Search results

If your definition of "discounting" already included such a broad use of opportunity cost, then you got your money's worth. Apparently, I was robbed. Concerning the real estate situation in California, even the Central Valley agricultural area is going up fast.

If you include opportunity cost when calculating "discounted value of future net earnings," then the intrinsic value of most of the dot-coms was negative. To my way of thinking, purchasing equity in a company with no prospect of earnings, as was born out by subsequent developments, is...

Real estate of today differs from the dot-coms of the late 90s in that the present "bubble" is based on something of intrinsic value.

That's great, Jem. Maybe I'll catch you at the beach sometime. I go there a lot, though I don't recall why at the moment.

Postal: Your suggestion is a good one for ET in general. However, it really wouldn't resolve anything here. None of the questions I have "posed" is premised on any trading or other skills I may or may not have or pretend to have, etc.

Still boxing with party balloons, I see. How sad.

Lefty the Clown, or facsimile thereof: I have asked several challenge questions in this thread, and you have responded to exactly none of them. The plain truth of this fact is obvious to anyone reading along, especially when considering those who have brought up intelligent points which...

I see you still prefer insults and quantity over quality in your posts. This is always easier when you have no valid argument. That aside, I'm willing to give due consideration to what you have posted and thank you for whatever worthy motivation you might have.

Yes, if you go in at the current market price and get out at a later one.

Please read my "point of clarification" a few posts up. Thanks.

It's not about "believing" price will go your way, but reliably calculating it. I'm not here to teach, though I hope to make a worthwhile contribution on occasion. What brought me to ET was discussion on trading. If you think my line is out of left field, then surprise me by answering the...

Point of clarification: The need to predetermine that price will move both in the right direction and to a certain minimum extent before entering a trade applies to "directional trading" in a general sense, as opposed to arbitrage. In the case of "volatility trading," the price under...

That's right. Profit depends on current vs. future price -- to go, with fortune cookie.

Bully for you. I prefer to approach trading as a business rather than a game of chance, but that's just me.

So, in other words, you trade according to a system the signals of which are not associated with whether price will move both in the right direction and to a certain minimum extent after the trader has committed to a prospective entry. Good luck. You're going to need it.

Your answer was a bit diffuse. The question is quite simple. Do you claim a system that gives winning signals despite its inability to anticipate whether price will move both in the right direction and to a certain minimum extent after the trader has committed to a prospective entry?

In that case, explain how a method can add value without being able to anticipate whether price will move both in the right direction and to a certain minimum extent after the trader has committed to a prospective entry.

How long before the rare "profitable" traders of this type can formalize what they are doing, automate it and become billionaires? Answer: never.

Evidently, you have learned very little so far. It is impossible to add value without predicting price.

Great quote! Several interesting points.