# I can prove "Random walk theory" wrong



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

My research began back in 2005 which stemmed from an idea I saw when looking over stocks on the NYSE and NASDAQ markets. My brother (a database computer programmer) custom built a program to test out this idea. 
The results certified to us, that stock market direction (from the opening price to the closing price of the day) could be predicted with high probabilities, incorporating this method.

The results also prove “Random walk theory” is wrong.

All trades back tested were, buying at the market open, setting a 4% stop loss, and selling on market close. No trades were ever held overnight.

Here are the results tested from January 1st 2002 – 27th February 2009.
Results:

2009: 45.75% return  (33 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  72.72%)

2008: 233.63% return (232 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  67.24%)

2007: 96.29% return (208 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  62.98%)

2006:  116.87% return (199 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  68.84%)

2005:  121.14% return (205 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  74.14%) 

2004:  87.92% return  (202 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  65.32%)

2003:  159.21% return (209 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  69.37%)

2002:   65.28% return  (155 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  52.25%)

Total return: 926.1%   over 7 years and 2 months.

The results above are all long trades, when testing the system live, we were getting slippage on the short trades at market open, but when buying (long), we were guaranteed the opening days price. (When shorting stocks on market open, U.S markets requires a long trade before a short), that is why we were not getting filled at the market open price on short trades.

All stocks within the system trade 1-7 million in average volume per day and all trade on U.S exchanges.

Our method goes beyond being a high probability trading system with great returns, it proves random walk theory wrong, and certifies predicting stock market direction. 

We contacted Google finance last week with a proposal, to prove our research, and are waiting for a reply.

Any feedback would be much appreciated on how to go about marketing our research and analysis,


----------



## vincent191 (10 March 2009)

I too don't agree with the "Random Walk" theory either. However, those guys that came out with that theory did a very indepth study of the US market indices over a long period of time (from historic data) and they concluded that you cannot predict the movements in the indices with any degree of accuracy. Hence, the term Random walk....i.e. movements in the indices were at random.

I find that hard to accept because in my mind the stock market must react to some form of stimulus, either positive or negative. It cannot be at random.


----------



## awg (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> All trades back tested were, buying at the market open, setting a 4% stop loss, and selling on market close. No trades were ever held overnight.
> 
> Here are the results tested from January 1st 2002 – 27th February 2009.
> Results:
> ...





I am confused?

does the above imply you traded long only with the above quoted returns? 

In your post you mention short trades, but as I read this, seems to mean that you only traded long.

to get such big returns over the period 08-09 without being short would be very surprising indeed


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2009)

Wow, where can I buy this?


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 March 2009)

kennas said:


> Wow, where can I buy this?




I was just wondering that too.


----------



## dhukka (10 March 2009)

kennas said:


> Wow, where can I buy this?




me too, me too, where do I sign?


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

The results I quoted are for all the long trades.

The return over the 7 years and 2 months including the short trades is 1205% with an average probability of 71.40% profitable days.

When we tested the system live we were not guaranteed the opening tick on the shorts at open, so we filtered out all of the short trades, leaving just the long trades. Removing the short trades, removed slippage.


----------



## investorpaul (10 March 2009)

Just wondering how did where you mention that you only went long and that you bought at open, did that mean you bought every day? or did you chose the days you bought on (if so, how)?


----------



## Trembling Hand (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> When we tested the system live we were not guaranteed the opening tick on the shorts at open, so we filtered out all of the short trades, leaving just the long trades. Removing the short trades, removed slippage.




Yeah yeah. We don't care about the details just take our payments for the system. 

My Visa Card number is; 4586 0012 0007 0007 Exp 01/10 Just send me the black box NOW.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 March 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Yeah yeah. We don't care about the details just take our payments for the system.
> 
> My Visa Card number is; 4586 0012 0007 0007 Exp 01/10 Just send me the black box NOW.




Woohoo! 

*Orders Pizza and beer*


----------



## James Austin (10 March 2009)

live testing *using your cash DMC31* and over an extended period before i get excited.

here's why . . . . 




> In 1997, two professors from Harvard won the Nobel Prize for Economics for services to easy money. They claimed to know pretty much everything, and weren't shy of sharing their knowledge for a fee.
> 
> All it took to make big profits, said Myron Scholes and Robert C. Merton, was a clever little formula. Oh, and a huge position in derivative contracts, gearing up tiny movements into large, volatile swings in options prices. Funnily enough, gearing up tiny movements into large, volatile swings in options prices was also all it took for Long-Term Capital Management to blow up in 1998.
> 
> Both of the Harvard laureates sat on the hedge fund's board of directors. LTCM lost some $3.5 billion.


----------



## pilbara (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> All trades back tested were, buying at the market open, setting a 4% stop loss, and selling on market close. No trades were ever held overnight.



how do you choose whether to go long or short?

did you use "market order on open" using real trades, or was this on demo?  I'd expect significant slippage trying to get the opening price.

what typical brokerage commission was used?


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Woohoo!
> 
> *Orders Pizza and beer*



I've got a Ferrari on the way! 

Cheers TH!


----------



## Trembling Hand (10 March 2009)

kennas said:


> I've got a Ferrari on the way!
> 
> Cheers TH!




Ouch! whats happening??


----------



## skc (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> We contacted Google finance last week with a proposal, to prove our research, and are waiting for a reply.
> 
> Any feedback would be much appreciated on how to go about marketing our research and analysis,




Here's my feedback:

- Since when did Google Finance become the premier source of quantitative finance research?

- Being a first time poster showing ANY system on ASF is unlikely to generate much positive responses (this one included).

- If you only care about proving / dis-proving random walk, you don't actually need to place any trades and worry about slippage. You just need to show that your predictions are correct.

- If you are genuine in seeking feedback, then talk about what you want to achieve. Publish in major finance journal? Appear on next channel 7 "how to beat the sharemarket" special? or scam innocent forum posters?


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

Setting a market on open order for long trades is easy and guarantees the open tick on Long trades (some brokers call them MOO orders), and closing out is (MOC) market on close order.

I won't disclose the idea behind the system, sorry, I have spent years researching this.

But I do want to prove it, that is why I contacted Google finance, and submitted a proposal, because I believe it goes beyond money making.


----------



## James Austin (10 March 2009)

Trembling Hand said:


> Ouch! whats happening??




i'm not the only cynic, thank crikey!


----------



## awg (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> The results I quoted are for all the long trades.
> 
> The return over the 7 years and 2 months including the short trades is 1205% with an average probability of 71.40% profitable days.
> 
> When we tested the system live we were not guaranteed the opening tick on the shorts at open, so we filtered out all of the short trades, leaving just the long trades. Removing the short trades, removed slippage.





it indeed would be good to remove slippage

but because your system buys and sell within each day for every trade, seems to me you still would have a higher than average "trading system" slippage rate


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

I chose to write a proposal to Google, because I believe they would be interested in  more than just a trading system, it does prove some stock markets can be predicted,
I am not here to sell or endorse any company or any product, just my research.


----------



## Frank D (10 March 2009)

I personally think the random outcome has more to do with profits than expectancy.

In theory using back testing data the market rotates in UP and down far more often than it trends in 1 direction. So there is going to be a bias towards higher daily closes depending on the overall trend of the market

With a long bias of UP days it comes in around 71-72% since 1991 (without stops)

I’m sure the last year hasn’t helped with the current trend, but that will eventually turn around and the number of UP days will increase.

The only problem is the reward and profits associated with those UP days, which in my opinion becomes the random outcome in profits….

 And obviously we don’t know exactly when those UP days will occur, but then again you can filter the days with stop losses or certain levels in the market.

*Think about it…. How many higher closes in the past 4 weeks has the Aussie market had even though it keeps dropping.

12 out of 22 days have closed higher than the open…*


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

The days we trade are not random, I can tell you buying long every day will lose money, with a stop loss or not.


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

Our trades are not random, If you went long every day, placed a stoploss, it would lose money.


----------



## James Austin (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I chose to write a proposal to Google, because I believe they would be interested in  more than just a trading system, it does prove some stock markets can be predicted,
> I am not here to sell or endorse any company or any product, just my research.





this forum has encountered many many "plots and schemes", so the reception here is likely to be suspicious

better to approach the appropriate research institution.

it is there that the minds absorbed in this stuff on a daily basis can disect your theory and system, prove or disprove it. as well as have it published if it shows merit.

that is, if all you are interested in is research . . .


----------



## Agentm (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I chose to write a proposal to Google, because I believe they would be interested in  more than just a trading system, it does prove some stock markets can be predicted,
> I am not here to sell or endorse any company or any product, just my research.




its like saying you have found the holy grail with your research but cant present it to anyone or you would lose it..

you want help in marketing you say

ok.. what are you offering?


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I am not here to sell or endorse any company or any product, just my research.



Ah, so you're here to sell your research.

If it smells like spiced ham, and tastes like spiced ham, it's probably .....


----------



## beamstas (10 March 2009)

kennas said:


> Ah, so you're here to sell your research.
> 
> If it smells like spiced ham, and tastes like spiced ham, it's probably .....




spam  (*SP*iced h*AM*)!!!




Just as a side note: Anyone can make a system and backtest it for 1000's of % profit. It's called *DATA MINING*. IE: You fit your system around backtested data. Just because it worked in back testing doesn't mean it will work again! Remember the market will never exactly repeat itself.


----------



## Agentm (10 March 2009)

dmc

use the density functional theory  instead 

or this

Repeat until ER becomes constant. Then wait for the asymmetric and
distribution of artificial resurgents to particulate 

this will give you up to date and ground-state function.


ahhh   hang it all..

i am going out for a random walk..


----------



## DMC31 (10 March 2009)

Skepticism is expected; I can and will prove it in time,

There is no curve fitting involved, all trades are the same, bought at market open, 4% stop loss set, and sold on market close. Back tested, probabilities are constant through any market condition, trending, or sideways.

When you have a few shares that produce 60-70% probabilities of winning, and combine them into a single system, the probabilities increase to 68-72%.

There is no scalping; all trades are let run to market close, winning or losing.


----------



## Cartman (10 March 2009)

beamstas said:


> spam   back testing doesn't mean it will work again!




gidday Brad --- i hope we are on speaking terms now  --- 

agree ---- backtesting can be manipulated to produce whatever results u want if u r trying to sell something ----

forward testing results with real money over an extended period ---- those kinda results will get people interested 



Agentm said:


> dmc
> 
> use the density functional theory  instead
> 
> ...




lol ---- good to see u still have a SOH Agent considering the grief ADI must be giving u 


PS DMC ----- are u talking buying the Index or specific shares ??


----------



## tech/a (10 March 2009)

> I can prove "Random walk theory" wrong




There are quite a few here who can prove it correct as well with trading statements to prove it!


----------



## beamstas (10 March 2009)

Cartman said:
			
		

> gidday Brad --- i hope we are on speaking terms now  ---
> 
> agree ---- backtesting can be manipulated to produce whatever results u want if u r trying to sell something ----
> 
> forward testing results with real money over an extended period ---- those kinda results will get people interested





Ha Ha Cart, like i said, no problem between us, two people are allowed to disagree right? It's not against the law.... yet 

Im with you on this one, i won't believe this until i see some real trades with real money. 




			
				Tech/A said:
			
		

> There are quite a few here who can prove it correct as well with trading statements to prove it!




I'll kindly upload my winning trades, that oughta prove random walk theory correct!! 


Thanks..
Brad


----------



## doctorj (10 March 2009)

Didn't Benoit Mandelbrot already find rather persausive evidence against random walk using cotton data in the 1960s?


----------



## skc (10 March 2009)

Is "Random walk is wrong" the same as "I have a trading system that makes money"? Must you have the second to prove the first?


----------



## Sean K (10 March 2009)

The crowds are starting to make their way into DMC's head office to pick up a nice new little black box .....

No free samples for us unfortunately.


----------



## Trembling Hand (10 March 2009)

kennas said:


> The crowds are starting to make their way into DMC's head office to pick up a nice new little black box .....



Classic


----------



## schnootle (10 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> The results also prove “Random walk theory” is wrong.




If you can as you suggest prove random walk theory wrong, you would get on the cover of "Nature" easy, and become quite famous.

If you do attempt to get anything published from this, i would suggest you avoid the term "prove".

Us engineers and mathematicians and the like have a bit of thing for terminology, and this is a fast way to get put in the crackpot basket.


----------



## MichaelD (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> 2009: 45.75% return  (33 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  72.72%)
> 
> 2008: 233.63% return (232 days traded), (Probability of profitable days:  67.24%)
> 
> ...




Let's see:

Start with $10,000 and compound profits

2002: $16,528
2003: $42,842
2004: $80,509
2005: $178,037
2006: $386,110
2007: $757,896
2008: $2,528,570
2009: $3,685,391


And you want to publish research disproving random walk theory and need suggestions for how to market this?

It's simple.

Step 1: Trade the system with YOUR money for 10 years.
Step 2: BUY Google Finance.
Step 3: Publish your results.

Problem solved. You can pay my consulting fees directly into my account at Bear Stearns.


----------



## nizar (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> My research began back in 2005 which stemmed from an idea I saw when looking over stocks on the NYSE and NASDAQ markets. My brother (a database computer programmer) custom built a program to test out this idea.
> The results certified to us, that stock market direction (from the opening price to the closing price of the day) could be predicted with high probabilities, incorporating this method.
> 
> The results also prove “Random walk theory” is wrong.
> ...




What was your universe of stocks exactly?
Anything that trades between 1-7million per day?


----------



## vincent191 (11 March 2009)

Whereas I find it hard to accept the Random Walk Theory, I also find it hard to accept that you can predict the sharemarket with a high degree of accuracy on a daily basis.


----------



## DMC31 (11 March 2009)

I am not endorsing any product, website, black box or other commercial fluff, just the research, I can prove the results are 100% accurate.
I am flattered by skepticism.
I am happy if the thread ends here.
Thank you.


----------



## Trembling Hand (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I am not endorsing any product, website, black box or other commercial fluff, just the research, I can prove the results are 100% accurate.
> I am flattered by skepticism.
> I am happy if the thread ends here.
> Thank you.




What a classic!! You have found the golden goose sitting on the holy grail and you want to "prove" it to a bunch of dudes on a forum 

Nick off and make your millions. Come back and tell us I told you so when you have some real proof.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (11 March 2009)

its random walk *hypothesis*. it is not a theory.

i think lo and macKinlay will be mighty pissed youve beaten them to their conclusion that the random walk hypothesis is bogus.


----------



## Pager (11 March 2009)

Im all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but this thread with a different user name was on a US forum today as well, are you CTS01 on elite trader ?, http://www.elitetrader.com/

Here's a post from that thread.

"This exact same thread appears at least once a month. Always with a new thread starter.

Are all of you the same person?

Have you ever succeeded in selling one of your systems here?"

If you have nothing to sell but just want to prove/share your ideas then IMO, go ahead but could you at least make that clear


----------



## DMC31 (11 March 2009)

I am not selling anything here, I was after just after some feedback on it, (predicting stock market direction, definitely can be done)
If I went to a brokerage, would they take me seriously, probably not, unless I could prove the results, which I can, and then they would steal it.

So I will keep on trading it, and keep it to myself, for another four years.

Thank you for posting.


----------



## Pager (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I am not selling anything here, I was after just after some feedback on it, (predicting stock market direction, definitely can be done)
> If I went to a brokerage, would they take me seriously, probably not, unless I could prove the results, which I can, and then they would steal it.
> 
> So I will keep on trading it, and keep it to myself, for another four years.
> ...




Well go for it DCM31  , think many would be interested but don't think you can blame people for being sceptical that you arnt here ultimately on some kind of sales pitch.


----------



## beamstas (11 March 2009)

Guys... give some respect......

In his "another four years" he'll be sitting along side bill gates and buffet..


----------



## pilbara (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> We contacted Google finance last week with a proposal, to prove our research, and are waiting for a reply.



do you know how Google Finance was started?  At Google each employee can spend 20 percent of their time on personal projects, working on things they are interested in.  This is how Google Finance was started, by two engineers working alone on their project.  Once they had something to show, they pitched the idea to the Google senior management Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who decided to back the idea and put huge resources of the company behind it.  Google has a huge number of potential projects from their own employees, so they are unlikely to follow up something from outsiders.  Google seek to own intellectual property so it's not worth sharing it with them.

Instead just keep trading your system, and build up a history of real trades with your own capital.  Once you have a good history, approach a prop shop with your trading statements, and try to convince them it is worth backing you with their capital.


----------



## Agentm (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I am not selling anything here, I was after just after some feedback on it, (predicting stock market direction, definitely can be done)
> If I went to a brokerage, would they take me seriously, probably not, unless I could prove the results, which I can, and then they would steal it.
> 
> So I will keep on trading it, and keep it to myself, for another four years.
> ...




anyone with a formula like that would never disclose it to anyone dmc31. you would simply use it and pass it on to your children and then on and on.. and live like a king..

you asked for marketing advice, yet you dont disclose what you offer in return for it..

you want to discuss something you cant prove in fear of revealing the formula..

i have found the lost city of gold, el dorado, and i cant seem to discuss it with anyone either, so we both have the same problem.. 

i tell you what,, i will swap you my knowledge on el dorado for your knowledge on taking random walks.. sound fair?


----------



## James Austin (11 March 2009)

DMC31 said:


> I am not selling anything here, I was after just after some feedback on it, (predicting stock market direction, definitely can be done)
> If I went to a brokerage, would they take me seriously, probably not, unless I could prove the results, which I can, and then they would steal it.
> 
> So I will keep on trading it, and keep it to myself, for another four years.
> ...




DMC31

*would you like to add substance to the thread??* 


if yes,

*[1] * post all trades, dates, entries, exits, stops, stock codes, P/L etc,
which you claim follow your "predictive" system.

*[2]*  substantiate these trades *with "actual" broker statements* for all to view

this is the most direct way to get people to take you seriously

*will you do this DCM31?*

i think it is fair that if you chose not to substantiate your claims then we can all assume . . . . well you know

i await your speedy reply


----------



## Timmy (11 March 2009)

FFS...

TH shows the random walk hypothesis is wrong every frikkin’ day.


----------



## nizar (11 March 2009)

James Austin said:


> *[2]*  substantiate these trades *with "actual" broker statements* for all to view




He doesnt need actual broker statements to verify his claims.
If he just posts realtime, then anybody can verify them.


----------



## pilbara (11 March 2009)

doctorj said:


> Didn't Benoit Mandelbrot already find rather persausive evidence against random walk using cotton data in the 1960s?



I looked up a book review of Mandelbrot's "The Misbehaviour of Markets", and it sounds convincing:


> The author renders a brilliant critique of modern finance theory. He criticizes all its components, including CAPM, the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and the Black Scholes model as being flawed. All these theories rely on two main assumptions. The first one is that market prices are normally distributed. The author, using price charts, demonstrates that market prices do not follow a normal distribution; but instead a Cauchy distribution. Such a distribution is associated with fatter tails. This means that catastrophic drop in market prices happen more frequently than a normal distribution suggests. *The second assumption of modern finance is that market prices are independent of each other. Yesterday's prices have no influence on today's. The author makes a case that even if prices are not correlated, their volatility is correlated over time. Thus, big price swings tend to cluster. If a stock moved by 10% yesterday, it is likely it will move by an above average amount today even if we don't know the direction of that change. He calls this correlation of volatility (instead of price) long-term dependence.*


----------



## nizar (11 March 2009)

pilbara said:


> Mandelbrot's "The Misbehaviour of Markets"




Doc or others,
Is this a good read?


----------



## doctorj (11 March 2009)

If you enjoyed Taleb, it's worth the read.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (11 March 2009)

there seems to be a lot of misconception about what random walk hypothesis actually is.



> Malkiel argues that asset prices typically exhibit signs of random walk and that one can not consistently outperform market averages.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street


----------



## doctorj (11 March 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> there seems to be a lot of misconception about what random walk hypothesis actually is.



Random walk existed long before Malkiel.  This wikipedia article is probably more helpful...


----------



## Stormin_Norman (12 March 2009)

it comes from the markov process. i was not arguing that book created a statistical idea; but it was the first to gain widespread attention in the economics field.



> A Markov process, is a mathematical model for the random evolution of a memoryless system, that is, one for which the likelihood of a given future state, at any given moment, depends only on its present state, and not on any past states.




i did quite a bit of study into random walk/markov processes during my economics degree.

my point was merely that some of the discussion misrepresents what random walk is attempting to explain what is statistically observed.

it is summed up in the 'past performance is not indicative of future results'.

to take it out of the financial context :



> The random walk hypothesis was also applied to NBA basketball. Psychologists made a detailed study of every shot the Philadelphia 76ers made over one and a half seasons of basketball. The psychologists found no positive correlation between the previous shots and the outcomes of the shots afterwards. Economists and believers in the random walk hypothesis apply this to the stock market. The actual lack of correlation of past and present can be easily seen. If a stock goes up one day, no stock market participant can accurately predict that it will rise again the next. Just as a basketball player with the “hot hand” can miss his or her next shot, the stock that seems to be on the rise can fall at any time, making it completely random.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis


----------



## wabbit (12 March 2009)

Stormin'

I think you'll find that when it comes to finances and the markets, many "proper" processes have been bastardised to sound "funky" for the marketplace, when in fact they have very little resemblance to the true identity.

Take, for example:

Stochastics, which in the context of most charting applications has nothing to do with stochastic processes in the strict mathematical/statistical sense.  The name was (allegedly) chosen because it happened to "sound good" and was part of the discussion the creators were having at the time.

A lot of stock market analysis systems which purport Monte Carlo systems or Monte Carlo analysis actually don't do anything close to Monte Carlo processing; they just perform some permutation/combination processing with little regard to randomness or proper sampling techniques.

Some Neural networks for financial applications are nothing but new-data curve fitting techniques.  NN, especially PNNs "learn", not just plough through every possibility in something akin to a brute-force attack.


I think we have to remember that a lot of the success of the "system writers" and "indicator builders" is on making their product sound technical, when in fact, quite often, the opposite is true.

As the markets involve humans, and humans have been shown through hundreds (thousands?) of scientific studies to be incapable of being truly random, then markets are not going to be truly random either.  I have always been dubious of the direct applicability of Brown, Wiener and Markov to the markets, and vice versa, "Lies, damn lies and statistics!"


wabbit


----------



## pilbara (12 March 2009)

wabbit said:


> Some Neural networks for financial applications are nothing but new-data curve fitting techniques.  NN, especially PNNs "learn", not just plough through every possibility in something akin to a brute-force attack.



if it's possible to calculate every possibility within a short enough time, then I think it's worth doing, rather than take a sample.  We have to make the most of the computer's strengths.  Like how the chess computer Deep Thought/Blue had a massive brute force advantage to calculate all positions to a certain depth, which then allowed intelligent moves to emerge naturally.


----------



## enigmatic (21 March 2009)

I have to main comments to make..

The market is in no way random, randomness it self is a fallacy the market is directed by millions of individual people and events. However predicting the outcome of each individual person and event is mind blowingly Improbably.

When you are making these fictional trades do you not believe that your own trades if entered into the market will change the overall outcome of the days event possibly triggering an infinite number of varying outcomes which you can't predict.

Not saying there is definitely a possiblity that you could test a system which get 10,000% percent per day anything is technically possible with the limitations of total world market capital for x period of time. This however doesn't mean that x+y days your net gain will not be back down to 10% 

plus if i had a system like this i would definitely not be wasting my time on aussie stock forum no matter how helpful it has been.

I would be straight out get a 1mil plus margin long and come back in 10years telling everyone about your Billion dollars you have.


----------

