Search results

I know, but cycle is giving us a multiyear chart. I'm just extending it a little further.

Look at the chart going back to 1995. One could just as easilly argue that its completing the second shoulder of a head and shoulders pattern. In other words, it could go quite a bit higher still.

Yes, sadly people like this have to lose everything before they have a chance of learning. By the sound of it, he has already begun that path in his life, and it will get worse before it gets better. Its like the alcoholic who must "hit bottom" before he has a chance of recovery.

Nonsense. Your ego got in the way. "I'm a CFA canidate!!! (Nobody else knows but me)" mentalty. You overlooked the obvious because you were being an arrogant know it all.

Yet, you revive a four day old thread!! Come on, moderators. Get rid of this idiot!!

Something just occurred to me: Why settle for a pairs trading system? Why not a trio or a quartet? I mean the logic is so simple. Even a beauone head should be able to understand this. Of course, it would help if you had a minor in math and a completed CFA 1, but I'm certain the small...

Sorry, but you missed by 0.2!! :D :D Yep, you gave the correct answer 10 pages ago.

A more accurate word would be hubris: You keep referencing your CFA and your minor in math to differentiate yourself from other people on this forum. What you fail to accept is that this forum is full of people who are just as smart and educated if not more intelligent and better educated than...

If you know differential equations even slightly, you would realize how damned important it is to deal with that '+c' correctly. I think you should lose the points in a first year calculus course so you don't pay heavilly for that mistake in future courses.

Come on guys; let's no be too mean. I think beau does get it, and it was an honest mistake. However, he really needs to learn how get his ego under control so he can see his mistake BEFORE he makes a fool out of himself.

Are you sure? Correct answer to my question: [X/2] (1.5) = 3X/4. Is that what you got? Do you really understand how percents work? Edit: Good for you. Except that isn't a function of X, but I understand what you meant to say. You insult everyone else; why shouldn't we insult...

Are you sure you've correctly calculated the results of your backtests? :D Beau, if X reduces by 50% and then increases by 50% what's the value of my portfolio as a function of X?

One of the big things I've noticed that differentiate finance people from scientists and mathematicians is that finance people are very good at plugging numbers into a formula. Unfortunately, you don't know how to develop that formula and you therefore don't know WHY it works. That's why...

No, the only thing it proves is the danger of hubris. I remember a few years ago playing "drunk chess" with a friend of mine. I was just nailing him on this one game. Everybody was watching me, and boy was I ever full of myself. Completely convinced of my superiority, I overlooked his...

True, Beau. However, make damn sure you actually understand the content of those courses. I still have those damn CFA 1 books from 2007. Never got around to doing that exam. Too busy with other things. I still want to complete that exam. Please, reread "The Time Value of Money"...

Sorry Beau, my Math degree trumps you Finance degree. :D :D :D Couldn't resist one last poke.

Because you were using the wrong formula. It is just a future value problem that you execute twice for each case. Once to desribe the 4 20% returns and once to describe the minus 50% return. FV = PV(1+i)^n

Path1 => P:1000, Y1:500, Y2:600,Y3:720,Y4:864,Y5:1036.8 Path 2 => P:1000, Y1:1200, Y2:1440, Y3: 1728, Y4:2073.6, Y5:1036.8 What did you do to the FONTS, Beau. Why can't I remove the underline. It is just this, Beau, FV = PV(1+I)^n.

Agreed, but just one last clue for Beau. 1/1.5 round to .67 That's a loss of 33%.