenomena of a crisis took place. Indeed, there were bank mergers, at the same time with other events. For example, there is a lot of talk about swine flu and I believe that's a good distraction -- it draws people's attention away from the crisis, letting other people make some money, but that's a different problem. The main thing is that despite the fact that many new topics appeared recently in the media and along with the talk about the crisis being "not that strong", the topic of the crisis is fading away -- I agree with those economists who believe that the present calm is temporary and the crisis will strike for real in 2014-2015 and that wave will be a lot more serious. Whether this is so we will see, but another question is interesting. This crisis -- to what extent is it "natural" and to what extent is it man-made? Looking at practically all major economic crises of the XXth century, in particular the Great Depression, we see that they are all man-made. And a very simple question can be asked, the way Romans used to do it: "Qui Bono?" For example, what happened after the '29-33 crisis? As a result of that crisis, the financial capital bancrupted small and medium banks, expropriated their assets, and largely put the political life in the US and in the world at large under its own control. That was the main result of the Great Depression and as Carroll Quigley wrote in his remarkable work on the history of the first half of the XXth century, in '29-33, the march of the financial capital to the political power, the march that began in 1870s and had the formation of the FRS as its milestone, has finished with a triumph -- and Carroll Quigley applauded that.

And if we look back at that crisis, it's all quite clear -- those lines, along which people would benefit, obtain privileges, accumulate wealth and so on. If we look at today's crisis, we see the same process, except for it's not the big fish eating the small ones, but super-large fish eating the large ones; large banks go bankrupt, and who is grabbing them? Well, for example, banks that belong to the Morgan family, who did a very good job in these few months during the crisis. Large banks go bust, but the super-large ones acquire their assets. So in reality it's the process of capital concentration that takes place, and that's one of the tasks of this crisis.

In fact, today's capitalist economy is a planned economy, it's not "free". Indeed, in many parts of today's economy there is no "market" at all. What market can you talk about in the natural gas industry? What market is there in the sphere of arms trade? Well of course a few dozen percent in almost every major sphere belong to "market", but in all other respects there are monopolies. It's for a reason that French historian Baudelle used to say: "Capitalism is the enemy of the free market". That's because in the market, capitalists struggle for the monopoly and one should say that the entire history of capitalism is, however paradoxal this might sound, is the struggle of the capitalist class against the market, in the market. The market is preserved as the battle field, but the goal of the battle is to limit the market and thus to finish its existence.

By the way, Attali wrote quite frankly about that in "A Brief History of the Future" where he wrote that the task of the world government which was going to establish its power over the world in the middle of the XXIst century would be to finish up the financial capital, to put it under control and to introduce the global distribution-based economy. And the shortest path towards the world government is the global currency; the shortest path towards the global currency is the global financial and economic crisis.

Thus the present crisis pursues a number of tasks, the tactical and mid-range ones. For example, I am deeply convinced that one of the tasks of the crisis was to slow down China, but this goal was not accomplished, because even though they did slow down China, the rest of national economies began to feel even worse, it's the non-national economies so to speak, who won. Besides, there is a lot of things we don't know, since the financial capital is a non-transparent thing -- it's known that the Morgans did grab some banks but we don't know exactly what the Rothschilds gained as a result of this shake-over, what the Rockefellers gained, we can only guess about some very serious tensions at the world's top, using a number of indirect indicators.

Obama, the Rockefellers' man, is understandably for the US dollar, while the Rothschilds and the Chinese back some other currency. Thus the world crisis, besides its visible aspects, has a very powerful hidden code and that hidden code has to do with the struggles within the world's capitalist class, about which little is known, which are not discussed in the press and on TV. The main fight is under the carpet. And in great many areas we can only form indirect inferences based on some visible movements, although the general direction of the crisis is completely clear -- it's towards concentration of the capital, the maximal concentration of the capital.

Even given that, the most interesting question is the following: suppose those who planned the crisis fully accomplish their goals, and concentrate the huge capitals in the hands of literally a few families. In such a situation, money stops making sense in general, since when money is concentrated in such a compressed form, it becomes power, pure power.

The character of Robert Penn Warren's novel, Willie Stark (his prototype was Huey Long, the Governor of Louisiana and a Roosevelt's rival, killed in '35) used to say: "Money makes sense up to a certain point, beyond which it's only power that makes sense".

I've got no smoking gun, but based on all I know from the history of the capitalist system, I have no doubt that the final result of the accumulation of enormous funds among very few owners will be an abolishment of those same funds and their transformation into sterile pure power, on the basis of which a completely different society will be formed, which is something Attali blabbed about: the financial capital is being put under control, is abolished, and an economy of distribution is established -- and the economy of distribution applies not only to the tangible goods -- it's information and resources, too. That is, an hierarchical structure of global control is established and in that respect this financial crisis of today is, I believe, one of the steps towards this new system.

Whether anything will come out of that is another question. History is ironic at times: for example, certain people in the early XXth century were planning to break Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia, the Osman Empire apart as something which stood in the way of the financial capital's progress. Well, they did break apart the Osman Empire, they did break apart Austro-Hungary, they even broke apart Russia -- but in Russia's place a creature even more dangerous to the global financial capital emerged, the Soviet Union, the anti-capitalist camp. In other words, there are no linear moves in history, and quite often the people who start such fine multi-move games, these same people lose. We just have to see how the events will unfold in the future, but in order to understand what's going on, one has to, first, watch the events very carefully and second, to avoid getting fooled and to look at the world with one's own eyes and not with somebody else's.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Tim Sykes' CLWT trade, Dec 2, 2009

CLWT day chart Tim Sykes
A winning short according to Tim's comments on his site (money could be made that day either way -- look at the day's high for the stock). It's interesting that based on Dec 1st performance, Tim commented that stock did not look tempting after late day collapse. So could it be the opening with the gap down that made it look tempting again next morning?

Tim Sykes' GRO trade, Dec 1, 2009

GRO day chart Tim Sykes trade
Another winning trade; on Tim's site, the trade is dated Dec.1 with buy at $3.20 and sell at $3.60. After looking at the chart, this is obviously a long trade entered most likely the day before. I am guessing but the key could have been intra-day dynamics on the day trade was entered -- most likely Monday, Nov.30. Just look at the volume spike on that day.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Tim Sykes' DRAM trade, Nov 27, 2009

DRAM day chart Tim Sykes

This is a winning trade; looks like a short trade placed into a bearish trend. Tim sold at $4.17, bought at $3.78. On Nov 27, the stock opened with a gap down after a down day with a decreasing volume, which could have served as a signal -- but that's merely a guess. In that case, the trade was entered and exited on the same day.

Tim Sykes SEED trade, Nov 25, 2009

SEED day chart Tim Sykes
This short trade was a loss and I spent some time trying to figure out when exactly this trade could be entered. This definitely didn't work out like the AENY trade, although the pattern of entering the trade could be similar.