Search results

Miss ya Don.

ACD

The 30 day NL was still negatively confirmed but I got a buy signal 2 days ago. I would not have taken it ahead of the ECB meeting though.

No, China's Central Bank has been purposely devaluing their currency to drive their exports. If they no longer need to rely on that then they can let their currency float more freely which they are.

Saw this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/traders-happy-to-position-for-weaker-swiss-franc

I think the Fed has t No confirms on my side yet. We didn't even get to the weekly A down otherwise that would probably be a good buy there. CL is about to confirm down for me. Bonds are confirmed on the long side so if I was going to short the market, buying bonds would be my go to trade.

Exactly. Also it implies that if the weighting holds, you have to adjust periodically by selling off some of your winners and buying more of your losers to stay equal weighted. There is no random selection here.

This is what you said and it's not true. "Picking 50 random stocks will outperform the S&P 500 99% of the time. Investing isn't this hard people." Not even close to being true. You don't even understand what his study is implying.

Whoa there Nelly. This is completely different from what you said. I think you missed the point of the article. He is talking about the concentration effect in market cap weighted indices. Has nothing to do with randomness or beating hedge fund managers, hell they weren't even mentioned...

This violates the central limit theorem. If you randomly pick stocks from a large sample assuming a normal distribution, then the random picker will draw the mean expected value from that sample. In other words, the implication is that most fund managers on avg will get the avg or the mean...

Yes.

ACD is still saying to stay long risk

Rbob crack confirmed back on the 18th. Spread is up 4k per spread since the confirm.

Both my London CL and NY CL are negative but re-set. Basically in chop mode. RB is confirmed though.

That's not true. You have to adjust the returns for units of risk. For each sigma unit, what is his marginal return on capital. THAT is what he is after. You can't simply take net returns of longs and shorts.

You can't draw that correlation. Long/short funds tend to perform sub par in rising markets, down less then mkt in declining markets and very well in flat markets. Again, the manager is delivering variance reduction. And the reason why 2009 saw a spike in new funds is because a large part of...

Exactly, these guys are delivering variance reduction, not high absolute returns. Most market neutral or long/short funds are bench marked to bond funds not equity. Six percent a year is really good if his variance is low enough.

That's one reason but the other is the transition from an export economy to a domestic one. As their middle class grows, Chinese producers are going to start selling more in their own county vs exporting. They will let their currency float and it will get stronger.

Any good options book on FX covers this stuff in detail.

Most likely not on a retail platform.