Quote from marketsurfer:
my opinion would be:
a fairly even distribution of winners and losers as some trend funds will be short, others will be long--some making money, some losing money. but they ALL seem to hold onto losses too long and are married to positions and their biases--regardless of what the market is telling them. some will pull it off, others will crash and burn.
what time frames in history one looks at also has a large impact on the results of the survivors. remember the losers simply stop reporting, so its very hard to get the real stats.
too hot in the city today to even be at the pool
surf
surf
Hmm, I assumed that with your 12000+ posts you would be able to present us the bigger picture but looks to me we get all caught in the little details: Sure, there are hundreds of trend following systems that lose money, and other hundreds of xxx-systems that also lose money. I thought we could all agree on the argument that the actual trading approach makes only 20-30% of the success/failure of a trade. The rest is money management/risk mgt and keeping emotions aside. There are some excellent trend followers and there are some excellent trend reversal followers, and, and, and. But I think a high success rate in the end all comes down to cutting losses short, riding profitable positions, position sizing, and money management.
So, what you are posting above AGAIN is picking couple guys who applied systems and failed. So? What does that tell you? That trend following systems dont work? Hmm, again, let me ask you what makes you draw such conclusions? It sounds to me that you are preoccupied with a statistical bias not others. Another quick hint: SAC is no1 when it comes to "grey zone" insider trading. What do you, first of all, define as "insider trading" or illegal practices? Spreading rumors about some firms right after shorting it? Going to the press to disparage CEOs/CFOs and publicising previously private conversations between the fund and companies? Threaten sell-side desks to immediately stop conducing any business if they would not ALWAYS call the fund, here SAC, first with whatever rumors/news are hitting the tape? Let me asure you that SAC has conduced any of the above countless times, some of which (esp. the last point) is well documented and proven. I would like to challenge you to come forth with statements that can be backed up with facts and not masking pure speculations and opinions as facts.
