# In the Interest of Clarity



## tech/a (26 November 2012)

*Ive opened this thread so robusta's thread doesn't become side tracked and any other thread where
someone has something to say that the thread may become derailed-- because of its discussion.Perhaps they could be discussed
in full here with reference to the thread in question.
Maybe Joe can make it sticky in an appropriate place.*

So in the interests of clarity with regard to my comments on Robusta's thread.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23106&page=32

It was a coupling of Post 621 and Post 6 here that had me scratching my head.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13513

Why on earth would someone buy a stock from a comment 6 mths ago
which has fallen a further 30%

Not only that but a well respected member Bought and Sold at a 10%
(Plus a div)
profit yet bought again and still holds with around a 60% loss.
Not only that but is about to avaerage down "heavily"

Sorry but I cant sit by and just let that sort of trading go without comment.
"free trade its not--that profit is YOURS--its your capital. That sort of mentality is like the
Pokie player who thinks he's playing with house winnings---he's not its HIS MONEY. Take it and RUN!

This comment


> The next bull wont be exactly the same...but to suggest that there will never be another bull, that the world will never be awash with money looking for a home, that people wont get rich by borrowing money to buy stuff in order to sell it to someone else who has borrowed more money.




Its the only game in town...and the new players at the table are Asians.

Clearly So Cynical believes that every stock will rise from the depths
This is just crazy and very dangerous thinking! People actually believe this!

Then the thread became entangled in semantics.

Clearly the Fund did really well when it performed 30-29.6% saw the fund rise 
and its share price to new heights.
Since then under performance has been reflected in price. Its fallen another 10% in the last few days!

Ive pointed this out by saying anything will perform in a bull market just as this will.
*All I can see is a punt
*

With no thought or planning to risk management let alone portfolio management--In Robustas thread
(Another topic one he should consider).


Robustas "Analysis"---


> The basic thesis for this one is, they are growth value investors focusing on small to mid caps who have unsurprisingly had sub par returns recently with a resultant shrinkage of funds under management. I am confident the returns will improve (they are up a bit over 11% this financial year) and the FUM will start flowing back in. Many investors in managed funds follow the most recent high performers while selling poor performers even if they have a long history of good returns - a bit like sheep really.




No mention about How I would trade it or indeed anything at all on technical analysis---not by me!
Just my view that I cant see why anyone would be in this---I dont rate the reasons given nor the methodology of investment.
Surely Im as entitled to air those views as those who have invested in HHL are????

*To Mc Lovins "Value investor" Comments.*

While "Value Investor--method" can have various ways of implication Attempting to purchase under Book value is generally accepted as Criteria.

*You are correct my use of the term value in my posts is completely incorrect when relating to a value investor.There is no evidence of Value investor analysis.*

However I have seen on many occasions reference to "Great Value at this price" Not specifically HHL---but in those terms correct in the context of whats been placed in the HHL thread. Its seen as cheap--cheap enough to "Average down Heavily" --- I believe So Cynical said. 

*To JANCHA*



> He's simply asking a question on Techs seriousness with retirees solution to learn to trade in shares in order to get ahead.
> I find that a rather bizarre statement.
> It would be good for the market but seriously how many of those advised to trade shares with their retirement money will lose more than they gain? Unless you've had years of experience which most retirees dont have. Bad advise imo.




Thats exactly what Im saying---and if at times that means day trading then yes absolutely.
Why shouldnt people learn how to control their future financially.
A well trained investor/trader should have no trouble picking up (On average ) $1000 a week from $200-250K
trading shorter term---if they know what they are doing.What retiree would mind that? (Thats only 20-25%)



> Technical analysis and systems to exploit the results of that analysis with consistent results takes years to accomplish - if ever - some people never achieve a consistent system. I've been doing technical analysis for a while now and I'm still learning and will probably do so until they put me in the ground. What may work and be extremely successful for one person may fail abysmally for the next person.




Not so 
If you have tested and know the results of a method then you/I or 10 others trade it
then results fall within the Range of the high and low mean averages found in testing.

But if your a discretionary Technical trader with no idea of your methods profitability
then your no better than any trader with an idea and no proven result from testing--either forward or backward tested.
A sample size of 100 trades isn't a statistically reliable test period either.

There are people who are achieving this with clients funds. They also have the ability for the client to control their trades directly with the broker. 

*So to the Troll label from CRAFT.*

I see some really stupid trading.
Take a look at RED thread
Take a look at PEN thread.
In each Ive been called all sorts of things.
but the point is the way some in these threads trade has to be questioned and singled out.
To watch a stock fall from 16c to 2.8c and espouse how brilliant things are is just plain
stupidity in any language--fundamental/technical or Logical!

If I see it Ill comment.
If you think Im picking on something--I am.
You dont have to agree
You can ignore my posts.


What I will do though in future is be more explicit in my reasoning towards my comments

I will only be posting occasionally so no need to get your knickers in a knot!.


----------



## So_Cynical (26 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*



tech/a said:


> *Ive opened this thread so robusta's thread doesn't become side tracked and any other thread where
> someone has something to say that the thread may become derailed-- because of its discussion.Perhaps they could be discussed
> in full here with reference to the thread in question.
> Maybe Joe can make it sticky in an appropriate place.*
> ...




Jezz tech i only made it about 2 paragraphs into your post..

robusta didn't buy based on my comment of 6 months before....now i don't have to ask him that to know that it didn't happen, robusta makes his own decisions based on his own agenda and investment strategy.

The fact that you didn't even know that i am not a value investor is a little unsettling...i very much remember my first 6 months on ASF fascinated by your charts and others, i spent some time learning what trend following was and got a reasonable understanding of how and why it worked...and came to the conclusion it was a valid strategy but was not suited to me.

You on the other hand seem to be in total ignorance of any and all other ways to profit from the share market, and that denial of the reality of stock market investments makes your posts in many many threads annoying and irrelevant...from a value investment perspective you have absolutely nothing of any value to contribute.

No offence meant, just the facts as i see em.


----------



## burglar (26 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*



tech/a said:


> ...
> You can ignore my posts. ...




Actually ... no!
I am drawn to your posts like a moth to a flame.




A generous dollop of unpalatable truth.


----------



## Boggo (27 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*

Lets go back to an actual example where this has all been thrashed out recently on daily basis with an actual stock.

I have the highest regard for the main FA player (and primary investor) in the thread below.
His apparent ability is an example of how any method can work well when YOU understand what you are talking about and can make use of the numbers (in any form) to make personal and independant decisions.

Quoting numbers from annual reports is about as useful as describing what an EMA is doing if you don't understand what the overall pattern or trend is that the information is giving you regardless of whether it is TA or FA.

The first post in the link below is probably an appropriate point to start from in this example where both TA and FA work.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=18617&page=47&p=730737&viewfull=1#post730737


----------



## doctorj (27 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> Since then under performance has been reflected in price. Its fallen another 10% in the last few days!




I’m not sure that pointing at a losses over a short period, or even over a longer period but on one trade is even slightly relevant or even helps a third party form a view about whether a trade is good or bad without all the facts.  It’d be a lot like looking at one loss making technical trade you made, applying my own assumptions of an acceptable drawdown and then concluding it was not a good trade. 

Everyone has their own strategy and risk management (hopefully…), but how they arrive at their buy/hold/sell decisions can vary.  A transaction that looks bad in one time frame, can good look in another. 

I’d wager that a lot more money is invested (and made…) each year on the basis of fundamental analysis than technical analysis.  That’s not to say it’s better or worse than technical analysis, but it’s clearly a valid strategy and potentially profitable.  And if it’s profitable for some, there are clearly things to learn for everyone here, including maybe even you. 

You have contributed a lot over the years regarding technical analysis and people have been, for the most part, constructive and in many cases thankful.  It would be helpful if you could be similarly constructive when discussing things you personally disagree with.


----------



## tech/a (27 November 2012)

Early start and will reply later

BUT

IVE NOT MENTIONED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ANYWHERE.

You guys keep circling back ----- 
Can't you simply see that I can't see this stock OR the fund
Itself performing unless the FUNDAMENTALS of the market alter! 

I'm arguing FUNDAMENTALS.


----------



## doctorj (27 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> IVE NOT MENTIONED TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ANYWHERE.
> 
> I'm arguing FUNDAMENTALS.



Forgive me as I haven't read the other thread, if that's what youre referring to, but I can't see any fundamental analysis in your post.

There are some experienced FA practitioners at ASF. If you could point us to this analysis, or be so kind to share it here, I'm sure many would find the discussion interesting.


----------



## tech/a (27 November 2012)

doctorj said:


> Forgive me as I haven't read the other thread, if that's what youre referring to, but I can't see any fundamental analysis in your post.
> 
> There are some experienced FA practitioners at ASF. If you could point us to this analysis, or be so kind to share it here, I'm sure many would find the discussion interesting.




Ok It appears Joe has deleted some of the analysis.

So here is how I see it from a Fundamental View.
Nothing to do with the Fundamentals of the company but
everything to do with the underlying market.




This is a chart of the XAO and HHL overlaid WITHOUT scale.
My first observation was that it clearly mirrored the index.
If the index boomed so did the fund.
If it tanked so did the fund.

Later Mc Lovin posted this which I feel only confirms my observation.





So if I cross check the years with the returns they mirror the Stock value.
And closely the XAO.
So from a purely logical view I cant see what's changed enough in the underlying market structure to warrant a buy of this stock.

After all this is why Robusta bought them.



> The basic thesis for this one is, they are growth value investors focusing on small to mid caps who have unsurprisingly had sub par returns recently with a resultant shrinkage of funds under management. I am confident the returns will improve (they are up a bit over 11% this financial year) and the FUM will start flowing back in. Many investors in managed funds follow the most recent high performers while selling poor performers even if they have a long history of good returns - a bit like sheep really.
> 
> While I wait for positive returns I am sure the dividends will be satisfactory.




But I also note that he feels while he waits that the Dividends will be "Satisfactory"
Well in the link
http://www.hunterhall.com.au/managed_funds_VGT.php#performance

Mc Lovin posted up It is clear that management fees and performance fees are NOT deducted.
Further I presume Robusta has decided to hold for 5 yrs or more as suggested in the link.

Anyway Im obviously missing something and if you can tell me why this is a good buy fundamentally.
Where as my analysis is of no value.
I'm glad to learn.


----------



## gordon2007 (27 November 2012)

This may sound like I'm having a go at you tech...but in all sincerity I'm not. I just find it odd that you've basically said 'good bye' a few times already. I do enjoy reading your posts. But in a human behaviour aspect I find you very intriguing. It's good to see you posting again though.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25460



Julia said:


> I'd join in the chorus, except I don't actually believe it.  Tech, you have 'left' the forum before, but always come back.  I'm sure you're going to be back this time also.:


----------



## tech/a (27 November 2012)

Hi Gordon.

Time is the issue with me.
I dont have unlimited amounts of it.

Every now and then I have a look and I see something like 
this so comment.
Then it turns into a full on discussion so I stay involved.
This will soon burn out.
When it does Ill be off again until
something else from time to time pops up.

But you wont see the duck around that much.
So dont know what all the fuss is about!
Shheeesh


----------



## Ves (27 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> Anyway Im obviously missing something and if you can tell me why this is a good buy fundamentally.
> Where as my analysis is of no value.
> I'm glad to learn.



I don't think you're missing omitting anything that would make me want to buy it.

Basically they make their money by getting people to invest in their funds and then taking either performance bonuses or on-going management fees.

The model is low capital intensive because it is mainly a people business.   The only real true barrier to entry to this business is the investment and marketing skill (you might debate that they have none - but I wouldn't go that far).

But in deep cyclical troughs of the market as we have seen since 2007 this starts counting for less and people withdraw their funds and stick them in cash or try to do better themselves.  Market sentiment becomes more important than performance in a bear market.

This business is mostly a commodity business (with some redeeming features) that is linked fairly closely to the performance of the stock market as you have pointed out.

There is not one of these fund managers businesses who have not taken big hits since the GFC.   I think they all have considerable earnings risk, and they are hard to value when the investment cycle starts becoming volatile and increasingly unpredictable.

They do perform quite nicely in a bull market though - because when funds under management ramps up costs are very scalable.

That being said if you buy them near the bottom, you can do quite well of course.

Just my two cents - but there is too much unpredictability in this and similar businesses.


----------



## TikoMike (27 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*



Boggo said:


> Lets go back to an actual example where this has all been thrashed out recently on daily basis with an actual stock.
> 
> I have the highest regard for the main FA player (and primary investor) in the thread below.
> His apparent ability is an example of how any method can work well when YOU understand what you are talking about and can make use of the numbers (in any form) to make personal and independant decisions.
> ...



Sure, and a TA's ability to understand a basic FA's understanding of why a share price goes down on ex-dividend date:

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4270&page=68&p=724475#post724472

Derpy derp how do you gross up a fully franked dividend? Is dat an accounting methud?

We also going to go to the post where Tech/a lost money on TGA? I can bring up the starting point of that post too.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> This comment
> 
> 
> Its the only game in town...and the new players at the table are Asians.
> ...




Just for clarity .. i do not clearly believe that every stock will rise, however i do clearly believe that most stocks do, statistically and from my own experience most stocks that have significant falls also have significant rises. 

For the record my ROC for financial year 10/11 was 22% and for 11/12 was 21% dividends making up about a quarter of that.

I have posted my current Portfolio by open profit/loss % and current original capital by % for clarity. 

you will notice that most of my capital on a position/stock basis is invested in what's commonly called losers..because thats how i make money from the market... that's my edge.

I BUY LOSERS

Now look at all those green winners below and consider the fact that every single one of them was a loser when i brought it, and at least 80% of them went against me early on, often by more than 10% and every single time i held and or brought more, so not only do i buy losers i also average down.  so just for clarity.

I BUY LOSERS AND AVERAGE DOWN.
~


----------



## McLovin (27 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*



Ves]There is not one of these fund managers businesses who have not taken big hits since the GFC. I think they all have considerable earnings risk said:


> Sure, and a TA's ability to understand a basic FA's understanding of why a share price goes down on ex-dividend date:
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4270&page=68&p=724475#post724472
> 
> ...




FFS, can we just give it a rest? It's like a schoolyard in here sometimes.


----------



## Ves (27 November 2012)

*Re: In The Interest Of Clarity.*



McLovin said:


> On the plus side, because they run on an oily rag, you're unlikely to do your cash on these companies. And when the recovery does come the cost structure of the business means most of it falls straight to the bottom line. A good low risk play on the market cycle.
> 
> Our views on the FM businesses seem to be broadly in line with eachother. Personally, I'd wait for the pick up before I started buying. There'll be plenty of time, IMO.



That sounds reasonable enough to me - the oily rag comment is spot on.  I don't see any problem with how the market is pricing this (and PTM) at the moment.


----------



## McLovin (27 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> Mc Lovin posted up It is clear that management fees and performance fees are NOT deducted.
> Further I presume Robusta has decided to hold for 5 yrs or more as suggested in the link.
> 
> Anyway Im obviously missing something and if you can tell me why this is a good buy fundamentally.
> ...




Shock horror, we agree that this company will turn with the market. Although I think it will outperform when that happens because of the operational leverage discussed above.


----------



## tech/a (28 November 2012)

TikoMike said:


> Sure, and a TA's ability to understand a basic FA's understanding of why a share price goes down on ex-dividend date:
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4270&page=68&p=724475#post724472
> 
> ...




Thanks So Cynical
Not that I agree with your method--but if it works for you.

TikoMike
Can't see where I feature in the link.
Yep small loss on TGA small losses are common.

2002- 2007 turned $30k into $360k all recorded live on the net
Still there.just let me know if you want the link.---just for clarity.

If you can direct me to your work I'd be pleased to learn.


----------



## TikoMike (28 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> Thanks So Cynical
> Not that I agree with your method--but if it works for you.
> 
> TikoMike
> ...



Read the post again, the link wasn't meant to feature you. I just said I can post a link if he wanted.

What a coincidence your $330,000 gain stops up to where the bull ended. Since I joined this forum all I see is you lost money on TGA when everyone else has made money. Anyway, no work from me to direct you to. I'm on this forum to discuss and not flabagate my winners. I just could not help myself but to reply to Boggo's post. I know he was trolling, guess I should not have taken the bait. But if he is making an FA sound stupid then just as easily I can make a TA look stupid featuring none other than himself.


----------



## tech/a (28 November 2012)

TikoMike said:


> Read the post again, the link wasn't meant to feature you. I just said I can post a link if he wanted.
> 
> What a coincidence your $330,000 gain stops up to where the bull ended. Since I joined this forum all I see is you lost money on TGA when everyone else has made money. Anyway, no work from me to direct you to. I'm on this forum to discuss and not flabagate my winners. I just could not help myself but to reply to Boggo's post. I know he was trolling, guess I should not have taken the bait. But if he is making an FA sound stupid then just as easily I can make a TA look stupid featuring none other than himself.




Your gunna be fun!!


----------



## boofis (28 November 2012)

TikoMike said:


> Read the post again, the link wasn't meant to feature you. I just said I can post a link if he wanted.
> 
> What a coincidence your $330,000 gain stops up to where the bull ended. Since I joined this forum all I see is you lost money on TGA when everyone else has made money. Anyway, no work from me to direct you to. I'm on this forum to discuss and not flabagate my winners. I just could not help myself but to reply to Boggo's post. I know he was trolling, guess I should not have taken the bait. But if he is making an FA sound stupid then just as easily I can make a TA look stupid featuring none other than himself.




This post is, well, :bad:


----------



## TikoMike (28 November 2012)

tech/a said:


> Your gunna be fun!!




Sorry I might need a translator. Especially on the "your" part. Do you speak English?


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 November 2012)

TikoMike said:


> Sorry I might need a translator.




Probably a change of attitude and some credibility would be better.


----------



## kermit345 (28 November 2012)

I agree with the sentiments of McLovin and Ves.

You'll find the listed fund managers will move in the same direction as the underlying market(s) they operate within but in a more compounded fashion. For example is markets are going down their FUM is reducing not only due to market movements but also due to outflows. Then the reverse holds true, on a market going up their FUM will increase due to the rising tide but also due to inflows. I'd also note the following two points that can make Fund Managers a good investment if you can get on board at an opportune time:

- Given SG contributions you'll find on down markets the outflows won't be as severe as when increasing markets occur. This is because typically people either don't take much control of their super and simply stay invested and/or don't want to hoard huge amounts of cash and leave some invested plus increasing proportionately when SG contributions are made.

- Generally people flock to fund managers with either a proven long track record (i.e. Platinum) or those who have shown recent outperformance (Magellan). This is particularly true when the market starts firing up and people are looking for anywhere to throw their cash, particularly inside super (if they aren't already fully invested).

Given the huge amounts of cash sitting on the sideline at the moment just waiting for the right time to invest, i'd look at buying shares in a fund manager when there starts to be any signs of the next bull market. You may get in a little early or a little late but the compounded nature of the inflows fund managers will receive will be pretty significant in my opinion.

And like others have mentioned, don't forget that the underlying costs of running these fund managers are relatively fixed. The only time costs increase is if more staff need to be added on and this is generally only due to the fact your doing so well anyway. So the returns essentially go straight to the bottom line and a reasonable portion of this finds its way into shareholders pockets via dividends.

EDIT:

In relation to HHL and tech/a's point of view, I agree with him at the moment. There's not enough compelling evidence that markets are on the improve and wont be hammered again anytime soon. While I can understand why buying fund managers shares can be a great and rewarding investment, timing can be a significant issue and I don't believe now is the right time due to the underlying markets which is what tech/a is getting at. If we start to see debt issues world wide actually being adressed rather then simply delaying repayment and the market steadily rises, HHL and co may be great buy opportunities, particularly if their share price lags the market in any way.


----------



## tech/a (28 November 2012)

TikoMike said:


> Sorry I might need a translator. Especially on the "your" part. Do you speak English?




Ill type slowly.


----------



## kermit345 (30 November 2012)

This thread was started to avoid taking over robusta's thread, after tech/a's original post theres only been 3 posts attempt to address why/why not to buy HHL at the moment from a fundamentals point of view and in relation to the underlying market, me, Ves and McLovin.

The rest of it has just been more trolling. I'm not sure if your busy or something tech/a but you started this for discussion and the 'fundy's' of us have raised some points and thats where the discussion has ended.

Kind of defeats the purpose of this new exciting thread doesn't it lol.


----------



## tech/a (30 November 2012)

A couple of things.

(1) I started the thread for anyone to discuss anything which they feel needs clarity relative to an answer on *ANY* thread where the continuation of the explanation would lead to disruption in the thread.

(2) I will be "Clarifying some issues that are directed to me from time to time so that I wont have to do it again and it will be here on this thread for reference when I need to "clarify" someones remarks.

(3) 







> The rest of it has just been more trolling.



I'm lost with this trolling terminology particularly in THIS thread---can someone explain it to me so I can "Clarify it"?--Seriously I'm at a loss.Its not something I consciously do.

(4) I think my views have been addressed and others have acknowledge I can see the point of others but cant see why *NOW* is a good time to buy.
The holder of 312000 shares has dropped $84,000 this week without a murmur.


----------



## kermit345 (30 November 2012)

Trolling is basically saying something to get a rise out of another person without being serious or contributing anything constructive to the conversation/topic. Basically exactly what TikoMike did which managed to get yourself and TH to respond - just adds nothing to the overall discussion but hey i guess thats online forums for ya.

Thanks for the prompt reply, essentially seems like we all agree that we can understand the reasoning why HHL *could* be a good investment but that none of us can see that it is at the moment.

Still hope it pans out for Robusta, time will tell.


----------



## tech/a (30 November 2012)

kermit345 said:


> Trolling is basically saying something to get a rise out of another person without being serious or contributing anything constructive to the conversation/topic. Basically exactly what TikoMike did which managed to get yourself and TH to respond - just adds nothing to the overall discussion but hey i guess thats online forums for ya.
> 
> Thanks for the prompt reply, essentially seems like we all agree that we can understand the reasoning why HHL *could* be a good investment but that none of us can see that it is at the moment.
> 
> Still hope it pans out for Robusta, time will tell.




Thanks I count myself informed


----------



## TikoMike (30 November 2012)

kermit345 said:


> Trolling is basically saying something to get a rise out of another person without being serious or contributing anything constructive to the conversation/topic. Basically exactly what TikoMike did which managed to get yourself and TH to respond - just adds nothing to the overall discussion but hey i guess thats online forums for ya.
> 
> Thanks for the prompt reply, essentially seems like we all agree that we can understand the reasoning why HHL *could* be a good investment but that none of us can see that it is at the moment.
> 
> Still hope it pans out for Robusta, time will tell.



Kinda off the mark there a bit. Boggo was trolling FAs, I fell for the bait. I used tech/a as an example as part of my response. But other than that you got the gist of what trolling means.


----------



## CanOz (30 November 2012)

Ok, now that we've all made up, lets jog on!


----------



## Julia (30 November 2012)

CanOz said:


> lets jog on!



That reminds me of a fascinating and very spirited ongoing exchange some years ago between Tech/A and a FA enthusiast, Ducati.  Tech, you will remember this, I'm sure.
He was very articulate and great fun to read.

Now that was an argument worth tuning in to.  It was a match between equals coming from opposite points of view, no real insults, and clearly a challenge to both.

Ducati's signature always included the words "Jog on".


----------



## CanOz (1 December 2012)

Julia said:


> That reminds me of a fascinating and very spirited ongoing exchange some years ago between Tech/A and a FA enthusiast, Ducati.  Tech, you will remember this, I'm sure.
> He was very articulate and great fun to read.
> 
> Now that was an argument worth tuning in to.  It was a match between equals coming from opposite points of view, no real insults, and clearly a challenge to both.
> ...





Yup, recalled that clearly as I typed it....

CanOz


----------



## tech/a (1 December 2012)

Julia said:


> That reminds me of a fascinating and very spirited ongoing exchange some years ago between Tech/A and a FA enthusiast, Ducati.  Tech, you will remember this, I'm sure.
> He was very articulate and great fun to read.
> 
> Now that was an argument worth tuning in to.  It was a match between equals coming from opposite points of view, no real insults, and clearly a challenge to both.
> ...




Yes the Ducsta
When in Auckland I arranged a dinner with duc and zip zap ( Andrew Gibbs.) Andy made it but  duc unfortunately never arrived.
Have met some real characters over the 20 yrs posting!


----------



## CanOz (1 December 2012)

tech/a said:


> Yes the Ducsta
> When in Auckland I arranged a dinner with duc and zip zap ( Andrew Gibbs.) Andy made it but  duc unfortunately never arrived.
> Have met some real characters over the 20 yrs posting!




Zip zap is quite a coder, he's been busy too!

That's a shame duc never made it. Hope he's still doing ok!

CanOz


----------



## tech/a (1 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> Zip zap is quite a coder, he's been busy too!
> 
> That's a shame duc never made it. Hope he's still doing ok!
> 
> CanOz




Duc was a great one for picking what he considered a good value stock and averaging down.
I challenged him on it and he ran a test for 18 mths.
The account blew up.
The thread is here somewhere in the archives.

Here it is

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2829


----------



## Joules MM1 (1 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> Zip zap is quite a coder, he's been busy too!
> 
> That's a shame duc never made it. Hope he's still doing ok!
> 
> CanOz




think the duc is running a blog over at T2W .....he's an ardent fanfollower of Radge....i suspect he's dropped much of his old angst and philosophic shtick.....

rock on


----------



## CanOz (1 December 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> think the duc is running a blog over at T2W .....he's an ardent fanfollower of Radge....i suspect he's dropped much of his old angst and philosophic shtick.....
> 
> rock on




Mate, you are like THE GO TO GUY for everything lol!

Far out...he's been busy too!

Him and Tech would be on the same page now surely...


----------



## Trembling Hand (1 December 2012)

CanOz said:


> Him and Tech would be on the same page now surely...




Flip flopper. never made anything work, Intraday... didn't stick. Value.... see thread. Arb at one stage... now what?

go figure!


----------



## Boggo (1 December 2012)

TikoMike said:


> I just could not help myself but to reply to Boggo's post. I know he was trolling, guess I should not have taken the bait. But if he is making an FA sound stupid then just as easily I can make a TA look stupid featuring none other than himself.




I have been across most of the country in the last week and have obviously missed out on some of usual fruit bat mentality (I can't eat it but I will **** on it so that no one else can eat it) comments.

Tiko ol sport, I was 1.8 cents out in my mental calcs on TLS. As a $4 stock I will let you get back to me with the percentage error that you have detected which you believe may completely ruin my credibility as a TA enthusiast (it may involve TA type calcs so let me know if you run into difficulty).

Regarding the FA investor on TGA in your comment above, if you took the time to actually read my post for how it was written, not how you think it is written then I think you would see that I have the utmost respect for that TA investor, why, because unlike you he types up his detailed analysis and then comments in its defence.
I may not agree with some aspects of his buy and hold methodology but he certainly earns respect for his ability in the area he considers is best for his situation and I respect him for his skill in that.

Every analysis works if you put in the work. Most FA's however just quote six month old figures that they couldn't explain anyway in their elusive quest to become the next Warren Buffet.

Read what people such as tech/a, Trembling Hand and Pioupiou actually do in their three different approaches and then when you post some of your own with a demonstartion of a sound understanding of what you are on about you may earn the right to make a valuable contribution to whichever field you choose.

We have our quota of sciolists at the moment thank you, watch and learn would be my advice until you can display and justify your approach.


----------



## Ves (8 December 2012)

Hi Julia - I probably was off-topic when asking you about following trends and the pre-GFC switch into gold in the interest rates thread.   Maybe you could answer here?  No obligations, it's up to you. Cheers!


----------



## tech/a (16 December 2012)

*T/H* posed the hypothesis that he doubted that you could trade one instrument ( Stock ) and make a consistent profit.




> There is also a HUGE risk in concentrating on just 1 stock. They very often change character and just go to sleep for years. So the chances are you could have a year of making money, decide to step it up and run right into a change in the way AUT move. End up just wasting more time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I agree I think you need to be able to trade long and short.
I also think that your method of trading needs to alter considerably
in choppy and flat markets.
Bull markets allow almost any trading method or plan to work consistently.
But in today's markets you need ability to trade long and short, high win rate and size. 
In my view.


----------

