Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Why do people blog their trading?

Jump to new
wayneL said:
I've blogged on and off for about two years now and to be frank I don't have a clue why. Some people just like writing crap on the internet... that's why we're all here isn't it?

So thats my reason, to write crap on the internet.
Click to expand...

lol Wayne,
And can I say you're quite good at it, lol:D
 
Why do we blog?

A good question - and I don't really know the answer. I started one up -www.drawdown.blogspot.com - initially as a place to put images to use on Reefcap (the Chartist now). I now find it a useful record of where I was at in the past.

I don't spend a lot of time on it since I am pretty busy working nine to five (well sort of). It would think it could make pretty boring reading unless you were interested in trading. My typical entry probably takes me as long as it takes to type this post up. I like to post the odd chart, usually in retrospect since I don't want to become a tipster!

regards
stevo
 
stevo said:
Why do we blog?

A good question - and I don't really know the answer. I started one up -www.drawdown.blogspot.com - initially as a place to put images to use on Reefcap (the Chartist now). I now find it a useful record of where I was at in the past.

I don't spend a lot of time on it since I am pretty busy working nine to five (well sort of). It would think it could make pretty boring reading unless you were interested in trading. My typical entry probably takes me as long as it takes to type this post up. I like to post the odd chart, usually in retrospect since I don't want to become a tipster!

regards
stevo
Click to expand...


Is that working or surfing 9-5! :p:
 
Finally just checked your blog out too Stevo, well done.

If i may ask, can you explain how you got into trading and then how you got into designing a system?

If its on your Blog, forgive me as I can't get through the whole site today, the inet is pathetic here today.

Cheers,
 
With regards to giving advice or being construed as giving advice what have bloggers done to counter this or to protect themselves with?

1. have a disclaimer
2. don't give forecasts
3. only post hindsight trades information
4. only post educational stuff
5. posting links to what may be advice

I am interested because I see this as a whole new world still unexplored for its potential and risks.

Nice blog Steve!:)
 
Snake.
I think if wording like---then its a personal opinion.

This is my opinion.
This is how I see it.
The following is my take on it.
Ive made this decision based upon.

Disclaimers help.
Infact I think there is tougher legislation for those WHO CAN give advice!!
Hence all sorts of disclaimers and things to sign.
Ask Radge he's got the lot and an expert on who needs what.

I'll make him aware of the thread.

This is ofcourse my personal opinion and may well be rubbish.
I'm a builder!
 
tech/a said:
Snake.
I think if wording like---then its a personal opinion.

This is my opinion.
This is how I see it.
The following is my take on it.
Ive made this decision based upon.

Disclaimers help.
Infact I think there is tougher legislation for those WHO CAN give advice!!
Hence all sorts of disclaimers and things to sign.
Ask Radge he's got the lot and an expert on who needs what.

I'll make him aware of the thread.

This is of course my personal opinion and may well be rubbish.
I'm a builder!
Click to expand...
All the blogs I read are worded similar to that and most have a disclaimer page. I think as long as nobody say buy this or sell that.

For an example of a licensed (I think) person with a blog check this one out:

http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com

In between abusing his readers, swearing and inflating his own ego (which could possibly be more tongue in cheek than anything) he chronicles his trades.

Quite funny really... if you're amused by someone being a complete @rsehole.:rolleyes:
 
A few things to consider with blogging and even with these forums.

As far as the US is concerned, which is where I guess most blogging occurs, they do not require a license to write a newsletter which gives trading or investment advice. Anyone can write a newsletter and offer advice to the general public under their "Freedom of Speech" 1st Amendment.

In Australia its a little different but we should divide it into two general area's. Those who know better and those that don't. A person who is knowingly attempting to circumnavigate the law will be deemed breaking the law by the authorities. As an example, if you have work experience in the financial (or related) industry and attempt to start trading money on behalf of other people without a license, then there is a good chance that ASIC may frown upon it. Same goes for giving trading and investment advice via a portal or newsletter. In other words, you know you require a license to carry on that business and that you cannot plead ignorance.

One of the main things to consider when dealing with these issues is "the spirit of the law".

A blogger on the other hand, maintaining a simple site without any scale business operations may be deemed to be "ignorant" of the laws and is therefore not really defeating the "spirit of the law". If the progress of that blogger starts increasing, i.e. they start knowingly influence many people or even attempt to profit from their services, then it could be deemed that that person "should know better" and should therefore hold a license. I know there a a few individuals on this forum offering up quite specific and formal advice that is consistent enough to suggest they should be holding a license.

One last comment, and I note Joe has it here on this site. You cannot just "disclaim away" liability even if you have the worlds longest disclaimer. A disclaimer is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If you start offering up advice without a license and then think you're okay just because you have a disclaimer, then you're in for a shock.

A forum such as this (mine) is slightly different - to a point. It is different because it is deemed to be made up of the general public engaging in discussions about the markets. As far as ASIC is concerned, so long as its "the general public engaging in a discussion" then its all okay. The issue arises when someone who may not be "engaging in a general discussion" enters the fray. That person will be attempting to manipulate the market or offer trading/investment advice under the radar. This is where moderators need to be very careful - disclaimer or no disclaimer - that an individual may be operating in a manner that is not seen as "the public engaging in a general conversation about the market"

If the owner of the forum is acting "within the spirit of the law" to negate such threats then all will usually be okay. I once heard that everyone will break the law to some degree. What is important is "acting within the spirit of the law".

I am no lawyer, but this is my understanding.


This post may contain advice that has been prepared by Reef Capital Coaching ABN 24 092 309 978 (“RCC”) and is general advice and does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on this general advice you should therefore consider the appropriateness of the advice having regard to your situation. We recommend you obtain financial, legal and taxation advice before making any financial investment decision.
 
wayneL said:
All the blogs I read are worded similar to that and most have a disclaimer page. I think as long as nobody say buy this or sell that.

For an example of a licensed (I think) person with a blog check this one out:

http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com

In between abusing his readers, swearing and inflating his own ego (which could possibly be more tongue in cheek than anything) he chronicles his trades.

Quite funny really... if you're amused by someone being a complete @rsehole.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Pretty funny that one. He even creates new words too.
 
Nick Radge said:
I few things to consider with blogging and even with these forums.

As far as the US is concerned, which is where I guess most blogging occurs, they do not require a license to write a newsletter which gives trading or investment advice. Anyone can write a newsletter and offer advice to the general public under their "Freedom of Speech" 1st Amendment.

In Australia its a little different but we should divide it into two general area's. Those who know better and those that don't. A person who is knowingly attempting to circumnavigate the law will be deemed breaking the law by the authorities. As an example, if you have work experience in the financial (or related) industry and attempt to start trading money on behalf of other people without a license, then there is a good chance that ASIC may frown upon it. Same goes for giving trading and investment advice via a portal or newsletter. In other words, you know you require a license to carry on that business and that you cannot plead ignorance.

One of the main things to consider when dealing with these issues is "the spirit of the law".

A blogger on the other hand, maintaining a simple site without any scale business operations may be deemed to be "ignorant" of the laws and is therefore not really defeating the "spirit of the law".


If the progress of that blogger starts increasing, i.e. they start knowingly influence many people or even attempt to profit from their services, then it could be deemed that that person "should know better" and should therefore hold a license.


I know there a a few individuals on this forum offering up quite specific and formal advice that is consistent enough to suggest they should be holding a license.

One last comment, and I note Joe has it here on this site. You cannot just "disclaim away" liability even if you have the worlds longest disclaimer. A disclaimer is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If you start offering up advice without a license and then think you're okay just because you have a disclaimer, then you're in for a shock.

A forum such as this (mine) is slightly different - to a point. It is different because it is deemed to be made up of the general public engaging in discussions about the markets. As far as ASIC is concerned, so long as its "the general public engaging in a discussion" then its all okay. The issue arises when someone who may not be "engaging in a general discussion" enters the fray.

That person will be attempting to manipulate the market or offer trading/investment advice under the radar. This is where moderators need to be very careful - disclaimer or no disclaimer - that an individual may be operating in a manner that is not seen as "the public engaging in a general conversation about the market"

If the owner of the forum is acting "within the spirit of the law" to negate such threats then all will usually be okay. I once heard that everyone will break the law to some degree. What is important is "acting within the spirit of the law".

I am no lawyer, but this is my understanding.


This post may contain advice that has been prepared by Reef Capital Coaching ABN 24 092 309 978 (“RCC”) and is general advice and does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on this general advice you should therefore consider the appropriateness of the advice having regard to your situation. We recommend you obtain financial, legal and taxation advice before making any financial investment decision.
Click to expand...

thanks Nick for your take on what is an interesting issue. I have read some blogs, comments that I have said to myself "that sounds like advice" "but is it advice":confused: That is what prompted my post last night.

The parts in red, green and purple are interesting to read.

Cheers........

Ps. What does it take to get a Licence?
 
Nick Radge said:
A few things to consider with blogging and even with these forums.

As far as the US is concerned, which is where I guess most blogging occurs, they do not require a license to write a newsletter which gives trading or investment advice. Anyone can write a newsletter and offer advice to the general public under their "Freedom of Speech" 1st Amendment.

In Australia its a little different but we should divide it into two general area's. Those who know better and those that don't. A person who is knowingly attempting to circumnavigate the law will be deemed breaking the law by the authorities. As an example, if you have work experience in the financial (or related) industry and attempt to start trading money on behalf of other people without a license, then there is a good chance that ASIC may frown upon it. Same goes for giving trading and investment advice via a portal or newsletter. In other words, you know you require a license to carry on that business and that you cannot plead ignorance.

One of the main things to consider when dealing with these issues is "the spirit of the law".

A blogger on the other hand, maintaining a simple site without any scale business operations may be deemed to be "ignorant" of the laws and is therefore not really defeating the "spirit of the law". If the progress of that blogger starts increasing, i.e. they start knowingly influence many people or even attempt to profit from their services, then it could be deemed that that person "should know better" and should therefore hold a license. I know there a a few individuals on this forum offering up quite specific and formal advice that is consistent enough to suggest they should be holding a license.

One last comment, and I note Joe has it here on this site. You cannot just "disclaim away" liability even if you have the worlds longest disclaimer. A disclaimer is not a get-out-of-jail free card. If you start offering up advice without a license and then think you're okay just because you have a disclaimer, then you're in for a shock.

A forum such as this (mine) is slightly different - to a point. It is different because it is deemed to be made up of the general public engaging in discussions about the markets. As far as ASIC is concerned, so long as its "the general public engaging in a discussion" then its all okay. The issue arises when someone who may not be "engaging in a general discussion" enters the fray. That person will be attempting to manipulate the market or offer trading/investment advice under the radar. This is where moderators need to be very careful - disclaimer or no disclaimer - that an individual may be operating in a manner that is not seen as "the public engaging in a general conversation about the market"

If the owner of the forum is acting "within the spirit of the law" to negate such threats then all will usually be okay. I once heard that everyone will break the law to some degree. What is important is "acting within the spirit of the law".

I am no lawyer, but this is my understanding.


This post may contain advice that has been prepared by Reef Capital Coaching ABN 24 092 309 978 (“RCC”) and is general advice and does not take account of your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before acting on this general advice you should therefore consider the appropriateness of the advice having regard to your situation. We recommend you obtain financial, legal and taxation advice before making any financial investment decision.
Click to expand...

Great post here Nick, but if I may draw attention to the words in blue:

Exactly how and when does someone who gives advice on forums/blogs be defined as "attempting to profit from their services" when such opinions are deemed to be for discussion material?

When does discussion material turn into advice in the spirit of the law? Someone can be consistently bang-on in their observations but how do you draw the line before it crosses over into advice? Is it breaking the law if someone is being consistently bang-on in their observations, yet does not hold a piece of paper?

These questions are not necessarily directed to Nick or anyone in particular; this post got me thinking about the interpretation of the law, that's all. Some things don't quite gel here and I wish to hear some thoughts on this.
 
If the progress of that blogger starts increasing, i.e. they start knowingly influence many people or even attempt to profit from their services, then it could be deemed that that person "should know better" and should therefore hold a license. I know there a a few individuals on this forum offering up quite specific and formal advice that is consistent enough to suggest they should be holding a license
Click to expand...

I post up quite a few charts and often I'll follow a couple.I asked Nick if he thought I had been "One of those" (by email) he hasnt answered me specifically. I know of the disclaimer situation through the builing industry.
We cant say we will take all care but no responsibility --lets say in the case of Underground cables or pipes--particularly if the client marks them out!

I think whats meant is if I or someone else started to post consistently analysis which clearly could be seen as biased.
OR
If (and many have mailed me to do this) people asked me to analyse a group of stocks and I decided that I could make a buck from the time I spend doing that.I dont do that.Infact I dont do individual requests unless we are discussing it here on the forum.

I personally think its common sence and I think the authorities would have a similar common sence take on the situation.
 
stevo said:
Why do we blog?

A good question - and I don't really know the answer. I started one up -www.drawdown.blogspot.com - initially as a place to put images to use on Reefcap (the Chartist now). I now find it a useful record of where I was at in the past.

I don't spend a lot of time on it since I am pretty busy working nine to five (well sort of). It would think it could make pretty boring reading unless you were interested in trading. My typical entry probably takes me as long as it takes to type this post up. I like to post the odd chart, usually in retrospect since I don't want to become a tipster!

regards
stevo
Click to expand...

Great blog steve.

Just a comment regarding profit exits, i saw a detailed report of a backtest where entry was random (ie. they were testing an exit) that used 2 exits. 1 was a profit exit of 100%, the other a 3yr time stop. Universe was s&p500 and testing data was between 1999-2006. The system hit 84% winners and returned 30% a year annualised.

So obviously what this means is, in these bull market conditions (well mostly, ie. 1999-2000, and 2003-2006) that if you hold a stock long enough (3yrs) then it will most likely (84 out of 100) at least double.

I would suspect a system with this sort of exit to perform rather poorly in a bear or sideways market.

The dual exits go completely against the adage of cutting your winners short and letting your winners run. Rather it caps winners and holds dogs for 3 years before chopping them lol..

Excuse the off-topic guys.
 
nizar said:
Great blog steve.

Just a comment regarding profit exits, i saw a detailed report of a backtest where entry was random (ie. they were testing an exit) that used 2 exits. 1 was a profit exit of 100%, the other a 3yr time stop. Universe was s&p500 and testing data was between 1999-2006. The system hit 84% winners and returned 30% a year annualised.
Click to expand...

I doubt you could expect any other result in a 3 yr bullmarket!

So obviously what this means is, in these bull market conditions (well mostly, ie. 1999-2000, and 2003-2006) that if you hold a stock long enough (3yrs) then it will most likely (84 out of 100) at least double.
Click to expand...

There is not enough information but CLEARLY not every stock was traded 84% of the s&p 500 didnt double over the last 3 yrs.

I would suspect a system with this sort of exit to perform rather poorly in a bear or sideways market.
Click to expand...

Of course it will its not designed for these conditions.

The dual exits go completely against the adage of cutting your winners short and letting your winners run. Rather it caps winners and holds dogs for 3 years before chopping them lol..
Click to expand...

You mean losers.
Yes it appears not much thought went into the selection of exit.
If you think about it once bought then the stock is held until 100% or 3 yrs---then those that make 100% are re invested---new stock bought.Eventually you'd be holding all losers!
 
Mousie,
If you consider yourself a "member of the public having a chat about stocks and the stock market" then there are no issues - which is why these forums are allowed to take place. However, if you are knowingly attempting to give advice and using this forum (or others) as a conduit, then you may not be acting within the "spirit of the law".

Ask yourself the question; do I run some kind of business that involves giving advice or specific trading instructions to the general public that can be acted upon in real time? If so, then you probably should have a license.
 

Similar threads

Richard Dale
  • Article
Resources for Systematic/Algorithmic Trading
Replies
12
Views
2K
Richard Dale
Richard Dale
tech/a
Retirement-Semi Retirement, (Tech/a personal study) implementation and discussion.
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
qldfrog
qldfrog
ducati916
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
ducati916
ducati916
S
Share some knowledge about day trading the ASX as a mentor
Replies
6
Views
2K
Assasin
Assasin
Dona Ferentes
The role of Private Equity
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top