$19B fund uses technical analysis?

d08 said:
You're opening a whole different topic. Do you have proof that discretionary(subjective) funds do better?
More...
I am not opening a different topic.
As I said, this is not a question of tool (TA ? Price Action ? Robot ? Software ? Order Book ? Fundamentals ?) but a question of mind. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and graphs/TA are one of them.
You can work with the best system / software / robot in the world, the most "objective" tool following your criterias, and still lose money. Why? Because there ain't 100% certainties in the markets. Because of that, during the 5 / 10% of the time, your system would just not work, and as a human, you could not be enough disciplined, you could be subjective and consider that 10% of error is too much and modify your rules/software. Or you will double your ante. Or backtesting other datas. Etc. Endless search for the holy grail.
There are so many ways to screw up, even with "objective and complex tools".
Or you can have a simple tool that fits you and make money regularly. Your choice.

CM
 
Last edited:
You're talking about a completely different subject, again. This is not about profitability, which is completely unrelated.

Let me give you an example:
You describe a pattern, say the ascending triangle to a 10 traders, give them the same charts every day, not all 10 will see the same pattern simultaneously because this TA is SUBJECTIVE.

Then you give the same 10 traders a piece of code that doesn't even require a human to be around. They execute the code and the result is always the same, therefore it's OBJECTIVE.

Now tell me, which is better suited for a large organization, which is easier to manage?
 
d08 said:
Now tell me, which is better suited for a large organization, which is easier to manage?
More...
Of course, idiots can apply same process / software but what is the interest? Not being profitable ? This is non-sense. This is why large banks stopped prop trading in favor of HFT. But even HFT is crowded and less profitable.
Again, being profitable is the goal. If you enjoy to code, then code.

CM
 
Chris Mac said:
Of course, idiots can apply same process / software but what is the interest? Not being profitable ? This is non-sense. This is why large banks stopped prop trading in favor of HFT. But even HFT is crowded and less profitable.
Again, being profitable is the goal. If you enjoy to code, then code.

CM
More...
Large banks stopped prop trading when the Volker Rule required them to do so.
 
Deuteronomy_24_7 said:
AHL were roughly flat from 2009- 13, then did well in 2014. The firm is well-covered by the FT, e.g. this update from earlier this year.
More...

These simple systems only work well when markets are volatile/trending.

So any simple system will do if you are prepared to wait several years for good trading markets.

But in the meantime you get to charge hundreds of millions each year as a management fee, even if you were flat or lost a bit of money.
 
Last edited:
monet said:
Aren't markets normally either volatile or trending?
More...

Volatility = fast markets making big moves.
Of course there are always counter moves to any trend and in volatile markets these counter trend moves tend to be very fast and big too.
But volatile markets typically give big profits if you can get in early and load up with a big position.
 
BONECRUSHER said:
Or chopping?
More...

southall said:
Volatility = fast markets making big moves.
Of course there are always counter moves to any trend and in volatile markets these counter trend moves tend to be very fast and big too.
But volatile markets typically give big profits if you can get in early and load up with a big position.
More...

Alright, thanks.

I thought I understood the meanings of these three terms (chopping, volatile and trending) and their relationship, but perhaps not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top