Search results

Stupid to some, a gold mine to others :cool:

Exactly. Because I have no idea if it visits $50 (just picking some ridiculous number) before it hits $3000. If you buy new relative highs and sell on relative weakness you will (or rather: historically would have!) done OK. It doesn't mean buying low and selling high can't work, just a...

Oil related equities outperformed that for 1986-2008 and probably more most other time frames that I have data for. I found that interesting.

I don't have a problem with his view on commodities as much as I disagree with his thesis "when it's not a bubble then it probably will go up for another 10 years, so just close your eyes and go long". Commodities weren't a bubble according to him and he was caught with his pants down as the...

Answer: zero (spring 1990 - spring 2010) A nail in the coffin of Jim Roger's "commodity futures have always outperformed the commodity producer equities" theory? Crude Oil Futures (log chart, monthly bars, front month back-adjusted future data, does not include interest paid on cash...

The Swedes are looking for a tax based on the balance sheet of a financial institution, rather than per transaction: http://www.thelocal.se/24462/20100119/ "Borg said that a tax on final balance sheets -- different from a tax on individual transactions as mooted since the 1970s -- would...

The Swedes tried this to finance the bailouts from their real estate/banking crisis and it was a complete dud. Transactions moved to London and elsewhere and revenues from the tax fell short of expectations. The tax was therefore scrapped a year or two after introduction. It was a complete...

The problem is something doesn't have to be a bubble in order to go down 75% in value. The same holds true the other direction. Rogers may be certain something is a bubble, but unfortunately that doesn't guarantee it will implode anytime soon. Check his videos from July 2008 where he was...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KWWXWAOPZM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3KWWXWAOPZM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"...

As long as you're living responsibly you will ALWAYS be the one who gets ripped off in a modern, developed democracy. Like in a health insurance that has high premiums because it has a the odd bad apples of fat fucks and smokers in them and a portion of healthy diet, exercising few pay the hefty...

Ah so now it's about the Federal Reserve, not about Bernanke per se. Just to get an idea how good or bad the Fed has been doing their job (mandated by congress), let's see what major global central bank has done a better job of perfectly foreseeing and handling the crisis? The "there is no...

Just as good as the next monkey in line if he wasn't there. What's your point? If Bernanke was never born the financial system wouldn't be in exactly the same trouble?

Interesting introductory paper by E&R on the topic of ATM straddles http://www.estlander-roennlund.de/binaer_view.asp?BinaerNr=70 The area is quite well researched. Look for papers with the keywords "lookback straddles" and "managed futures".

Didn't the same congressmen that now criticize Bernanke for years sign off laws that enable government expansion, wars overseas and reckless spending? I do not understand why Bernanke is the sole focus point of criticism. The US public (reckless private spending, voting idiot presidents and...

Isn't a similar argument valid for trend following? If you can ride a couple of big trends and otherwise cut your losing positions fast you will likely beat the market, as you are (historically) able to dodge tail risk. Why is rigorous, scientific proof required for trendfollowing...

IMO, this "trend" or "direction" non-sense isn't half as important as the idea of volatility-based position sizing, letting winners run and cutting losing positions relentlessly (without averaging down). I believe it was David Harding from Winton Capital who said something along the lines of...

What investment/trading approaches (value investing, equity L/S, global macro etc.) come with this type of proof?

Could you please post the exact quote, couldn't find it in Covel's book. All I found in Covel's book was "There is a random distribution between wins and losses for any given set of variables that defines an edge. In other words, based on the past performance of your edge, you may know that...

On the one hand, you have those guys like Niederhoffer picking up nickles in front of steamrollers. On the other hand side you have guys sitting inside the steamrollers :cool:

Nobody is saying that, you mix it up once again. No trendfollower will ever say "Buy what's going up because you will then have a higher percentage of winning trades than losing trades". I find it strange this argument keeps coming up, yet nobody in trendfollowing is ever claiming it...