|
On June 02 2019 09:55 Salazarz wrote:
That game is incredibly stupid, and the only thing it proves is that most people talking about 'timing the markets' have absolutely no clue about trading. Of course you're not going to reliably beat the market by watching a 10 year chart roll by in front of you within a minute, with no access to any kind of analytics, historical data, or political / economic color.
People claiming that buy and hold is 'the best trading strategy' are... frustrating, to say the least. Plenty of people manage to beat dca on some index or holding bitcoin or whatever your measuring stick is; but it takes a good amount of learning, and a tremendous amount of discipline not to mention mental fortitude to actually do so. Active trading is for sure not for everyone; it's an acquired skill that takes time and practice to master, but it's crazy to claim that it's 'impossible to time the markets' or whatever just because Joe Average with no background or experience in trading isn't likely to do so on his first foray to Nasdaq.
Not saying that buy and hold is wrong or bad or anything -- for a person with little interest in trading and no desire or time to put into learning about it, it certainly works. But there are plenty of other ways to make money in the markets, and plenty of ways to have good exposure to market rises without resigning to sitting through every drawdown that might come your way.
Im sure its possible to reliably make money from trading and that there are people who do it. The limited data we have usually indicates that thats an extremely small fraction though. The rest lose their money. Longterm buying and holding has proven to be a very safe and profitable investment strategy which usually outperforms most active traders on average annualized return. So when some random person comes along who wants to get involved in investing, which strategy should you probably recommend?
Not to mention fiwifaki has literally admitted to being a noob who is not willing to educate himself with that 'I dont read common financial theory so it doesnt influence my thinking a few pages back'. Not to mention in every post he sounds confident that he can beat the market which is honestly one of the most dangerous attitudes to have.
|
I suppose Warren Buffett hasn't spent enough time learning and mastering trading to beat the S&P 500 the last decade
Sitting through a drawdown is some active fund manager talking point. They forget to mention buy and hold also captures every rise in the market and we all know how the market did the last 100 years. Let's hear your strategy though.
You do realize that Warren Buffett amassed his fortunes by actively researching and buying up individual stocks and managing funds, not by passively dollar cost averaging into an index, right?
I obviously don't have a single 'strategy' that can be simply explained on a forum and performs well in all market conditions, there is no such thing. The key to being a successful trader is being familiar with different approaches and knowing how and when to apply them, there isn't a single 'iWin' button to just print money over and over.
Im sure its possible to reliably make money from trading and that there are people who do it. The limited data we have usually indicates that thats an extremely small fraction though. The rest lose their money. Longterm buying and holding has proven to be a very safe and profitable investment strategy which usually outperforms most active traders on average annualized return. So when some random person comes along who wants to get involved in investing, which strategy should you probably recommend?
Not to mention fiwifaki has literally admitted to being a noob who is not willing to educate himself with that 'I dont read common financial theory so it doesnt influence my thinking a few pages back'. Not to mention in every post he sounds confident that he can beat the market which is honestly one of the most dangerous attitudes to have.
Telling a noob who wants to get better at active portfolio management to 'not bother trying to learn to trade because most traders lose money' is not helpful advice. It's like telling a guy who decides he wants to try their hand at playing poker professionally to get a job in sales instead because that's more reliable. Again, I have nothing against people who follow a buy and hold investment strategy -- clearly it works (my personal opinion is that at some point it might stop working for a very long time, but that's just my opinion and I certainly won't try to force it upon anyone); what I do have a problem with are the self-righteous, preachy people who do their best to discourage everyone else from ever trying anything else in the markets. Not to mention the blind faith that nothing can ever go wrong and the US stock market will just keep going up forever might well end up ruining an entire generation's lives. There's been precedents of that in other markets already, after all.
|
On June 02 2019 23:56 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +I suppose Warren Buffett hasn't spent enough time learning and mastering trading to beat the S&P 500 the last decade
Sitting through a drawdown is some active fund manager talking point. They forget to mention buy and hold also captures every rise in the market and we all know how the market did the last 100 years. Let's hear your strategy though. You do realize that Warren Buffett amassed his fortunes by actively researching and buying up individual stocks and managing funds, not by passively dollar cost averaging into an index, right? I obviously don't have a single 'strategy' that can be simply explained on a forum and performs well in all market conditions, there is no such thing. The key to being a successful trader is being familiar with different approaches and knowing how and when to apply them, there isn't a single 'iWin' button to just print money over and over. Show nested quote +Im sure its possible to reliably make money from trading and that there are people who do it. The limited data we have usually indicates that thats an extremely small fraction though. The rest lose their money. Longterm buying and holding has proven to be a very safe and profitable investment strategy which usually outperforms most active traders on average annualized return. So when some random person comes along who wants to get involved in investing, which strategy should you probably recommend?
Not to mention fiwifaki has literally admitted to being a noob who is not willing to educate himself with that 'I dont read common financial theory so it doesnt influence my thinking a few pages back'. Not to mention in every post he sounds confident that he can beat the market which is honestly one of the most dangerous attitudes to have. Telling a noob who wants to get better at active portfolio management to 'not bother trying to learn to trade because most traders lose money' is not helpful advice. It's like telling a guy who decides he wants to try their hand at playing poker professionally to get a job in sales instead because that's more reliable. Again, I have nothing against people who follow a buy and hold investment strategy -- clearly it works (my personal opinion is that at some point it might stop working for a very long time, but that's just my opinion and I certainly won't try to force it upon anyone); what I do have a problem with are the self-righteous, preachy people who do their best to discourage everyone else from ever trying anything else in the markets. Not to mention the blind faith that nothing can ever go wrong and the US stock market will just keep going up forever might well end up ruining an entire generation's lives. There's been precedents of that in other markets already, after all.
I like the comparison to poker, because trading on the market is quite similar to it in the way that you are playing a game against other people, and the ones who are better will, on average, win the money of the people who are not as good at this game.
This means that you don't have to be good to make money, you have to be better than the other people at the table. And in this case, the table includes a lot of professionals who have been playing this game for a long time, who have a lot of experience and knowledge, and usually sophisticated computer algorithms to support them. This situation is thus similar to getting onto a poker table with a bunch of experienced professional poker players with personal software assistants analyzing the playing field and giving them additional information, and expecting to leave with more money than you had when you entered the table. Yes, it might happen. You can always get lucky. But it is surely not the most likely thing to happen.
|
United States41987 Posts
And like poker there is just enough variance to give bad players occasional wins which makes them overestimate their skill and causes them to misattribute their losses to bad luck. The reason poker works is because bad players win... sometimes.
|
Except you don't have to be better than everyone to do reasonably well, you just have to be somewhat better than average, and when the average is decidedly terrible, it's not that hard to do so. Not to mention that the biggest players have plenty of hurdles that a sole trader doesn't have to deal with, and usually have much less flexibility.
I'm curious, where do you get your conviction that being successful at trading is such an impossible feat? For me, the arguments are based on my personal experience and results -- since it's very easy for me to compare my own trading performance vs that of buy and hold investing.
|
United States41987 Posts
On June 03 2019 02:31 Salazarz wrote:
Except you don't have to be better than everyone to do reasonably well, you just have to be somewhat better than average, and when the average is decidedly terrible, it's not that hard to do so. Not to mention that the biggest players have plenty of hurdles that a sole trader doesn't have to deal with, and usually have much less flexibility.
I'm curious, where do you get your conviction that being successful at trading is such an impossible feat? For me, the arguments are based on my personal experience and results -- since it's very easy for me to compare my own trading performance vs that of buy and hold investing.
Because results say nothing about EV. Your own anecdotal experience says nothing about risk adjusted returns. That’s what you’re missing. Hell, I could have beaten the market for most of my adult life through something as simple as leverage because we’ve had 11 straight years of growth. But that wouldn’t get better risk adjusted returns, that would just increase both risk and return. By measuring return only you’re not measuring the right thing. It’s like trying to comparing speed by measuring distance without time.
|
On June 03 2019 02:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 02:31 Salazarz wrote:
Except you don't have to be better than everyone to do reasonably well, you just have to be somewhat better than average, and when the average is decidedly terrible, it's not that hard to do so. Not to mention that the biggest players have plenty of hurdles that a sole trader doesn't have to deal with, and usually have much less flexibility.
I'm curious, where do you get your conviction that being successful at trading is such an impossible feat? For me, the arguments are based on my personal experience and results -- since it's very easy for me to compare my own trading performance vs that of buy and hold investing. Because results say nothing about EV. Your own anecdotal experience says nothing about risk adjusted returns. That’s what you’re missing. Hell, I could have beaten the market for most of my adult life through something as simple as leverage because we’ve had 11 straight years of growth. But that wouldn’t get better risk adjusted returns, that would just increase both risk and return. By measuring return only you’re not measuring the right thing. It’s like trying to comparing speed by measuring distance without time.
The concept of risk adjusted returns is inherently flawed because all the standard models for calculating risk adjusted returns operate under the decidedly incorrect assumption that all markets are near 100% efficient. Not to mention that your typical buy and hold strategy has literally no exit plan and no way to limit losses in a large scale black swan event. It's pretty ridiculous to talk about 'risk management' when your entire investment plan rests on a rock-solid belief that your investment will always, no matter what, continue to increase in valuation.
|
What do you mean by risk-adjusted models are inherently flawed because markets aren't 100% efficient?
|
On June 02 2019 23:56 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +I suppose Warren Buffett hasn't spent enough time learning and mastering trading to beat the S&P 500 the last decade
Sitting through a drawdown is some active fund manager talking point. They forget to mention buy and hold also captures every rise in the market and we all know how the market did the last 100 years. Let's hear your strategy though. You do realize that Warren Buffett amassed his fortunes by actively researching and buying up individual stocks and managing funds, not by passively dollar cost averaging into an index, right? I obviously don't have a single 'strategy' that can be simply explained on a forum and performs well in all market conditions, there is no such thing. The key to being a successful trader is being familiar with different approaches and knowing how and when to apply them, there isn't a single 'iWin' button to just print money over and over.
And if he took his money and put it into the s&p 500, he would have done much better this bull market. Buffett himself says to index.
Again feel free to share your strats instead of saying nothing while bragging how you beat an index.
On June 03 2019 02:31 Salazarz wrote:
Except you don't have to be better than everyone to do reasonably well, you just have to be somewhat better than average, and when the average is decidedly terrible, it's not that hard to do so. Not to mention that the biggest players have plenty of hurdles that a sole trader doesn't have to deal with, and usually have much less flexibility.
I'm curious, where do you get your conviction that being successful at trading is such an impossible feat? For me, the arguments are based on my personal experience and results -- since it's very easy for me to compare my own trading performance vs that of buy and hold investing.
It's not impossible. 92% of large cap funds lagged the sp500 the last 15 years. 95% of mid cap funds lagged its respective index. 5-8% chance of winning doesn't seem appealing when trying to pick someone who does this for a living.
|
Hey. I do some investing and trading but not all to much anymore. In the past i did a lot more.
My advise would be to go for the long term,the percentage of profitable day traders is not that high but there are people who make it.
Fiwifake wrote:Actually I disagree with you, if I buy 10% lower than a peak, then I bought and sold twice in the last 5 years. That percentage can be lowered a little bit. It's just if I do that, it's essentially 10% won on the market
Is it? You sell once its up 15% from your purchase. If it goes up 10% more before making another 10% drop you didn't gain anything. Also:how do you define a peak?
If you can trade without commission or with very little commission you could do what I call "tiered trading" which looks kinda similar to your idea. I am not sure this is a known concept but in theory it can not fail. The returns can be (very) low though and I am not sure its worth it but its interesting.
This is how it works:say the dow is 20k and you consider the absolute downward risk to be 5k for the dow and 35k the upper limit. You safe halve of your money for all the buys below 20k and the other halve for all the buys above 20k.
Then you chose your spread. It can be 100 points, 1000 points or even 1 point. The larger the spread the more you will buy when hitting the level but the less trades you will do.
As soon as the index drops 1 point you buy 1 lot and immediately put it for sale 2 points higher (1 is also possible). If it drops another point you buy 1 lot again and also put it for sale 2 points higher then the price you bought it for and so on up till 15k points drop. Once one of your sell orders has gone through you put back in the corresponding buy again. This works in a market that drops and then comes back or that fluctuates around a median.
When the market goes up and then goes down it is a bit more tricky. You buy at every point it goes up and put for sale 2 points higher again and then same procedure. Most of the time you will only have a very small percentage of your capital invested but in theory you will eventually catch every 1 point move for a profit. You could play around with the numbers a bit. Buy and sell every 10 points. Buy 2 points lower sell 1 point higher. Buy 1 point lower sell 50% 1 point higher and 50% 2 points higher. There is a lot you can experiment with.
As long as the index doesn't go to 5k (where you go broke) you will eventually make money. If only because of inflation index in long term will rise. This trading would be done by an algorithm because lots of orders will be needed depending on your settings.
Has anyone tried a method like this or does anyone know if there is theoretical work that can be read about a system like this?
|
Baa?21242 Posts
On June 06 2019 08:44 pmh wrote:
Hey. I do some investing and trading but not all to much anymore. In the past i did a lot more.
My advise would be to go for the long term,the percentage of profitable day traders is not that high but there are people who make it.
Fiwifake wrote:Actually I disagree with you, if I buy 10% lower than a peak, then I bought and sold twice in the last 5 years. That percentage can be lowered a little bit. It's just if I do that, it's essentially 10% won on the market
Is it? You sell once its up 15% from your purchase. If it goes up 10% more before making another 10% drop you didn't gain anything. Also:how do you define a peak?
If you can trade without commission or with very little commission you could do what I call "tiered trading" which looks kinda similar to your idea. I am not sure this is a known concept but in theory it can not fail. The returns can be (very) low though and I am not sure its worth it but its interesting.
This is how it works:say the dow is 20k and you consider the absolute downward risk to be 5k for the dow and 35k the upper limit. You safe halve of your money for all the buys below 20k and the other halve for all the buys above 20k.
Then you chose your spread. It can be 100 points, 1000 points or even 1 point. The larger the spread the more you will buy when hitting the level but the less trades you will do.
As soon as the index drops 1 point you buy 1 lot and immediately put it for sale 2 points higher (1 is also possible). If it drops another point you buy 1 lot again and also put it for sale 2 points higher then the price you bought it for and so on up till 15k points drop. Once one of your sell orders has gone through you put back in the corresponding buy again. This works in a market that drops and then comes back or that fluctuates around a median.
When the market goes up and then goes down it is a bit more tricky. You buy at every point it goes up and put for sale 2 points higher again and then same procedure. Most of the time you will only have a very small percentage of your capital invested but in theory you will eventually catch every 1 point move for a profit. You could play around with the numbers a bit. Buy and sell every 10 points. Buy 2 points lower sell 1 point higher. Buy 1 point lower sell 50% 1 point higher and 50% 2 points higher. There is a lot you can experiment with.
As long as the index doesn't go to 5k (where you go broke) you will eventually make money. If only because of inflation index in long term will rise. This trading would be done by an algorithm because lots of orders will be needed depending on your settings.
Has anyone tried a method like this or does anyone know if there is theoretical work that can be read about a system like this?
sounds foolproof, you should hire someone to write the algo for you and take out as many loans as possible and get to work
|
On June 06 2019 08:44 pmh wrote:
Hey. I do some investing and trading but not all to much anymore. In the past i did a lot more.
My advise would be to go for the long term,the percentage of profitable day traders is not that high but there are people who make it.
Fiwifake wrote:Actually I disagree with you, if I buy 10% lower than a peak, then I bought and sold twice in the last 5 years. That percentage can be lowered a little bit. It's just if I do that, it's essentially 10% won on the market
Is it? You sell once its up 15% from your purchase. If it goes up 10% more before making another 10% drop you didn't gain anything. Also:how do you define a peak?
If you can trade without commission or with very little commission you could do what I call "tiered trading" which looks kinda similar to your idea. I am not sure this is a known concept but in theory it can not fail. The returns can be (very) low though and I am not sure its worth it but its interesting.
This is how it works:say the dow is 20k and you consider the absolute downward risk to be 5k for the dow and 35k the upper limit. You safe halve of your money for all the buys below 20k and the other halve for all the buys above 20k.
Then you chose your spread. It can be 100 points, 1000 points or even 1 point. The larger the spread the more you will buy when hitting the level but the less trades you will do.
As soon as the index drops 1 point you buy 1 lot and immediately put it for sale 2 points higher (1 is also possible). If it drops another point you buy 1 lot again and also put it for sale 2 points higher then the price you bought it for and so on up till 15k points drop. Once one of your sell orders has gone through you put back in the corresponding buy again. This works in a market that drops and then comes back or that fluctuates around a median.
When the market goes up and then goes down it is a bit more tricky. You buy at every point it goes up and put for sale 2 points higher again and then same procedure. Most of the time you will only have a very small percentage of your capital invested but in theory you will eventually catch every 1 point move for a profit. You could play around with the numbers a bit. Buy and sell every 10 points. Buy 2 points lower sell 1 point higher. Buy 1 point lower sell 50% 1 point higher and 50% 2 points higher. There is a lot you can experiment with.
As long as the index doesn't go to 5k (where you go broke) you will eventually make money. If only because of inflation index in long term will rise. This trading would be done by an algorithm because lots of orders will be needed depending on your settings.
Has anyone tried a method like this or does anyone know if there is theoretical work that can be read about a system like this?
There are plenty of smart people out there who do this kind of stuff. I think in your example though, you're failing to account for the bid-offer spread; meaning you would need to get the direction of the price move correct more than 50% of the time to guarantee a return.
Some folks use indicators like stochastic volatility or other charting techniques of dubious certainty.
But if you're really smart you can express these kinds of ideas mathematically, for example using efficient portfolio theory:
Mean-Variance Portfolio Theory
Although that's not to say it's guaranteed to work. This model does call for the use of random variables, after all.
|
Or you'll have a steady drop for 2 years of 15% per year, won't sell a single stock, then it'll increase by 15% per year for 3 years. And you'll make 1% profit over 5 years, rather than 15%.
Your method would have more merit in a market that only fluctuates around a fixed point with no time preference of money of people (hence 0% interest rates). But if that were the case, then the market fluctuations would be almost non-existent (if you knew a stock will go up eventually, you'd just buy it when it's cheaper, as long as it goes up eventually, since there's no time preference of money).
If you zoom enough, I agree there's going to be market fluctuations, but I think there's no way to take advantage of that arbitrage opportunity because:
-Transaction fees.
And if you trade in a quantity of money large enough to make the transaction costs immaterial, then the act of you selling the stock would move the price enough that you wouldn't make money.
At least that's how I understand the situation.
|
On June 06 2019 11:38 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2019 08:44 pmh wrote:
Hey. I do some investing and trading but not all to much anymore. In the past i did a lot more.
My advise would be to go for the long term,the percentage of profitable day traders is not that high but there are people who make it.
Fiwifake wrote:Actually I disagree with you, if I buy 10% lower than a peak, then I bought and sold twice in the last 5 years. That percentage can be lowered a little bit. It's just if I do that, it's essentially 10% won on the market
Is it? You sell once its up 15% from your purchase. If it goes up 10% more before making another 10% drop you didn't gain anything. Also:how do you define a peak?
If you can trade without commission or with very little commission you could do what I call "tiered trading" which looks kinda similar to your idea. I am not sure this is a known concept but in theory it can not fail. The returns can be (very) low though and I am not sure its worth it but its interesting.
This is how it works:say the dow is 20k and you consider the absolute downward risk to be 5k for the dow and 35k the upper limit. You safe halve of your money for all the buys below 20k and the other halve for all the buys above 20k.
Then you chose your spread. It can be 100 points, 1000 points or even 1 point. The larger the spread the more you will buy when hitting the level but the less trades you will do.
As soon as the index drops 1 point you buy 1 lot and immediately put it for sale 2 points higher (1 is also possible). If it drops another point you buy 1 lot again and also put it for sale 2 points higher then the price you bought it for and so on up till 15k points drop. Once one of your sell orders has gone through you put back in the corresponding buy again. This works in a market that drops and then comes back or that fluctuates around a median.
When the market goes up and then goes down it is a bit more tricky. You buy at every point it goes up and put for sale 2 points higher again and then same procedure. Most of the time you will only have a very small percentage of your capital invested but in theory you will eventually catch every 1 point move for a profit. You could play around with the numbers a bit. Buy and sell every 10 points. Buy 2 points lower sell 1 point higher. Buy 1 point lower sell 50% 1 point higher and 50% 2 points higher. There is a lot you can experiment with.
As long as the index doesn't go to 5k (where you go broke) you will eventually make money. If only because of inflation index in long term will rise. This trading would be done by an algorithm because lots of orders will be needed depending on your settings.
Has anyone tried a method like this or does anyone know if there is theoretical work that can be read about a system like this?
sounds foolproof, you should hire someone to write the algo for you and take out as many loans as possible and get to work
Well I did some rough calculations and the return would be pretty low,maybe as low as 1% of your total capital or even lower depending on volatility.
There are many traders that trade somewhat similar to this. They buy at various levels.
For example dow drops 100 points and they think it will bounce and they buy 1 lot. If it drops another 100 points they buy another lot. And then 50 points lower another lot. (just an example)
Its a well known method that many day traders use. (we call it "dipping"). Eventually many go broke or make big loss because the market goes lower then they did expect and then they have to cut all their losses instead of patiently waiting for all the buys to go in the green. This is similar but with less risk (and profit potential). Its probably not something for normal traders but maybe banks could operate like this.
But I was wondering if there was research on this method available as I would like to read more about it. But apearently that doesn't seem to be the case or at least not known to anyone here. I will leave it,it was just something I am interested in. More from a mechanical and mathematical point of vieuw then to actually use such a method myself,
|
Everyone I see is saying to avoid investing in individual stocks and go for index funds instead etc due to lower risk, but I know there are many millionaires who invest heavily in individual stocks. I dipped into the the single stock market myself recently and so far I'm up 11%.
I know that the risk is much higher, but honestly, looking at the data there are several companies today that seem foolproof. What do you people think? Are any of you invested in individual stocks or do you just stick to funds?
|
United States41987 Posts
On September 28 2019 01:15 Jan1997 wrote:
Everyone I see is saying to avoid investing in individual stocks and go for index funds instead etc due to lower risk, but I know there are many millionaires who invest heavily in individual stocks. I dipped into the the single stock market myself recently and so far I'm up 11%.
I know that the risk is much higher, but honestly, looking at the data there are several companies today that seem foolproof. What do you people think? Are any of you invested in individual stocks or do you just stick to funds?
If the trade is a very good trade, for example an asset is underpriced, then you have to ask yourself why someone else hasn’t already bought it. Either the market has failed to value it appropriately or you have misjudged it.
The issue is that there are two parties on either side of a trade, a winner and a loser, and the party with better information, data modeling, projections, and computational power is generally the winner. That’s rarely going to be you. Looking at outcomes is the wrong approach, you need to look at EV. You can make money playing roulette if you pick the right colour, just as you can make money by stock picking, but the question is whether the money made was in proportion to the risk. I would argue that it was probably not because if the risk adjusted return was as high as you believe then you would have not been able to buy it.
|
On September 28 2019 01:15 Jan1997 wrote:
there are several companies today that seem foolproof.
I think you should stop picking stocks
|
On September 28 2019 01:15 Jan1997 wrote:
Everyone I see is saying to avoid investing in individual stocks and go for index funds instead etc due to lower risk, but I know there are many millionaires who invest heavily in individual stocks. I dipped into the the single stock market myself recently and so far I'm up 11%.
I know that the risk is much higher, but honestly, looking at the data there are several companies today that seem foolproof. What do you people think? Are any of you invested in individual stocks or do you just stick to funds?
The reason people point to index funds is because 1. The average person has no clue how to pick stocks, hello the average fund manager has no better idea than the rest of the market. 2. Index funds eliminate single name risk i.e. the risk that an individual company has a shitty quarter or reveals that whoops the accountants have been cooking the books for years 3. Lower transaction costs, depending on strategy.
Individual stocks are of course not inherently more risky, but a diversified portfolio eliminates the risk of any one company destroying your portfolio. If the market overall tanks very few companies will be spared though.
If you want to pick stocks at least pick from a few different industries so you have less sector risk. Also reinvest your dividends, invest for the long haul, and don't engage in any retarded trendspotting or pump and dump schemes.
I pick individual stocks for myself but I've been following the market for 15 years and I had a mentor teach me a lot of things.
|
It's just that I have a lot of dead capital sitting around and I realized I have to do something now or I'll never get any decent return on my money.
I think I will continue with individuals but also go for an index fund I've picked out. That way I'm very spread out all over the place. I'm also in this for the long road so as long as the market doesn't crash consistently for the next 5+ years I think there's decent money to be made.
That being said, I never invest what I can't afford to lose. So if I'm the red on this somewhere down the road I will still be fine.
|
i short indices exclusively at resistances. the market we have now is a zombie economy fueler by cheap money (for banks and corporations).
this is most likely the end of the positive cycle we are in. we will go through booms and busts as long as the few earn the most.
if i had to give tou one advice, is to keep your cash, and keep half of it at home in case of another bank crisis. add a bit of gold on top and provisions.
edit: to add the obligatory positive scenario, is that central banks seem to hold unlimited power and can bail out the next recession by moving rates into the negative further blating up equity at the cost of currency value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
