Markets and mysticysm

...the majority of fund management uses a black box system,...

This is something I do not believe to be even close to true. You are probably correct that large amounts of money are traded based on such systems (like the so called Turtles). Given the massive amounts of money in value based funds, fixed income funds, private equity funds and any number of other funds employing fundamentally driven methods, though, to say that the majority use black box approaches seems very far off the mark.
 
Andycan,

What you are trying to say is that discretionary, is better than mechanical, no?

This statement only revolves, and is only applicable to the best mechanical method you yourself could come up with.

It actually has no bearing on anything, but yourself.

Put our little 'game' aside for the moment, i'm willing to be proven wrong, i'm learning.

Thanks.


i could tell you but then i would have to.............charge you £400


i dont use or ever tried to create a mechanical system, i dont think i could cover the paramenters to make it totally mechanical
but i know what i can return per annum just look at what managed funds return per annum and you will see that a half decent trader can do far far better.
 
i could tell you but then i would have to.............charge you £400


i dont use or ever tried to create a mechanical system, i dont think i could cover the paramenters to make it totally mechanical
but i know what i can return per annum just look at what managed funds return per annum and you will see that a half decent trader can do far far better.

I'll take your word for it. Don't bother to provide truth and fact, Andy, i wouldn't expect it from you.
 
This is something I do not believe to be even close to true. You are probably correct that large amounts of money are traded based on such systems (like the so called Turtles). Given the massive amounts of money in value based funds, fixed income funds, private equity funds and any number of other funds employing fundamentally driven methods, though, to say that the majority use black box approaches seems very far off the mark.


it does not matter whether its true or not
a computer is only as good as the programer, the programer will only program based on what he is told, sometimes they themeselves have knowledge, there are IT guys here ask them what they would use to create a mechanical system, we are talking funds, these are longer term investors black boxes are what they use in general , if you are taking shorter term then you will add some oscillators or two
algorithms are flavour of the year for now until they prove to be useless in the longer term, some MA's with a splash of AI to tell them when there is more volume than usual
you may have pattern recognition which i have seen a couple of programs attempt to do this and i was not too impressed but this is a mechanical sytems what does one expect?
 
I'll take your word for it. Don't bother to provide truth and fact, Andy, i wouldn't expect it from you.

seriously buy an investors magazine which tells you how managed funds have been performing per annum there is usually hundreds if not thousands you look and tell me. last i looked the best i saw was 17% per annum and that was gross
thats like taking 10k and making 1.7k in one year before comm
im sure there are guys here making far greater returns than that im almost sure of it
 
Rhody,

I am referring to prices. When you referred to “the actual structure of the market itself”, are you saying something can be learnt from this?

Absolutely. Here's an example. In the stock market there are restrictions to short selling. Part of it comes from the fact that it requires borrowing shares that someone else owns (requiring the application of margin and paying interest). The other primary part comes from the so-called up tick rule. All of this makes shorting less appealing and more costly than going long. That helps faciliate an upside bias in stock prices.

“non-predictability and randomness are not necessarily the same thing”. I agree with that. But isn’t prediction predicated on non-randomness (there must be a better word)?

Naturally.

Re level of knowledge, I was referring to knowledge disseminated through Reuters, Bloomberg, etc. I’ll go along with your diversity point.

Seems to me we are left with random price fluctuations reflecting a general lack of consensus from the major players. Now, how can I (anyone) make predictions on that basis.

You seem to be saying that prices move randomly because people cannot agree on them, but prices actually move to allow traders to come to agreement. The financial markets operate to facilitate transactions. That is their reason for being. It is in their best interests to generate as much trade flow as possible. They will act on the basis of maximizing that flow.
 
seriously buy an investors magazine which tells you how managed funds have been performing per annum there is usually hundreds if not thousands you look and tell me. last i looked the best i saw was 17% per annum and that was gross
thats like taking 10k and making 1.7k in one year before comm
im sure there are guys here making far greater returns than that im almost sure of it


No doubt there is. What's wrong with 17%? I'm not asking this question to needle you personally, but 17% can mean different things to different people.

Fund managers can afford 17%.

We don't know the risk involved.
 
To be honest, Andy, i think what we are on about here gives at least two perceptions of the markets.

1) How tight of a control the markets have on the big money players.

2) How 'random' and 'unpredictive' they are for the small money players.

Does the equation ring any bells for you? Are 1) and 2) connected by 'knowledge', or money?
 
I don't have to. It is very unwise of you to try to engage me.

In your fumblings you both ask and answer your own questions.



:rolleyes:

Probably.

Socs, at least with this post you are not insulting. (i think i understand you)

Thanks.
 
To be honest, Andy, i think what we are on about here gives at least two perceptions of the markets.

1) How tight of a control the markets have on the big money players.

2) How 'random' and 'unpredictive' they are for the small money players.

Does the equation ring any bells for you? Are 1) and 2) connected by 'knowledge', or money?

I suggest that these are the wrong questions. If you want to make money, they are next to irrelevant.

As a side note, it should be recognised that "big players" make money from the markets in many ways that do not require prediction of, or control over, market direction. Brokerage fees, fund management fees, arbing, M&A and lots of other stuff that I know nothing about including no doubt the occasional "funny business". Big money is also not a homogeneous entity.

What does count is observation of detail in context, and having the right tools to assist in this. You don't need to ascribe motivations to market participants. You do need to be able to identify the precursors of a price move. This is an empirical undertaking that requires neither a lot of hand waving about smart money, nor being in tune with the mysteries of the universe via the length of the diagonal of a cube, golden ratios or whatever. The devil is in the detail, and no amount of waffle will get around this uncomfortable reality.

I previously posted an example of the behaviour of DAX around VWAP. Observing how DAX behaves at VWAP is quite often usefull. A couple of sessions ago DAX dropped about 8 points in a second or so, apparently without reason with around 500 contracts traded. On closer examination, it very much looked like a whole bunch of stops sitting right on pivot R1 being triggered. This is a valuable thing to deduce as it helps assign likelyhood to it being start of a move down or just a bunch of traders behaving badly presenting a buying opportunity.

These are just tiny examples, but point is clear. Observe what is happening and learn what to look for and ignore all the hand waving.
 
The only mystical thing about the markets is how so few managed to fool so many for so long. It is the biggest shell game/illusion you will ever see.How to sell something that very few people actually need (but do want) for so much .....this is the global financial sector .

It's a game of illusion only for those who believe that with a small starting capital and excessive risks they can become wealthy.

For those who understand that money in the markets must be made slowly by taking small risks at a time it can be a source of tremendous wealth.

IMO 95% of traders think they can make it without understanding that big fish eats small fish unless small fish knows how to hide and move around until it grows and becomes itself big fish.

A few years ago I opened a position in currencies, had the discipline to stay with it, and I made $125 K following the trend. I got out too early, I could have made double that amount. I was tempted to pull the trigger and close the position for $2k profit right from the start, I thought that was a good profit. I admit, keeping the position for three months open was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Every day I was tempted to close it, take the money and run. I don't know if I can do it again, I am honest about that.

But the money was real and enough to buy me a summer home.

Alex
 
Last edited:
To be honest, Andy, i think what we are on about here gives at least two perceptions of the markets.

1) How tight of a control the markets have on the big money players.

2) How 'random' and 'unpredictive' they are for the small money players.

Does the equation ring any bells for you? Are 1) and 2) connected by 'knowledge', or money?

q1 depends are we talking funds, institutions, MM, syndicates, coperates,
they all have their role to play and they are all interconnected part of the big soup of money
q2 i dont see the markets as random and i dont see it unpredictable, naturally there are times when a market are in a state of indecision one knows where its going just not clear how its getting there but that has no bearing on who is perceptively in control of the markets because its always the same force always!
now knowledge and money are the perfect conbination,all knowledege and underfunded is a tough old slog not because you cant make money but because you are confined within the restrictions of the trade and ones limitation due to funds.
diversity is a requirement, you can nail a high or a low but it can take several days maybe even week before you see the fruits of your restricted labour, meanwhile lost opportunity is a loss in a sense,
equally well funded and clueless is a road to nowhere
 
Where'd everyone go? This was one of the only threads keeping me coming back for more. We did seem to get off the mysticism track, a bit, but I don't see any reason we can't bring it back.

The question I would toss out there is how many of you visualize the track of prices when you look at the charts? That might not be mystical, or maybe it is. I know that I do much better when I can "see" what the market is probably going to do than when I get no specific idea. I'm not calling that psychic ability. It's probably just the experience of having looked at 1000s of charts over the years and doing a kind of pattern match on some level.
 
you want market mysticism ...Ok , here's the modern day philosophers stone ....financial structuring ....otherwise known as when is nothing ..something ...when people are greedy enough to believe it.
 
you want market mysticism ...Ok , here's the modern day philosophers stone ....financial structuring ....otherwise known as when is nothing ..something ...when people are greedy enough to believe it.

Ah. Perception = Reality

That's what really scares me about our global financial system and how interconnected it all is. All it takes is a shift in perception and the whole thing can come unglued.
 
You raise an interesting point Rhody Trader. It is such a common occurrence in trading circles there is a name for it and it is called ‘Losing the Plot’. I had been trading for about 5 years when I felt that my continued and deep exposure to charts, the detailed analyses of price action and volume interactions, 7 days every week (you can still work with charts at the weekend and out of market hours) for around 12 hours per day, had bestowed upon me the ability to sense the most likely development sequence over the next X bars. And every time that conscious thought occurred I invariably followed my instincts with absolute certainty and confidence and was quietly pleased to discover after a number of years of experiencing a significant number of such hallucinatory moments, that I was clearly wrong far more often than I was right. During that period though, I was completely assured my instincts were so finely honed and focused that I could do no wrong and somehow, I alone had drawn upon godlike powers known to no other mortal. There is a word for it I am sure, but it is a case of remembering the few occasions when we are right, and forgetting quite completely those things that showed us to have been totally wrong. The result being a quite biased view of my own capability and performance. I can’t remember what shook me from my stupor, but certainly examining my trading performance statistics when adhering to my systematic trading methods compared with my intuitive-discretionary modes of operation were quite empirically conclusive.

Do not misunderstand me, I do know for a fact that exposure and intense concentration on charts, or anything for that matter, over long periods of time do bring about changes to our psychological and physiological structure to a degree which is not only significant, but demonstrably measurable. The key to proper utilisation of these blossoming skills though is not to be consciously aware of them. Easier said than done? No, not at all really. You aren’t trying not to be not consciously aware of something (which is quite impossible by the way). All you are doing is ensuring you recognise when you are consciously aware of something.

As soon as the ‘you’ or the ‘I’ enters into your current view of your trading Universe, you know you’re off the track. Conscious awareness, particularly self-conscious awareness or self-reflection is not conducive to trading excellence. These occurrences and they do occur in us all from time to time, take you away from rather than toward innate comprehension of the market as it is here and now which is exactly where you need to be. Once you recognise these feelings when they occur for what they are, I have found personally no remedy myself except in quitting my trading at least for the rest of the trading day. As soon as you even get a hint that you’re capable of differentiating from all of the possibilities of what may occur the one that is definitely going to occur rather than taking your decisions based on what is happening right now, it is my view you should down tools and go do something else, anything else.

I have mentioned elsewhere the need to be aware of the possibilities and the probabilities of these possibilities becoming reality for you, but you must constantly assess the development of these possibilities. Your ability to make instant decisions when these possibilities develop into recognisable events which are committed and are unable to regress or diverge or bifurcate, is directly proportional to the emptiness of your expectations. It is by using your knowledge of what is happening right now, with the sum total of all your past experiences and compared with the probabilities associated with all of the possibilities of what could happen next that provide you with all you need to make your next trading decision.

In short, trading instinct when you know it to be instinct will invariably lead you off course. It is only when your instinct operates at an unconscious level, out of your awareness, that you find you made the right decisions.
 
Now there's a meaty post! :)

I definitely agree. If you start thinking about the process you get all messed up. Observation of a thing changes that thing.

It's the same in anything. As soon as an athlete starting thing about his play he goes in the crapper. Nasty spiral.
 
Top