ES Journal Archive (2009 - 2010)

[volente_00]

Short 1157.75


1163 stop

Target 1137-1147



This is a very risky trade but I like it here at R10

 

[ammo]

with all the whipsaws recently,this possible breakout may not stop til 1117 or even 1090,so its a great idea

 

[ammo]

posted this a few weeks ago and nothing happened ,maybe same result

 

[ammo]

1987

 

[tortoise]

Quote from ammo:

1987

pre-PPT. won't ever happen again.

 

[ammo]

they had ppt back then..just less sophisticated and not globally coordinated..there was ppt in 08... edit to your point tortoise, i agree no tarp or bernanke or currency wars,,larger measures for larger problems

 

[tortoise]

Quote from ammo:

they had ppt back then..just less sophisticated and not globally coordinated..there was ppt in 08

fair enough. but the point remains.

 

[lurefo]

Quote from lurefo:

1163 target tagged.

Asulovic, do you know if GS added to their 1143 position yet? I doubt that they covered.

Asusilovic or anyone - have you guys any update on the GS trade? It would be interesting how see how they manage it.

Thanks.

 

[Blotto]

Quote from lurefo:

Asusilovic or anyone - have you guys any update on the GS trade? It would be interesting how see how they manage it.

Thanks.

Why would it matter? No one entity can make more than a temporary ripple in such liquid markets. 800 bigs isn't enough supply to have a meaningful impact in the timeframes you discuss.

I think there is too much focus on individual names from traders on the retail side. People have a propensity to attribute market outcomes to The Fed, Goldman, Cramer, Soros, Buffet...take your pick. All of it is looking for safe comfortable answers which can be invoked whenever something occurs that the trader does not understand or does not like.

Lets do some simple thinking, and see if we can come up with some logical questions.

When GS did the trade, who was on the other side and why? Was it another institution. If they had crossed 800 with JPM who went long, would that be a bull case (following JPM) or a bear case (following GS)? If market makers / S&P pit locals, who did they offset the trade with?

What impact does such size have on the flow of the market? On what timeframes? For how long?

How do we know this trade represents a bear view? Why are we assuming selling short to open rather than partial closure of long positions as the market brings in more demand?

How do we know this trade was directional? Many traders falsely assume that institutional flow is directional as that is how they trade. Maybe this was a hedge of some equity exposure.

Finally, how do we know the trade was proprietary? What if GS was filling client orders only? Who is the client, and does that make a difference to our analysis?


There is no point in taking in any information as to (purported) institutional behaviour unless one understands the limitations of the information, how to interpret it, and what edge if any it provides in the market. Anything less is guessing and not professional.

In the cases where the institutions have such a large position that offloading can take weeks, don't expect them to tell you in advance when they were doing it. If I recall GS liquidated its prop longs in oil as analysts elsewhere in the bank were calling for $200.

 

[lurefo]

Quote from Blotto:

Why would it matter?

Please keep the lecturing to yourself. Had you look for my previous post here in response to Asusilovic you would have seen I actually agree with most of your points.

Why would it matter? Out of curiosity.