Our 400,000 Trade Test Proves Using Stops Is Not Very Bright

Reversion strategies that enter pre-confirmation often have better return on capital (vs ror) without stops. You have to trade very small to compensate and I still wouldn't do it with opm.

Cesar Alvarez did an interesting study on stops and trailing stops with a simple breakout entry on an ep of Better System Trader. For an email sub, you can get a free pdf of his results. It wasn't rigorous but was good food for thought.

http://bettersystemtrader.com/037-cesar-alvarez-studies-stop-losses/
 
Didn't read the entire thread, but from the bits I did... looks like the discussion on stops has entered the realm of arguing religion and politics.
 
Redneck said:
Every one uses a stop loss - at some point - period
More...

This is false. I myself have put on trades that would have no stop loss, ever. This is true of most of my valuation-based investments in equities, for example AAPL in the early 2000's, which at times had more cash in the bank per share than the share price. There's simply no reason to sell at those levels -- as long as you're not using margin.
 
Occam said:
I myself have put on trades that would have no stop loss, ever.
More...

Good for you..., still no justifying piss poor risk management

Though I'd bet if AAPL dropped below whatever 2000 price level - and kept falling - you'd be out

=====================

I so love hubris - makes me money

RN
 
Redneck said:
Good for you..., still no justifying piss poor risk management

Though I'd bet if AAPL dropped below whatever 2000 price level - and kept falling - you'd be out
More...

In most of my valuation-based investments, there was no default risk on my part -- I paid for the shares in full and I could hold indefinitely. As long as the valuation was attractive, I could afford to wait for that cash to percolate to the surface, and generally it did.

If you are buying a stock based on valuation and you feel the need to put in a "stop loss", I would question why you would buy it in the first place. Of course, if something material changes with the company, that's another situation. But that's more of a reassessment of valuation rather than "selling because it went down".

Stop losses themselves can present a source of risk. See the posts by the guys who get stopped out by a certain broker's "auto-liquidate" functionality during adverse market events.

Of course, if you are trading futures or forex on significant margin then, yes, one had better have stop losses -- I think that's the type of scenario where risk management and stop losses intersect.
 
I use your razors!



Occam said:
This is false. I myself have put on trades that would have no stop loss, ever. This is true of most of my valuation-based investments in equities, for example AAPL in the early 2000's, which at times had more cash in the bank per share than the share price. There's simply no reason to sell at those levels -- as long as you're not using margin.
More...
 
Occam said:
In most of my valuation-based investments, there was no default risk on my part -- I paid for the shares in full and I could hold indefinitely. As long as the valuation was attractive, I could afford to wait for that cash to percolate to the surface, and generally it did.

If you are buying a stock based on valuation and you feel the need to put in a "stop loss", I would question why you would buy it in the first place. Of course, if something material changes with the company, that's another situation. But that's more of a reassessment of valuation rather than "selling because it went down".
More...

Between the two of us I acknowledge you are the more eloquent trader

I'm slash and burn..., pillage and plunder..., gorilla in a china shop (would have said bull but in this business that has the connotation of long bias - I haven't a bias)

I care not about valuation..., I get in anticipating price will go from A to B..., or A to -B (short) - how.., or why - I couldn't care less


When it does - take the profit - immediately go hunting for the next opportunity

When it breaks down - exit the loss - immediately go hunting for the next opportunity

Stop losses are the only tool I have to save my ass every time a trade breaks down

=========================


Occam said:
Stop losses themselves can present a source of risk. See the posts by the guys who get stopped out by a certain broker's "auto-liquidate" functionality during adverse market events.
More...

It not the stop loss that the source of risk - it the piss poor placement of said stop loss.., by the trader - that presents the risk

I exploit them..., their ignorance..., and this - as well


Occam said:
See the posts by the guys who get stopped out by a certain broker's "auto-liquidate" functionality during adverse market events.
More...

I don't see any mkt event in terms of adverse - only exploitable...., And..., not to be trapped by (immediately use a stop loss if found on the wrong side - then get right)


Occam said:
Of course, if you are trading futures or forex on significant margin then, yes, one had better have stop losses --

I think that's the type of scenario where risk management and stop losses intersect.
More...

Margin.., significant or otherwise is free money..., use it wisely

Stop losses..., work just as wonderfully trading stocks (I use em nearly every day - and at times repeatedly)

=====================

Our goal is the same - make money

How we go about it - not so much



Long as we're able to survive..., and thrive to retirement - it all good ;)

RN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top