Closing NYSE Breadth today.

Advances 1148..........Declines 1840

New highs 27...........New Lows 367

The PPI numbers come out tommorow. I have a good feeling that these numbers as well as the CPI numbers on Tuesday are going to escalate this current decline of the industrials. I believe Greenspan's comments today said alot about tomorrows PPI numbers.

I took my own advice from a couple of weeks ago and purchased 40 more December Dow Puts at a strike of 6800 for $35.00 each on Monday morning. I hope others who read my post did the same. Today they closed at $100.00 each even though the dow closed up 54.45 for the day. Someone knows something or these Puts would not have closed higher as the Dow was in positive territory all day.

I believe tomorrow could very well be explosive to the down side for the Dow. If you have not bought PUTS yet, you might consider doing so early tomorrow morning.

Mike

-- flierdude (nospam@spam.spam), October 14, 1999

Answers

If the DOW dives below 10,000 on Friday and remains submerged, then I imagine numerous investors will have drowning nightmares during the weekend.

A further drastic plunge on Monday would be very bad.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), October 15, 1999.

Tomorrow is Black Friday.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

I bought 17 Hewlet Packard Put contracts at 109. It closed today at 82. I'm licking my chops all the way down as HWP will most likely drop down to where it was a year ago in the 50's. HWP is on a downtrend and it is not to late to jump on board!

-- freddie (freddie@thefreeloader.com), October 15, 1999.

FLIERDUDE: On what information did you buy the 6800 strike price? That is WAY out-of-the-money.

Gee, I thought I was a pessimist for thinking the DOW would hit MY low-end target!

Last night, I posted that an Elliott wave site had clearly shown a crash wave nearly fully formed.

To be specific, it said WED night that there would be a 5 wave decline. Wave 3 would be the crash wave.

His graphs clearly show that we are in the "corrective" wave 2, meaning that the DOW would go up (it did Thur) to correct a Fibonacci percentage of the wave 1 drop from DOW 10650 to 10,080 we had recently.

Well, wave 3 is anywhere from 1 day to 4 days away max.

Got gold?

Got milk?

Got moo-lah?

-- profit_of_doom (doom@helltopay.ca), October 15, 1999.

The plain fact is that there are all these WILD SWINGS taking place, sometimes up, sometimes down, but ALWAYS wild. This does not bode well.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 15, 1999.

Mike,

What are the symbols for your Dow puts, please?

Freddie,

why are you getting HP puts instead of mkt puts?

Thx

-- tx (short@mkt.net), October 15, 1999.

Mike,

Which DOW puts are you trading? I'm familiar with the DJX options, but, for example, in the DJX group, DJVXL is a Dec put with a strike price equivalent to 9000, and it could have been bought on Thursday for $100. I do not understand paying $100 for a Dec put with a strike of 6800.

The DJX options are CBOE options with strike prices of DJIA/100. So, the DJVXL that I mentioned is quoted as a strike price of 90 and a bid/ask of 7/8 / 1 at Thursday's close. Multiply those numbers by 100 to get real numbers.

Please specify some actual symbols of spedific options that you are trading, and which entity sponsors them.

Thanks in advance.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), October 15, 1999.

I think a safer bet would be Jan 96 Dow puts, symbol Djvmr. These options expire on the third friday of January 2000. Your in the money at 9600 Dow. The bid on these options today was 2 11/16. Each contract is a hundred shares,Thats 269.00 a contract. Any move closer to 9600 will make these options appreciate in value. My guess is a Dow 7000 would make these worth 3500 to 5000 a contract. On 1/22/2000 they expire worthless. Make sure you learn a little about options before you jump in.

-- Gambler (Dowputs@96.com), October 15, 1999.

All of the Asian Pacifics and Europe are going red because they didn't like what Greenspan said. Can just imagine how Wall Street wil react Friday.

That is all except Russia and China, who are very happy campers now that Trent Lott and the frickin Republicrats shot down the Nuclear treaty. The commies will be able to continue to sell plenty of nukes to the rest of the world. Well, isn't that special.

markets going red

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

Hey Mike - good luck, you are on the right track. I hope you cash out good! And thanks for the Battle Mountain tip a few weeks ago - they are screaming along! i didn't buy them as I decided to get out of stocks - instead I've gone for more gold (philharmonics this time) and a whole bunch of silver physical - took a hit on both today but what the hey! Somethings' up - I think tomorrow - GOLDEN FRIDAY! - the hit's on gold and silver today, coupled with grrenscum's doom and gloom speech, the ppi figures tomorrow - I smell a rat :)

All the best...

-- Andy (No6InTheVillage@webtv.com), October 15, 1999.

Sorry the ask was some whare around 3 or 300 a contract. Its getting late. I already purchased 20 contracts, so I only watch the bid price.

-- Gambler (Dow puts@96.com), October 15, 1999.

OT for this thread, bur @ brought it up....

So @....in regards to your quip about the Republicrats and this stupid "Hang-our-own-selves-by-the-neck" bullshit treaty; How're you gonna get Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia to abide this treaty had we ratified it?

The answer is; they wouldn't. We would be the only idiot dolts abiding in this stupid treaty....leaving us even more vulnerable to annihilation than we are now.

Get a clue @....the world don't play by our rules. It's carry a big, big stick foreign policy that kept us from being vaporized all these years.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.

Why buy ANY options with expirations in 2000, when we're not sure if ther'll be a market or economy around for you to cash out, if they go heavy into-the-money (as they certainly will if we get a panic/crash)?

You must pay now UP-FRONT for the extra time premium over what a DEC expiry would cost.

I'm not criticizing, just curious. BTW, keep visiting www.futuresfax.com That site updates at the end of every week. This week's could be something to save for wallpaper!(Right click on gif graph, select "Save as Wallpaper")

-- profit_of_doom (doom@helltopay.ca), October 15, 1999.

"How're you gonna get Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China and Russia to abide this treaty had we ratified it?"

China and Russia, probably never.

As for the rest of them, easy. We'd do the same thing we did in Iraq.

Hey, if you don't believe me just look at the markets. China and Russia are obviously very happy about something, and they haven't gone this green in a long time. They are going to sell a LOT of nukes.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

I'm not sure that they are any better bet than a Dec 9000. But if nothing happens before y2k at least I have a shot after. I like them more than the Dec 6800. You never know we might not see any panic before 2000(I believe we will). I have a whole slu of different put options some expire in Dec but most expire in Jan. Hope to cash out way before January.

-- Gambler (Dowputs@96.com), October 15, 1999.

@,

We don't have the military force or coalition we did in '91 to achieve what we did. We are so scattered thin that we couldn't win a conventional engagement in Paraguay if we had to.

And as for making a profit selling nukes...what in that treaty would have prevented them from doing so had we ratified it? NOTHING!

It's nothing more than an emotional "Good intention" piece of crap treaty that has no teeth except the leash we'd put ourselves on.

He who has the gold (or the ability to take it by force) makes all the rules....

After tomorrow, many may be wishing they had options in gold.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.

INVAR,

I think NATO would have stood firm behind that treaty, and would be able to enforce it anywhere except Russia and China. But ya gotta have the signature of those countries to abide by it first. Then we've got every right to go in and cripple any country that tests nukes, just like NATO did when Iraq did not comply with the inspection rules. Now that we've told these countries that we have no interest in reducing nukes they are going to go ahead and stockpile big time. This was a very unfortunate turn of events that could ultimately lead us into Armageddon.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

@:

We've had many arms control and other treaties with the Soviets...ABM...Salt I...Salt II, etc. The comminusts violated them with impunity at every turn. What was the "response" of the cookie- pushers at NATO and the US State Department to these violations? Don't publicly say anything to upset Moscow...Don't do anything like withholding trade deals, loans, or even keeping out of the Olympic games...and above all, DON'T build up our military strength or even contemplate using it to help defend a smaller country faced with communist aggression.

As for more recent times...take a look at North Korea. Our Philanderer-in-Briefs has cut a number of deals with their leader. We have given them food, fuel, financial aid, and are about to give them 2 nuclear reactors. All they had to do was to stop nuclear and missile research, which they DID NOT, however, we CONTINUED to give them the store, and have recently allowed U.S. Companies to openly trade with N. Korea.

A treaty is only as good as the leadership of the country it's made with, otherwise it's only fit to wrap fish.

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

Bryan:

Philanderer-in-Briefs !!! LOL !!!

Invar:

I agree with everything you said about the treaty - no way to enforce it.

@:

I usually agree with everything you post (except what you say about Buchanan). However, I'm surprised you actually think countries would honor a treaty. The U.S. would honor it, and our military can't police the entire world. You seem to be making the same mistake I frequently make in dealing with others - I expect them to react the way I would. These rogue countries would never respect the terms of any treaty. IMHO :-)

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

And just which country is the biggest baddest rogue???

-- Jose CanYouSee??? (GodSaveTheWorldFromThee@SeaToShiningSea.blah), October 15, 1999.

Jose:

Take your pick!!

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

Scarlett,

Thanks, but I think you have the wrong kind of "a" in mind. The only thing I know about Buchanan is I think he is a candidate, but I've never commented about him.

In response to you and Bryan and Invar about the treaty: I realize that policing the world is not something we like to have to do, but what are the alternatives? Should we let these whackos in Rogue nations like the guy who just took over Pakistan have nuclear capability and try to take on the world because he thinks he's invincible? You keep referring to us being able to stop Russia, but I don't they are going to start the armageddon, I think it will be one of these politically unstable smaller countries, then the big boys will jump in, and it's all over. The fact is, if we had that treaty it would give us the authority to punish these countries just like we did in Iraq. It's not a nice thing to do, bombing them into submission until they get the message, but what is a realistic alternative to the problem? We already have enough nukes to destroy the world, all we are doing now is giving these less mature countries the chance to play with fireworks instead of keeping them in the closet where they belong. IMO without some kind of agreement, it's a losing game no matter how I look at it. You say we wouldn't be able to enforce it, but I think we would. It is better than nothing.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 15, 1999.

Ah @@@ -

Pakistan already HAS nuclear weapons - they built them themselves, with perhaps some Chinese help. Certainly, they have had Chinese available to deliver them, and India equally so has ALREADY been testing nukes - and designing them, and making weapons-grade fissionable material - all in violation of treaties.

Nope - you're reading the Clintons' political lies on this one: they want a treaty that only the US will choose to follow (like the treaty prohibiting nuclear defenses - violated EVEN as it was signed by the USSR, but still being held as required by Clinton as he wants us to be vunerable to overseas weapons.

The treaty will not prohibit anything - only make it "illegal" to test weapons.

Of course, it is already illegal to kill people, but soemhow criminals do it anyway. The only people safe from criminal attack - local as well as international - are those who have better, more readily available weapons, and who have convinced the criminals that the criminal will suffer if he attacks the peace-loving individual.

If you believe mutaul disarment works - ask the Tibet citizens enslaved by red China, the 20 million Ukrainians murdered and starved by Stalin, the six million Jews murdered under Hitler, the 200,00 Poles murdered by Stalin, or the 2 million Armenians murdered by the Turks, the 2 million Cambodians murdered by their president, the 15 million Chinese murdered by Mao, the 150,000 Chinese murdered by the Japanese in Shanghai, .....

Oh - I forgot - you can't talk to them. They're dead. All murdered by socialists.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.

Mr. Cook:

Great points as per usual! BTW, what field of engineering are you in?

@:

Why do *We* have to be the world's police force? It is better that we stay out of other people's business that does not affect our interests. Interfering in every real and imagined disaster across the globe weakens us and creates enemies at every turn. But perhaps that is what the globalist cabal wants.

As to enforcement of the test ban, what has been the enforcement track record of previous arms control treaties. Has the US embargoed or otherwise punished Russia, China, N. Korea for violations of the non-proliferation treaty? These treaties are worthless; they are signed with men who have no respect for the niceties of law and who know that our most of our representatives (and their fellows in the Establishment) are weak-willed, corrupt and craven cowards.

Our foreign "friends" know that our Establishment types will not hold them accountable, for there will always be an excuse, men who will not hold these foreign governments accountable for their actions. These men will always have an excuse, a few are as follows:

"Leave them an honorable exit!" "But an embargo will cost US businesses millions in potential sales!" "We can't be the world's policeman." "If we do (fill in the blank) we will raise international tensions."

What we need to be doing is building a missile defense system and, strengthening our continental air and sea defenses; not weaking our military with silly foreign "meals-on-wheels" missions that only serve a political and media cover for the current disgraceful occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I wonder if Mr. Clinton still *loathes* the military.

-- Bryan (BryanL@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

a:

Yes, I must have you confused with another "a" who posts on this forum. The other "a" told me that Buchanan said y2k was a hoax - never heard that myself. Anyway, I appreciate your point of view about the treaty. :-)

-- Scarlett (creolady@aol.com), October 15, 1999.