1) "PSYCLE SENSE sm": new:
Not really all that much new to be said here today....The main question remains, whether issues and indexes break below (previously predicted drops towards) 'necklines'....Because there are both, issues which remain too extended, and now depressed, within indexes, this is why we eschew 'index' ramblings most of the time....But depressed Ind. Groups really should at least base down here soon, without falling much further.... re-read past NL's sections 1 and 2, for fuller technical I.G. rotation perspective, which one should be concentrating on in the main....

If you recall, I recently specifcally mentioned the 9700+ area or so, as initial downside target in the Dow, herein....but, again, of no huge importance, yet....I also added more Puts in section (3) below....See why I kept mentioning lately, how intraday action smacked of 'distribution' among extended/parabolic issues ? as usual, you have had ample opportunites to have caught many Puttables herein, as they bounced up to resistance/top levels, 2-3-times in many cases....

another extra quickie Lesson: as I taught you (re-read my "EVB" booklet) among EVB's forming in declining NYSE stocks, watch for INCREASING volume of shares traded, like a 'catharsis', AFTER the long falls, dig ? That's the first normal sign of 'the beginning of the end of such declines', historically, yes ? Some may still form bases, others will bounce like "V's"....

Please appreciate, how much time/effort I put in, to put ALL applicable, staged, stocks, which fit learnable, and actionable, "PSYCLE sm" patterns, into each NL....Sometimes fewer, sometimes more, as befits market conditions....again, the "Most Actionable, Do-able, stocks, Here/Now", are in Section (3). And, the "Learning/feeling/Sentiment/commentary" items, are in section (2). Longer lists, and Industry Groups, are in section (6) and (7).... and all "follow-ups", are in sections (4) and (5). Of course, if you do not own any of the stocks in sec. (4) or (5), you may choose to save time by ignoring those if you wish....Eight, very clear NL "sections". You have No excuses for not taking advantage, over time.

2) "What's Been Said, and What I've Read":

a) Important Industry Group (Rotation) notes:1) note, getting more bounces among real-cheapies, including some Gold stocks, in section (4) below.... 2) as to the Banks/Financial stocks, we do not 'guess' at bottoms, instead, we wait for EVB's or bases to form....so do not get antsy with anything recently having a 'knife-falling' pattern....please re-read my "EVB" booklet, and, "mastering PSY-chology" booklet for more help/perspective.... 3) neat, last time, I mentioned an EVB sentiment signal with 'pets store stocks', and, Tuesday, Pets.com, popped in a 'down' market... 4) speaking of 'fakeout breakouts', see Crude Oil hit 33+, then closing near 31, Wed....kudos to Bill "Pitbull" Ford, my semi-partner of sorts, for calling almost the entire move, L.T. Then, Thu., Weeden's big oil-analyst Charie Maxwell said, "even OPEC knows anything over $ 30. is unsustainable....countries are already increasing production....and we will see $ 22-25 crude, this summer, which will nevertheless be support for years to come...." 5) perhaps we will have called 'the top' in most parabolic Biotech stocks for you recently ? but I wish their puts were cheaper.... 6) wish I knew who, on CNBC, Thu. 8:15 am, said, "the stock prices of many 'new economy' Interenets/Techs is ridiculous....the vast majority of people are not going to sit in a room all the time, using computers....they still have to eat, wear clothes, visit outside stores, travel, etc." Meaning, as I was first to say, months ago, herein, the "old economy" companies now have real value down here....sell the former, buy the latter ?

b) more, misleading, sensationalized, late, and/or improper/incorrect comments from the Financial Media, Reporters, etc.: 1) FYI, Barron's 3/6 mentioned how relative "index options" trading volume has waned, vs. options volume in many 'individual stocks', which have actually outtraded the indexes themselves, so that, in effect, a few big stocks are 'controlling' the indexes, hurting their initial purpose....Since 1989, 'individual stock options volume' has risen from 149 mm contracts traded in 1994, to 444 mmm contracts traded in 1999....triple....while 'index options volume' has fallen, from 121 mm contracts traded in 1994, to just 62 mm contracts in 1999....down....wow....usage of S & P, NDX, and OEX options has really faded, vs. options on individual stocks....They wrote, 'index options as a protective portfolio/stock position hedge are becoming useless in the face of that....people are not hedging any more...." and, exchanges are vastly lowering their floor-execution-fees on index options, and offering more services, hoping to revive this L.T. trend....Hmmmm, could this signal an impending top in the extended stocks as well ? ....2) an actually helpful comment, from both, Pisani and Griffeth, CNBC, Tues., 10:50 am, asking why that tireful smarmy misnomer, 'old-economy stocks' has become a pejorative lately....I agree.... 3) CNBC's Tom Costello, NASDAQ wall reporter lackey, actually said, Tues., 11:11 am, "until things change between the 'new economy stocks' and the 'old economy stocks', things will remain the same...." Duh, thanks for nothing.... 4) then, M.C. Cabrera, reporting on recent legal stuff about MSFT, Tue., 11:12 am, mis-said, "as you can see by it's price chart, in MSFT's stock, it's been a rough ride"....uh, excuse me ? MSFT stock has been in a fairly-narrow range for almost a year now, ay ? very LITTLE volatility, ay ? just between $ 80 to 120 to 90, certainly NOT "a rough ride"....oy....

c) more incorrect/misleading/sensationalized, and/or improper comments, from Fundamentalists/Companies, newspapers/magazines, etc., vs. illogical/Contrary/Unlinkable, past/present/future stock price moves:1) PALM fell to 65, COMS to 68, Monday....hey, I wonder if, on hindsight, that whole deal itself might turn out to be an "NASDAQ final top" sign ? ....2) Barron's 3/6, "Bittersweet - Sugar prices sour on record crops", gave all sorts of negative fundamental items why Sugar should remain weak for the forseeable future, etc., saying things like, "everything seems to be dismal" (famous last words ?), but I ask, if, so bearish now, then how come Sugar's chart has not broken below L.T. support ? ....3) March Ticker Mag. (written in Feb.) lists "america's fastest growing companies", recommending, ROIA @ 80, EMLX @ 120, ENZ @ 78, HLIT @ 112, SMTC @ 63....judging from their past record, let's watch for some tops and drops in these.... 4) Wed., on CNBC, one of the big B-firms who loved and underwrote (dare I say, ripped off ?) millions of people in the IPO of 'UPS' stock, which I was the first/only to have given out herein as a put over $ 70., now around 50, loves it again....gee, if they were any good as 'fundamentalists', shouldn't they have factored in the rise in Crude prices as a potential negative, back then ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, their job was to puff it, raise tons of money, sell it to unsuspecting people, get huge fees, and move on....great industry, huh.... 5) Thu. 8:05 am, CNBC's M.C. Cabrera incorrectly effused, "it's up, up, an away in the T-bond"....excuse me ? not only is the Bond not "up, up, and away", it still remains below its $ 96-or-so resistance level I gave you a while ago....she reported negatively at its earlier $ 89. low, right ?

d) more, likely late, incorrect, and/or misleading, comments, from Brokerage firms, NL writers, Analysts, economists, Money Managers:1) Barron's, 3/6, "Brinson the Bear", actually puffed this L.T. incorrect stock market bear (and M.F. mgr.) in 2 articles.... and/but, if he has been so wrong for so long, why give any space to him ? They wrote, "he has been brought down by the very asset-allocation theories that previously made him famous" (just before his personal top, dig ?)....so why publicize him at all, when they can recommend better guys in their mag ? ....2) Barron's 3/6, in article, "Dinosaur Thinking", NL writer Sy Harding (I don't know his real, L.T. track record, so I have cannot editorialize about him) writes what I assume is a sarcastic treatment, warning people about "ominous signs' for stocks here....it would have been nice if they told us exactly when he originally went super-bearish, but, as usual they did not....he wrote a book, I think 1-2-years ago, called, "Riding the Bear - how to prosper in the coming Bear Market", so there is no way to know how much he may have lost being early in the interim, but, he toungue-in-cheekly kept saying, 'but it's different this time' as he tried to bring up items of potential toppiness....But he also said that most of his indicators had still Not yet gone Bearish as of early 2000, hedging/confusing the issue....He did mention the continuing 'split market' (well after guys like I predicted this, but Barron's would not publish my article on that, I mentioned to them months ago, don't get me started), then he wrote, "so, take comfort in the knowledge that charts like these on the NASDAQ should not be a cause for concern." Huh ? He also 'linked' "Bonds" with "stocks", something that we have seen does not work very well often....Last, he did say he recently cut back from 100 % invested to 50 % invested, and began adding short positions and bear-type M. Funds (so kudos for him, of course)....But, if he was so bearish earlier, why just now did he write this ? hadn't he had bearish positions in the last 1-2- years as well ? so, confusing....but worth mentioning here for you....So, hundreds of thousands of readers got next to nothing definitive from this article, except a proper warning up here....which may be enuf....He also failed to mention any potential depressed buys near lows around down here, in his 'split' market....

3) in their March issue, Financial Planning mag, the main editorial from Evan Simonoff (obviously an intelligent guy I will try to contact to congradulate), entitled, "Price-to-Fantasy Ratios", besides the obvious correct implication of the title, he suggested that "the venture capital function of markets has been transferred from large institutions to the retail public....with financial pros warning that the public doesn't understand financial markets and doesn't know what type of risks they are taking....they might be right, but the reality is that it's now hard to differentiate between institutions and the public...." He worries that tons of 'mostly lucky yuppies' (my term, not his) earning, say, $ 50 -100 K a year, are seeing their 'company stock' positions fluctuating "a year's income worth" (again my term, not his) every month, at times, which, in his opinion, may not be conducive to concentrating on their jobs....saying, in effect, that, while companies as NT, CSCO, MSFT, INTC, DELL, etc., (I am paraphrasing here) "morphed gradually, steadily, over years, into real companies", tons of tech/biotech/internet companies have not even had the (possibly necessary ?, my term again) experience of actually 'growing and doing' over several years, to build an actual real, profitable business (again, my version of this dynamic).... He added that those working for the 'parabolic stock companies' (my term, not his) have no respect for the other 2/3-plus executives who built L.T. successful companies providing excellent, necessary products and services (my words again, not his, but you get the drift). Hence, their employee's real (net) worth is based primarily in their stocks' value, and not in the work itself....He calls this once-in-a-liftime (and I might add, likely temporary) trend, "ironic", because, while the intelligencia worries about the 2/3-plus of companies whose stock values have fallen mightily the last 2-3- years, the 'mostly lucky yuppies' could care less what the Fed does, or I.R.'s do, or the impending bubble....he wrote, "all the fears I heard about 'a bubble' over a year ago have subsided.... many advisors who talked of quitting the business in early 1999, beat the S & P last year, and expect more this year...." Meaning, some of them got lucky as well....and both parties are cruisin' for a bruisin' ?

4) Merril Lynch, Tues., downgraded 'consumer stocks' (late, as usual) in the wake of (their missing predicting) drop in PG's stock....like, AVP, ROV, DL, CLX, ACV, CL, none of which I have had any opinions on, nor liked, anyway....still more proof, that 'L.T. fundamentals', and/or perceived 'use', 'quality' and/or 'products of' companies, most often have little or nothing to do with the moves of their stock prices, yes ? How could a fine co. like PG lose almost 50 % of their stock price, in such a short time, even as their earnings rise ? That's why 'technicals/chart patterns' come first, the vast majority of the time....next.... 5) M.C. Cabrera, Wed., 8:50 am, CNBC reported, "Drug stocks climb" (huh ? but they are still down nicely, ay ? but I digress...she seems to oversensationalize a lot, doesn't she), citing an Alex, Brown analyst who was wrong liking them from their highs, now saying, "cheap alone, is not a reason to buy (down here)"....She added, "Wall St. remains far from convinced that these stocks have bottomed...." (which, again, means they will iss rises, right ?) and, misled bigtime, also saying, "these stocks have been smashed to levels not seem in many years...." WRONG.... They, in fact, still remain way, way UP from their multi-year lows, yes ? but this is a good thing, ahead....by the time 'they get it', health-drug stocks I will have given you herein, will likely be higher, as usual, right ? the pattern rarely changes....You got many nice Health-related issues near bottoms, in section (3) and (6) all along.... and still plenty around buyable near lows....

e) more general items proving why one should probably ignore 95 % of everything else out there: 1) good news ? L.A. Times 3/5 reported that, "face-to-face IRS audits have fallen, from 1.59 % of taxpayer returns in 1981, to 0.46 % in 1998....and, collections have dropped - 13 % in the last 3 years, and property seizures are almost nonexistent -- 161 in 1999, compared with 10,000 three years earlier. CPA's report dramatic declines in their audit caseloads." ....2) not-so-good news ? in L.A. TImes, 3/5, "Pentagon's Finances Just Don't Add Up", wrote, "the military's money mgrs. last year made almost $ 7 Trillion (that's Trillion) in 'adjusments' to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, officials said in a report released Friday." Further reiterating how the Govt.'s computers/systems are not integrated, and "fail to keep running totals of income and outgo, congressional and pentagon officials said....internal controls were not adequate to ensure that resources were properly managed and accounted for, of significant magnitude....lack of documentation...." 'nuff said....The last sentence added, "in 1998, the Defense Dept. corrected errors in bookkeeping totalling $ 2.3 Trillion -- more than the entire federal budget." Your tax dollars at work, ay ? great system....

As you have seen, for years now, how well one does, often, just "doing" the best 'individual' stocks, and Ind. Groups, chart-technically, and sentiment-wise, mostly long-side, while ignoring, or going contrary to, 95 % of all Media messages, and "indexes/averages" comments, from the peanut gallery ? By just getting my output, alone, you do much better, and save time, by not having to even try to "seek, and process" tons of other, useless fundamental info., anyway....and we also help remove potential emotional problems before they begin.

3) Most recent Hypothetical "PSYCLE sm" transactions, to be mimicked, and referred back to:

Always remember to view "1-year-at-least past" charts of everything you can view, herein, along with their 200 day moving averages (DMA's), to "see/learn" the "PSYCLE patterns", and see where/when stocks in section (3) were Hypothetically bought near lows, and put near highs....all % 'Gains' are just logical estimates for L.T., ITM options, if exist, and/or on margin, where no options exist....

Also re-read "the Guide" for how I derive the Estimated % percentage Gains I show herein, on assumed Hypothetically 'closed-out' trades (always assumed to have been in Options, where applicable/suitable, and on margin where available/suitable/logical, and on a cash basis where not, as per "PSYCLE sm" tenets)....and when you see "bal." here in section (3), that means, "the balance" of assumed long positions, assuming an initial "1/2 pos." sale....and, "css" means "covered (previous) short sale", where no puts options existed....