Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin

JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

INTERVIEW

The Nature of Risk

Justin Mamis And

The Meaning Of Life

The nature of what we look at as technicians has changed in several ways. One is
the dynamics of the derivatives, which started with the early days of listed
options, and even more so when futures started trading. Then there came the
basket arbitrage of stocks to futures. All this had a material change on how the
market behaves.-Justin Mamis

Looking back on decades of market activity can give anyone a certain perspective, and Justin Mamis, who writes

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

the Mamis Letter, a newsletter for Hancock Institutional Equity Services that is a joint venture of Tucker Anthony
and Sutro & Co., certainly has the experience to speak about. He became interested in the stock market in the
post-Korean War period, and in the ensuing four decades has seen tops and bottoms, been an executive at the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE), worked in a specialist firm, traded options on the American Stock Exchange (ASE),
seen the development of trading instruments that were unheard of when he started out, and experienced - and not
necessarily to his liking - the introduction of a tool that is nearly ubiquitous today, the personal computer. STOCKS
& COMMODITIES Editor Thom Hartle spoke with Justin Mamis on May 26, 1995, about how the markets, money
managers and technical analysis itself have changed over the years.

W hen did your interest in the markets begin?

I started the way a lot of people do - knowing nothing and having no real interest in the stock market, but having just
a little bit of money. A broker put me in stocks that went down and I thought that there had to be a better way to
invest in the market than that. So I looked for information about trading, and one step I took was answering an ad in
Barron's to subscribe to John Magee's newsletter. I read his newsletters and I read his Technical Analysis of
Stock Trends , and I even talked to him on the phone a couple of times. And that's how I got into charting.

When was this?

This was the mid-1950s, right after the Korean War. I became more interested in the stock market, so after a while I
got a job as a retail broker on Wall Street. All I knew at that point was charting, and I knew I was a writer, so my
goal was to do some writing about the market. That's not the right combination for a retail salesman, so that job
didn't work out. Then I went to work for the NYSE. I became the assistant director of the floor department in charge
of investigations.

How did you like that?

It couldn't have been a better learning experience, because I got to go on the floor of the exchange and I actually
executed buy-in orders. I spent a lot of time talking to the specialists and the floor traders. I really learned how the
floor worked, how the traders behaved and how the specialist system worked. But the stock exchange is more of a
bureaucracy than I'm comfortable with, so when an opportunity came up to work at Indicator Digest , which was
the leading advisory service at that point, I took it. It was a revelation that there really were indicators out there!

How so?

Well, market indicators weren't well known back then. Even chartists didn't pay much attention to them. Indicator
Digest was a big success because the ideas in it were so fresh.

What did you do there?

I did a good deal of the writing of the letter, discussing my opinion of the charts. Indicator Digest was the birthplace
of a number of market letters. Bob Gross went on to start The Professional Investor . When I left and started The
Professional Tape Reader , the name came about because Gross was the professional investor and I said, "Well,
you're an investor and I'm a tape reader."

When was that?

I left Indicator Digest after about three years to start the Tape Reader . Stan Weinstein had come to Indicator
Digest after I had, so when he wanted to leave and start a market letter, we became partners. I eventually sold the
Tape Reader to him.

What did you plan to do then?

I thought I'd retire. I actually spent a year and a half playing tennis in Palm Springs, but then John Phelan, who was
the unpaid president of the NYSE and the head of a specialist firm at that time, called me up and asked me if I were
interested in coming back to New York and trading the firm's money. That sounded interesting, so I went back to

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

New York and traded from their offices.

How did that work out?

I wasn't decisive enough. I'd sit there with my charts on my lap, but I didn't have any experience trading. So they
finally sent one of the specialist partners up from the floor to sit with me. It was great, because he had the
decisiveness, and I had the feel of the market. We were terrific together. Then Phelan became the chairman of the
NYSE and he resigned from the firm, so I spent about a year on the ASE as an options trader. I didn't like that.

Why not?

It was too short term for me. Basically, you just stand there and buy on the bid and sell on the offer, and I couldn't
stand still. Doing that didn't play to my skills.

Sounds like you were meant to write about the markets.

Exactly. So I moved on to doing what I do now, which is essentially being a tool for institutional money managers. I
work for Hancock Institutional Equity Services, which is a joint venture of Tucker Anthony and Sutro & Co. They
put together the research departments of those two firms and I spend my time writing my weekly letter and traveling
to talk to mutual funds, state trusts, bank trust departments and other institutional money managers.

It's hard to find someone today who has your historical perspective.

That's probably true!

Have you ever seen a stock market like we're seeing today?

I haven't! It's really fascinating to watch on the charts. This has been a unique market.

How so?

The nature of what we look at as technicians has changed in several ways. One is the dynamics of the derivatives, the
tail wagging the dog. This started with the early days of listed options, and even more so when the futures contracts
started trading. Then there came the basket arbitrage of stocks to futures. The brokerage houses were having all-day
conferences in New York City to explain how it was done. All this made the market more and more complex. That
had a material change on how the market behaves in terms of how the volatility, the market swings and the
nonfundamentally based decisions are made and played by market players.

The derivatives have created more noise in the markets?

Yes, but realistic noise, not something you can ignore. Noise, to me, is something I've got to get rid of to
understand the market. What we see today someone might call noise, but the fact is, the noise is a part of the
market. We used to be able to say that my daily bar chart represented a graphic summary of the day's ticker tape.

The combined effort of the buyers and sellers?

Yes, it represented the sum total of how everybody felt about the market. But now, not only does the bar chart reflect
that, it also reflects mechanical and nonfundamental ways of dealing with the market. The nature of the forces driving
the market have changed, and I think that's been significant.

What else has changed?

The nature of institutional investing has changed.

How so?

When I started in the business, when I worked at the exchange, the public was two thirds of the transactions. I don't
think they're even one third any more. You know how it's different?

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

How?

When I started to do institutional consulting, which must have been something like a dozen years ago, I would meet
with a fund manager and say - this is an example - "The chart's getting quite toppy, so I think you should sell Digital
Equipment (DEC)." And they'd say, "Well, we're having our monthly investment meeting a week from Thursday
and we'll discuss it then." A few years later, those meetings had speeded up to once a week discussions; even if
DEC had reported lower earnings, they'd wait until then to discuss it. Then two or three years after that, the reaction
to a comment - let's say the fundamental analyst was cutting his rating - would be, "The manager who runs that fund
is out to lunch and we'll tell him about it when he comes back."

And now?

Now they say, "Let's do the trade right now, don't bother to tell me what the details are!" So the nature of how
people respond to fundamentals has been speeded up enormously.

What else changed?

The in-house rules of the institutional managers have changed. It used to be I could ask a fund manager, "How much
cash do you have?" and he'd say, "Well, I've got 20%, I'm not supposed to have that much cash, but they're letting
me do it." Then it became, "No, I'm not supposed to have that much cash, but I'm trying to stay out of the way of
the head of the department so he won't make me cut back. I'm going to go on vacation for three weeks, and I'll see
what happens when I get back."

And now?

Now, there are house rules and requirements that you have to be fully invested or almost fully invested, and if you
don't adhere to those rules, you'll have the money taken from you. This often happens because of consultants, who
dominate the flow of funds to the institution.

How do they do that?

The consultant'll take the money away from your fund and give it to another fund. And that's your livelihood,
because you're making money based on the percentage of money you manage. So the nature of how institutional
managers invest has now changed to, "I gotta buy something if I sell something." I think this attitude explains to
some degree why this market rotates.

That doesn't sound like investing.

No, and nothing lasts more than two or three days. The managers have created an environment that's very short-term
oriented, which goes on top of the derivatives environment, which is also very short-term oriented.

You mentioned consultants. They're a relatively new part of the formula, aren't they?

Yes, they are. The consultants are hired to select money managers. They've put everybody into categories.

What kind?

I had a guy complain to me yesterday. He was known as an emerging-growth, small stock fund manager. Well, he
doesn't want to be imprisoned in that narrow definition anymore. He's gotten in so much money that he has to own
Schlumberger or IBM to keep his account invested. So he wants to be known as a growth manager. So all of a
sudden, he's got to fight with the consultant to get the kinds of accounts that he now handles.

And what's the result?

The net result is everybody's willing to do things that they may not be comfortable doing so that they can compete.
Every single one of these guys has to own Intel, because if Intel goes up, they can't afford to be left behind. If their
return is 1/100 of a percentage point below the record of some of their peers in the same category, the consultants
won't allocate them as many accounts, thus affecting their livelihood. This competitiveness drives the market much
more lopsidedly to one side or the other.

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

Sounds like people are tripping over each other.

That they are. Everybody's got to rush in and buy because they have to do what everybody else is doing. It doesn't
pay any more to say, "Well, I've got a long-term horizon, I know I can buy Home Depot down here because in two
years it's gonna pay off." If it's down a point while you're waiting, you suffer. So it's changed the nature of how
people make decisions.

Any other changes?

The third thing that's changed, and I think it's partly responsible for this kind of market, is everybody knows
everything at once. It didn't used to be that way. I think that CNBC has really had an enormous effect, along with all
the personal computers and technology available to individuals. The machines are in everybody's offices. Everyone
puts up a chart and asks me, "I don't know anything about charts, but doesn't this look like a top to you?"

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

It certainly is. We've never experienced anything like this before. Now, the minute the market goes down, the put
buyers come out buying puts within 30 seconds. Within two minutes, the guy on CNBC's saying, "Is this the start
of the long-awaited correction?" And the next day, not only in The Wall Street Journal , but in USA Today , the
headline is, "Has the correction started?" This short-term opinion/information has added to the emotional nature of
the market.

So what should you do?

Someone sitting at home at night putting in computerized data to look at this market is using old information.
Everybody has become so short-term oriented that the movements are emotional, and I don't see how you get
emotions out of the computer. I'm convinced, having done this for several decades, that what you need is some
degree of feel for the market. I don't think an individual can get a feel for the markets by using a computer to track
everything.

Someone out there might think that's a little old-fashioned.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I believe in what I do. I've had my assistants say to me, "Why are we
doing this? Why don't we put these charts up on the computer? Who needs to do this by hand anymore?" Both of
them are now converted to what they understand is the feel of the market. When you post the chart, you're feeling
what happened in an artistic way. The feel that you're getting is the anticipation of what might happen in the future,
even though you are recording with some diligence what's already happened. We're all trying to anticipate the future
in various ways. You don't get that feel any other way than posting charts.

M aybe it's more than just hand-posting charts.

I've learned over the years that those who have an intuitive reaction - based on experience and an innate ability to
sense what's going on - do the best in the marketplace. Over the years I've known specialists and floor traders or
money managers who are fabulously successful who trade that way.

They buy and sell on intuition?

It's like everyone's grandmother with her recipes. You ask her for a recipe, she'll say, "Well, I don't remember.
You put in a dash of this and a spoonful of that." And you say, "How many spoonfuls?" She'll say, "I don't
remember!" It's the same thing. Those specialists and floor traders and money managers have that quality of
intuitively understanding the marketplace, and it is truly intuitive.

And you can get that from posting charts?

Yes. I'd say there's an artistic feel to understanding the market that you get from posting the charts yourself, with the
sensitivity seeming to come by extension through your own sharpened pencil. Now, I'm really being a personal

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

advocate of what works for me, but there's a philosophical basis for it.

What about point and figure charts?

To me, bar charts have more feel than point and figure charts do. Bar charts are directly connected with time and
literal action, eighth by eighth. Point and figure charts are much more abstract.

Does keeping up your charts bring you very close to market movements?

With one day's bar chart, because I am summarizing the day's activity, it's abstract but minimally so. A tick-by-tick
chart, such as for the Standard & Poor's 500 contract, is very real and can be very appealing to "read," but is too
short term for my needs. The weekly chart summarizes it even more, so that's even a further abstraction, and the
market doesn't know anything about time. It's this continuous auction market that the exchange identifies itself as. It
goes on, and to break it up into units the way the point and figure people do is yet another abstraction of what we're
trying to deal with. If you don't understand how that changes, then you're not in touch with what's actually going on
in the market.

So computers introduce more abstraction?

That's the problem I see. Using even simple computer programs will cause you to lose touch with what's going on.
Consider some of the popular indicators, like the relative strength indicator (RSI) or stochastics, that you can bring
up on your computer now. I tried to work with them. I could look at a stock and see that it's way up at the top and
see a great signal from the stochastics and I'd know I was on the right track. It's very seductive. You say, "Oh, I'm
going to use stochastics all the time now." I've tried it in conjunction with my work, and it's clearly inconsistent. It's
too inconsistent for me to rely on (Figure 1). At least with "feel," that puts you into the middle of the decision,
instead of turning it over to a machine.

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

FIGURE 1: S&P 500. The sell signal for the stochastics indicator is a crossover above 80, which worked in
August 1994. However, the sell signal has been wrong during 1995.

Why do you think these indicators end up being inconsistent?

We're trying to pinpoint the entire market, and that's like pinning a butterfly down; it's too elusive. There are too
many different things going on in this vast marketplace for us to really be able to pin it down to something simple
and say: "Ah, this works. Everytime the stochastic is over 80 and it turns down, I'm going short."

We're oversimplifying?

It doesn't work any more than I can look at a chart like Philip Morris (MO) as it was making a huge top in 1992
(Figure 2). Just posting that chart with your sharpened pencil when MO was trading into the low 80s would have
made you say, "This is a top!" Persistent lower highs would lead you to go out and short it, and the next thing you
know, there's one rally that goes to a slightly higher high. "Oh, my God," you say, "I'm wrong." Except that some
experience, and feel, would have you still muttering, "But this really is a top somehow." And then the stock began to
fail all over again, finally breaking down around 75.

FIGURE 2: PHILIP MORRIS. During June 1992, Philip Morris broke the uptrend line, indicating a trend
reversal, but the stock rallied to one more high and then began a significant decline.

Is there a moral?

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

Yes. That's just the way the market works. Sometimes I think of the market as being alive, that it's a living,
breathing organism out there, and it's an enemy we're trying to win out over and the market's trying to beat us.
Sometimes I think, "It did that deliberately to me! Just to confuse me!" I've seen it before and I can see it right now,
especially in these technology stocks. A stock will make a new high and the next day it's down 8!

So what should you do, short of entering therapy?

You have to live with it and accept those conflicts, contradictions and confusion. But I don't see how you can do that
using a rigorous format or formula that gives you signals to trade on. The computer will produce all of these
information-based signals because it's designed to solve the problem of "How do I know what works?" It's very
seductive, because the computer is really a terrific tool. You put in all this data and pop! it gives you an answer. It
gives you no hesitation, here's the answer.

The computer doesn't care about your equity!

No. And the computer is using an awful lot of material and because it's a machine, it seems to be unbiased.

It seems to be objective.

It has all the qualifications of being objective, in an arena that we're really missing objectivity in many ways.

I'm not sure you can define what's objective. I can say, "The number of new highs yesterday was 161. Isn't that
objective data?" Well, yes and no. Because I've still got to interpret it. I've got to do all sorts of things in some
manner, and that's not easy. Here's the computer solving that for me and giving a signal. I think that's what people
keep looking for.

So what you're saying is that people need to develop their subjective skills more than their
objective skills.

I think that's simply put, but yes. That's why some people are no good at this. If you took an old-fashioned floor
trader and followed him around, I think you'd find that he's not relying on anything more than his intuition. I once
knew a floor trader who told me, "I don't need your charts; if I lose money two or three times in a row, I know the
trend has changed." In this environment today, this weird market that we've had for several months now, I think
you'd find this floor trader isn't doing well, because the feel just keeps changing on him.

It's tough.

It is. But it's all the tougher for the person with the computer, because by the time you've input the data, the market's
bizarrely different. At least you can sit here with old-fashioned indicators, what you call subjective, what I call feel;
it's basically the only way you can try to deal with what's going on here.

Do you have indicators that you favor?

Yes, but they're old-fashioned. When you're young, you think that there are a lot of indicators, but after a while,
you begin to realize that there really isn't. Things that really worked in the old days, like odd-lot short sellers, were
stupendously accurate at the bottom. Now, everybody does put and calls. Puts and calls are so mixed up with
hedging and all those arcane uses that it's certainly not pure. But in the odd-lot short selling, it was just an odd-lot
trader jumping in at the bottom of a slide and going short. Every single time the indicator was right back then, but
you know what? It doesn't work any more because odd-lotters trade a few options now instead.

What indicators do you still like?

Advance-decline numbers keep you honest over a long period. If you take the advance-decline statistics and break
them down into a 10-day moving average of the differential (Figure 3), you get an extremely simple
overbought/oversold oscillator. I've looked at nine days, 11 days and 13 days, and the 10-day works best; it's
simple math. You don't even have to use a calculator to change a 10-day. Sometimes there'll be a rally that lasts 11
or 12 days or eight or nine days, but that's the nature of the market. But as an overbought/oversold oscillator, it still
works. It still reaches its peak overbought reading when the market momentum peaks.

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

FIGURE 3: S&P 500 AND SMOOTH A-D DIFFERENTIAL. The bottom indicator is the 10-day
moving average of the daily difference of advancing stocks and declining stocks. Extreme readings often indicate that
the market's momentum is peaking.

Do you have other ways of using the advance-decline statistics?

We keep a 30-day as well because there's a reasonably good mechanical signal when the 10-day crosses the 30-day
(Figure 4). That's the only mechanical thing we do.

FIGURE 4: S&P 500 AND TWO SMOOTHED A-D DIFFERENTIALS. The two indicators on the
bottom are 10- and 30-day moving averages of the daily difference of advancing stocks and declining stocks. A
crossover of the 30-day moving average by the 10-day moving average can be used as an indicator.

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

Any other favorites?

We keep track of the number of new highs and lows. I think this has been the single best indicator around. When the
market declines and you see fewer new lows against a falling market average, using the Dow Jones Industrial
Average (DJIA) in particular, that tells you that the market is losing its downside momentum and some stocks have
already started to bottom. It happened in June 1982, before the market started the explosive upward move in
mid-August that year. That signal occurred during the market bottom that formed after the invasion of Kuwait led to
the 1990 bear market. I think that type of signal is the most reliable.

Do you modify the raw numbers?

I'm not going to make it abstract by doing a weekly number or anything like that. If you keep the number of new
highs and new lows every day, you can feel from the raw data. I write the numbers down in a notebook just so I
have that feel of what's happening. I'm convinced you'll focus more on what's happening in the market by keeping
the data by hand than when you're just punching numbers into a computer.

What else do you track?

We keep track of the put/call ratio and the bull/bear numbers from Investor's Intelligence . We keep things like that
as measurements of psychology, but for market internal data, the advances and declines and the number of new
highs and new lows are really the basic indicators.

No stock charts?

Oh, that's our basic indicator. We probably keep - I haven't added it up lately - but something like 400 or so daily
stock charts. My assistant Kara Kavanaugh keeps 60% and I keep 40% roughly. I keep the interesting ones, and the
more she learns, the more she complains that I've taken the good ones away from her! Essentially, I make lists from
these charts. A psychiatrist told me once that keeping lists was a very neurotic trait. And I said, "Well, that's me!"

What do you use the lists for?

If you look at your list and say, "Gee, I wrote down three steels on the negative side." Do I need to know about
stock groups? I don't need to keep a group chart if that's what I'm getting from the actual price action of the stocks.
Here's an example. Last night, the market was down. It's been down two days in a row, and all these technology
stocks are on trends that look like parabolic curves; they're not really acting the way you would expect during this
selloff. I'm not sure what to make of that, but I can say that there's no selling pressure there.

How about one more indicator?

I discovered specialist short-selling statistics just by talking to specialists when I worked on the floor of the exchange
and finding out how they functioned. I realized that they had to report these statistics to the exchange, who then
published them. The specialists really were a basic indicator because the market moved in the direction of the
specialist book. Today, there isn't a specialist book anymore because of the way the business has changed, but the
market still moves in the direction of the weight of the orders.

How do you calculate the number?

The statistic is the specialist short sales divided by the total short sales, and it's in Barron's each week in the NYSE
Member Report column.

How do the specialists function?

The specialist is responsible for a fair and orderly market. When there are no orders on one side or the other, he has
to become the order; that's what he's required to do in exchange for the franchise. As it happens, it's an
enormously profitable thing to be required to do. Anyway, when the market is coming down, the specialist is forced
to buy.

In absence of an existing bid for the stock?

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

Yes, and gradually, during a falling market, the specialists are accumulating more and more stock. He may want to
go short, but he can't; if there's a bounce, he's got to sell his long positions off first, and there are other people
selling so there's no need for him to be on the sell side. As the market comes down, the specialist is gradually
accumulating a long position, and as a result, the specialists' short-selling percentage goes down substantially.

How about during a market rally?

It's the same thing on the upside. As the market's going up, people offer stock above the current prices, other people
take their offers, causing the price to rise some more, so that after a while, there are no offers left. The specialist has
to become the seller at that point, and if he's sold his long position, he has to start going short. You reach that point
very late in the rally. You can see this today. One thing that happens is people start saying, "I don't want to sell it any
more, I was wrong to sell it before, and I'm not going to sell now." The offers diminish and someone's got to sell,
so the specialist does it. Therefore, he's forced by market forces to increase his percentage of short selling right near
the top, even if he's gotten as emotionally bullish as an odd-lotter.

What parameters do you use for this statistic?

In the old days, it got up over 60% sometimes, but we haven't seen numbers that high in a while. Today, the upper
parameter is about 48-52%. The lower side has been 29-32%. That's a buy area. Recently, the number's been 39%,
and then the week after it's only 34%, 41% and then 39% again. It hasn't been anything remotely as high as you
might expect, given the degree to which this market has gone up.

Why is that?

The main reason? I think the group rotation and the degree to which there are a number of stocks down have affected
the percentage. So while the technology stocks and stocks like Coke, Pepsi and Colgate have soared, stocks like
Ford and General Motors have come down. The home builders came down for a while. The retail stocks experienced
big selling, so you had this group rotation. That had a material effect on specialist short selling because it's an overall
statistic. Plus the conviction that a correction is coming and that everything is overvalued keeps the sellers out there.
There's been very little opportunity for the specialist to get in on the short side or on the long side. There are plenty
of orders on both sides.

So what are the numbers indicating to you now?

First, you need to know that it takes two weeks to report the numbers. For a given week that trading takes place, the
clerks have the following week to accumulate the data and turn it into the exchange, and then the exchange takes the
second week to collate the different firms' data. They put in that number. Recently, it got to 41. If it goes to 44 or
45, I'll be happy. Actually, I'd settle for a rising trend of specialist shorting against the continuing rise in the market,
because that would be a change in the pattern, indicating that we're finally late in the move. That's how I would use
it.

Watch for a change in the pattern?

That's what I look for. The older I get and the more complex this market becomes, the more I believe that changings
of patterns rather than absolute parameters are what matters - that's "feel," too, you see. I don't try to make these
indicators any more complicated than they have to be. I use these very simple indicators in making judgments about
what's going on in the market. My best advice to new traders is to keep it simple and try to get a feel for the market.

Thanks, Justin.

Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.

Stocks & Commodities V13 (359-365): The Nature of Risk: Justin
JUstingMamis
Mamisbyby
and
Thom
Thom
the Meaning
Hartle
Hartle of Life by T

I don't try to make an indicator any more complicated than it has to be. I use very simple indicators
in making judgments about what's going on in the market. My best advice to new traders is to
keep it simple and try to get a feel for the market.

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES

Edwards, Robert D., and John Magee [1966] .Technical Analysis of Stock Trend s , John Magee Inc.

Investor's Intelligence /Chartcraft, 30 Church St., New Rochelle, NY 10801.

Mamis, Justin [1994] . When to Sell for the '90s: Inside Strategies for Stock Market Profits, Fraser Publishing Co.:
Burlington, VT.

_____ [1991] . The Nature of Risk: Stock Market Survival & the Meaning of Lif e, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

_____ [1982] . How to Buy: An Insider's Guide to Making Money in the Stock Market, Farrar Straus Giroux: New
York.

_____ [1977] . When to Sell: Inside Strategies for Stock Market Profits, Farrar Straus Giroux: New York.

end

end
Copyright (c) Technical Analysis Inc.