- Joined
- 27 April 2006
- Posts
- 1,109
- Reactions
- 4
hey i think we should have a yearly comp, we select 20 stocks each and then see how we go, what do you think tech/a??
How to turn $9,500 into $550,000+
- Thread starter krisbarry
- Start date
hey i think we should have a yearly comp, we select 20 stocks each and then see how we go, what do you think tech/a??
tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,400
- Reactions
- 6,317
10/20 whatever.
We already have a short term comp/1 mth.
Why not a yearly which could start every 3/6 mths.
Only problem is who would record it---a lot of work and joe gets bugger all for his efforts now!
We already have a short term comp/1 mth.
Why not a yearly which could start every 3/6 mths.
Only problem is who would record it---a lot of work and joe gets bugger all for his efforts now!
- Joined
- 23 October 2005
- Posts
- 859
- Reactions
- 0
Various CFD/FX providers run trading competions (2 months duration) during the year. You could take part in those. Why only stocks or long positions for that matter?
Better still, with real $$$, as competitons don't have the added aspect of emotion involved!
It’s a matter of style. My approach as you know is radically different to the buy and hold style:
My specialty/focus is on commodities and indexes since these are harder to manipulate, and I trade derivatives (haven’t bought or sold a stock in years) in these markets and equities. In the ASX equity market I will only trade the optionable stocks with sufficient liquidity or appropriate strikes (occasionally trade flex options but only when the chart is compelling), or less often those with warrants or futures. I just don’t trade the underlying.
Time frame is also a factor, since I deem it better to be out of the market sometimes when dealing with depreciating asserts such as bought options, warrants and futures, and in times I see little opportunity to profit, or the risk to reward parameters are not sufficient to justify a trade.
Hence sometimes swing trades can achieve that mystical 1000%, sometimes in a matter of days, hence precision entry and exits are key to swing styles of trading where you aim to precisely match the time value of the instrument of choice to the movement of the underlying looking to capture the “sweet spot” of the derivative to minimise risk and maximise reward.
So, the prospect of me picking 19 small caps is not really my specialty, although of course I can read a chart, but the prospect of trudging through 500+ odd charts in detail (which is what I’d have to do since using scanners is the polar opposite approach to a chartist who uses pattern of trend, time cycles and Elliott Wave as their core form of analysis) is quite an ask. If I had to, I would analyse each chart in detail and I have a rigorous analysis regimen I’d apply to each and every chart if I was compelled to trade.
Although of course SpinDr (not widely known on ASF, but a trading legend – also know to Daffy from the past – Daffy attended some of his lectures I believe), who is the consummate technician at small caps, especially resource stocks, would be the better choice as his record at trading these is significant (I’ve never traded a small cap resource stock). He is a time cycle chartist of considerable skill and I’ve seen his work with this end of the ASX spectrum – he’d be a better choice but he’d also try to pick stocks which are covered by CFDs to increase the leverage.
If I was to trade, I’d suggest an amount of capital, with no restriction on markets or instruments – include all indexes worldwide, all stocks worldwide, all commodities world wide, all Forex, all derivatives of any kind including structured derivatives of any kind, all warrants, bonds, notes (including convertible notes and any combination of derivatives), any kind of margin, futures of any kind, options on futures, options, warrants, CFDs. This includes the ability to go short as well as long any insturment.
Also the ability to enter or exit at any time if permitted by the relevant market to do so during the relevant trading hours. In addition the ability to incorporate contingent orders of whatever configuration available to the chosen market and instrument. That’s what I’d require to truly reflect my trading style. That’s what I’m geared for. Particularly the ability to enter complex option positions such as ratio back spreads in order to buy and sell positions around a core position as the underlying trades.
The question is how do we set it up with an arbitrator to follow all these markets and instruments? Particularly if I may be entering and exiting in several different markets in a variety of different instruments and time frames?
Maybe it’d be easier to trade just one index or commodity, and allow the use of whatever instruments are available over it?
Regards
Magdoran
Yeh.. Kinda like that comp where Larry Williams dominated.
Use your own money, but traded live.
Could be interesting.
tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,400
- Reactions
- 6,317
Moggie
Yes I do see your point.
But also see STC's.
Interested then in picking a couple of your best (From the resource sector). and showing practical application.
Still like to see STC pick 19 and run those to see if there is any credence in what he suggests.
Yes I do see your point.
But also see STC's.
Interested then in picking a couple of your best (From the resource sector). and showing practical application.
Still like to see STC pick 19 and run those to see if there is any credence in what he suggests.
- Joined
- 5 August 2004
- Posts
- 1,996
- Reactions
- 0
Here is another example:
Person 1 buys an easy pick lotto ticket (random number generator) kicks back and waits for the lotto numbers to be drawn.
Person 2 picks numbers using all kinds of theories (T/A and F/A) spends hours mulling over the lotto website and finding out the most popular numbers, the numbers drawn; most and least. Runs the numbers through a few spreadsheets, charts them, chats with a few lotto officials. etc etc
The truth is that both person 1 and 2 have equal chance of winning, no matter how much or little time is spent choosing the numbers in the first place.
Person 1 buys an easy pick lotto ticket (random number generator) kicks back and waits for the lotto numbers to be drawn.
Person 2 picks numbers using all kinds of theories (T/A and F/A) spends hours mulling over the lotto website and finding out the most popular numbers, the numbers drawn; most and least. Runs the numbers through a few spreadsheets, charts them, chats with a few lotto officials. etc etc
The truth is that both person 1 and 2 have equal chance of winning, no matter how much or little time is spent choosing the numbers in the first place.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,578
- Reactions
- 12,704
If you really believe picking stocks is totally random (I think you're just being a stirrer) I suggest you buy a fund which replicates the index. Or buy a lotto ticket.
I always wondered how you chose LVL, it was a random stock generator. Say no more.
tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,400
- Reactions
- 6,317
Sorry STC not remotely similar.
- Joined
- 23 October 2005
- Posts
- 859
- Reactions
- 0
Your argument is completely flawed as you are comparing the market to the lottery.
Why have so many people been involved in this market mania for the last 5 years. More now than 2002?? Simple, because the market has been going up. While the trend is strongly up, more stocks will be advancing compared to declining, as such the probabilities of picking an advancing stock are increased. Think about it, it’s not rocket science. How far they move up/down in a long term period is much harder to determine by fundamental or charting methods.
Your argument is that I don’t what the market has been doing and have no idea what it’s going to do. It doesn’t matter since I am going to buy and hold irrespective. Well if you think you have a CONSISTANT winning edge doing this STC, then do it.
Here is some food for thought though, 7 years ago, I bought a stock (SEN) for 25c, it then moved to $2.38 in matter of weeks. At the same time a friend bought the same stock. The DOT.com crash came and I was eventually lucky enough to liquidate at $1.50 on a retest. All the tell tail signs that this stock had topped but a few days before the crash were there, but I did not know how to read chart patterns back then, I WISH I DID( By the way, the same pattern was made by RIO a few weeks ago, not saying that RIO is gonna crash though, but will not see highs for quite a while)
My friend said he would hold as he bought for the long term, if you buy for the long term you can’t go wrong. He held all the way down to 4c. I bought the stock again at 25c and then exited at 80c. He held and is still holding to this day when the price is 14c. That is 7.5 years now!!
Good Luck
- Joined
- 20 September 2005
- Posts
- 496
- Reactions
- 0
Just afew rounded figures of the 4 big banks from January 1997 to Jan 2007
ANZ $8.00 to $28.00
CBA $12.00 to $50.00
NAB $14.00 to $40.00
WBC $8.00 to $24.00
At least 300% gains in the last 10 years, bi annual dividends, and shareholder discounts. All in all not a bad risk especially if you buy anywhere below the years open.
Cheers
Happytrader
- Joined
- 31 October 2006
- Posts
- 403
- Reactions
- 0
Actually, there are people who perform fundamental analysis on the lottery, and do quite well for themselves; search for lottery syndicates on Google. Also,although it doesn't overcome the vig, there are certain #s which are better to play in the Lotto than others because other people won't choose them (like above 31)..isn't that fundamental analysis?
Any other examples you've got?
Any other examples you've got?
- Joined
- 27 April 2006
- Posts
- 1,109
- Reactions
- 4
if we were to do it tech, we could get everyone to chart their own stocks, 10 stocks and everyone can chart it themselves and then post at a particular time on one thread?
what do people think? is there any stock program we can use to record the data? could do it on comsec using paper trades and then just copy and paste it into here
I do think that the underlying philosophical polemics about analysis vs random walk theory needed to be addressed, and to an extent they have been, that’s why I bothered to have an input here.
Also, I do have concerns that some junior players may be swayed by some of the notions here, hence it was good to see ASF posters responding to this thinking even if it was put up as some kind of a joke. The people who were bankrupted by the Westpoint scam for instance aren’t laughing, some actually committed suicide, so keep that in mind and let that sit on the consciences of those venturing sophistry that may hurt others.
I'm surprised that you’ve supported this line of thinking so far given your past pronouncements about protecting the public from scams, and your promotion of conducting trading/investing in a business like manner.
Firstly, I’m confident that the overwhelming majority of fundamental and technical players view STC’s perspective ventured on this thread as flawed and think that STC is either not serious about this, or he is on the wrong track.
Secondly, it beats me why you have decided to align yourself with the antithesis of your approach, when you’re the self proclaimed king of developing robust mechanical systems (such as techtrader) and the self appointed advocate for conducting market activities in a business like manner based on positive expectancy models.
If you really feel compelled to test this theory (which I personally think is a waste of time and essentially reinventing a very old wheel) I would have thought that you’d have applied more rigour to STC’s pet theory if you were serious about evaluating it, and address a range of different markets to thoroughly build up sufficient evidence in the same vane as you did with techtrader.
If you’re going to focus on a specific portion of the market like small cap resource stocks, then surely the best choice to test this theory is to get people who are specialists in this area. If you’re going to test long term buy and hold approaches, why not get the fundamental players who fully research mining stocks for instance – there are many people who do this on this site.
Perhaps it would be nice to get SpinDr in if you want a good technical player that trades this limited quadrant of the market since he trades resources small caps, and knows that market. Interestingly using leveraged bearish positions may be quite lucrative in the near future, so the time frame, both the duration of the start to finish period, plus the actual time frame in the market (results will be very different when fast bearish moves are happening for instance, as opposed to struggling to sideways trends) will have an affect on the outcome.
But this approach in itself defeats the purpose since it is limiting itself to a unique market rather than looking at all markets to really test the validity. You really need to do this in a range of market conditions, instruments, time frames and market conditions over years methodically.
The problem with objectively evaluating different styles is it’s almost impossible to get a definitive result because market conditions and outcomes are so variable. I don’t think the traditional forms of back testing are worth while and have stated this for a long time. I think each moment in the market is unique.
The variety of results with this style of thinking and testing will necessarily shift depending on a range of parameters such as where you set the start and stop date for a test, what kind of trend the market is in at the time for the test, and how long the test runs for. This will significantly affect the results especially if you’re trying to compare radically different approaches.
I believe this kind of thinking is as fruitless as the silly debates over which is better - technical vs fundamental styles. My view is each has application, and that some people have a gift for one or another style. I think they are equally valid, and take my hat off to consummate fundamental players. In fact I believe the best teams are gifted technical and fundamental players working together. STC’s proposition though doesn’t rate in my view, it is terminally flawed, unless of course you work out that it’s better to become the lotto provider, then you’re on to something.
Then there is also the issue of instruments and the issue of the ability to profit from bearish moves, hedging, and leverage issues. How do you meaningfully resolve all of this?
Also, I do have concerns that some junior players may be swayed by some of the notions here, hence it was good to see ASF posters responding to this thinking even if it was put up as some kind of a joke. The people who were bankrupted by the Westpoint scam for instance aren’t laughing, some actually committed suicide, so keep that in mind and let that sit on the consciences of those venturing sophistry that may hurt others.
I'm surprised that you’ve supported this line of thinking so far given your past pronouncements about protecting the public from scams, and your promotion of conducting trading/investing in a business like manner.
Firstly, I’m confident that the overwhelming majority of fundamental and technical players view STC’s perspective ventured on this thread as flawed and think that STC is either not serious about this, or he is on the wrong track.
Secondly, it beats me why you have decided to align yourself with the antithesis of your approach, when you’re the self proclaimed king of developing robust mechanical systems (such as techtrader) and the self appointed advocate for conducting market activities in a business like manner based on positive expectancy models.
If you really feel compelled to test this theory (which I personally think is a waste of time and essentially reinventing a very old wheel) I would have thought that you’d have applied more rigour to STC’s pet theory if you were serious about evaluating it, and address a range of different markets to thoroughly build up sufficient evidence in the same vane as you did with techtrader.
If you’re going to focus on a specific portion of the market like small cap resource stocks, then surely the best choice to test this theory is to get people who are specialists in this area. If you’re going to test long term buy and hold approaches, why not get the fundamental players who fully research mining stocks for instance – there are many people who do this on this site.
Perhaps it would be nice to get SpinDr in if you want a good technical player that trades this limited quadrant of the market since he trades resources small caps, and knows that market. Interestingly using leveraged bearish positions may be quite lucrative in the near future, so the time frame, both the duration of the start to finish period, plus the actual time frame in the market (results will be very different when fast bearish moves are happening for instance, as opposed to struggling to sideways trends) will have an affect on the outcome.
But this approach in itself defeats the purpose since it is limiting itself to a unique market rather than looking at all markets to really test the validity. You really need to do this in a range of market conditions, instruments, time frames and market conditions over years methodically.
The problem with objectively evaluating different styles is it’s almost impossible to get a definitive result because market conditions and outcomes are so variable. I don’t think the traditional forms of back testing are worth while and have stated this for a long time. I think each moment in the market is unique.
The variety of results with this style of thinking and testing will necessarily shift depending on a range of parameters such as where you set the start and stop date for a test, what kind of trend the market is in at the time for the test, and how long the test runs for. This will significantly affect the results especially if you’re trying to compare radically different approaches.
I believe this kind of thinking is as fruitless as the silly debates over which is better - technical vs fundamental styles. My view is each has application, and that some people have a gift for one or another style. I think they are equally valid, and take my hat off to consummate fundamental players. In fact I believe the best teams are gifted technical and fundamental players working together. STC’s proposition though doesn’t rate in my view, it is terminally flawed, unless of course you work out that it’s better to become the lotto provider, then you’re on to something.
Then there is also the issue of instruments and the issue of the ability to profit from bearish moves, hedging, and leverage issues. How do you meaningfully resolve all of this?
- Joined
- 31 October 2006
- Posts
- 403
- Reactions
- 0
This theory doesn't need testing. It's expected return is self evident. Just compare your own expected return with the expected return.
Agree fully - nice to see others come to the obvious conclusion. However, someone needed to spell it out clearly to put this tangent to bed as it richly deserves. Time to move on!
Kauri
E/W Learner
- Joined
- 3 September 2005
- Posts
- 3,428
- Reactions
- 11
I think people are treating this thread with far more seriousness than it deserves, and also are taking it off in directions which suit them.
The original premise put forward was to .. without any analysis.....randomly select one low priced stock in the mining sector and place $9500 on it, not look at it for 2 1/2 years, and see what the end result was.
In the spirit of this challenge I have scribbled down the codes of sub $1 mining stocks on a sheet of paper, and to make it truly independant have taken it next door to my neighbours Budgie cage. They have unerringly and without hesitation dropped their unique indicator on BTV .
So put me down for $9500 of BTV at yesterdays close of $0.135c..
PS... BTV... that seems co-incidentally to ring a few bells for some reason...
Yours in all sincerity
Kauri...
The original premise put forward was to .. without any analysis.....randomly select one low priced stock in the mining sector and place $9500 on it, not look at it for 2 1/2 years, and see what the end result was.
In the spirit of this challenge I have scribbled down the codes of sub $1 mining stocks on a sheet of paper, and to make it truly independant have taken it next door to my neighbours Budgie cage. They have unerringly and without hesitation dropped their unique indicator on BTV .
So put me down for $9500 of BTV at yesterdays close of $0.135c..
PS... BTV... that seems co-incidentally to ring a few bells for some reason...
Yours in all sincerity
Kauri...
Yeh Im down.
If you could analyse on comsec that would be great.
Create a thread and lets get the ball rolling.
Say entries have to be in... by... friday??
- Joined
- 3 January 2007
- Posts
- 940
- Reactions
- 2
I was wondering did STC even know what caused the resource boom and why mining shares rosed so much for the past few years? And why fundamentally flawed to assume mining stocks will continue to do the same for the next 10 years?
I think this thread INSULTS the intelligence of this forum.
Oh wait, the cognitive biases, right.
I think this thread INSULTS the intelligence of this forum.
Oh wait, the cognitive biases, right.
