Science Advancements on trading

Quote from A Dashing Blade:

Yup, at the end of the day they got a margin call they couldn't meet.
More...

Doesn't everyone? Give me the other side of a big margin call every day, e.g. Mr. Pink. Now, how about a model that predicts big margin calls?
 
Quote from alesanti:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_knowledge
More...

Quote of the 1st paragraph of your url:
"Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[1] The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense."

Although this is obviously not YOUR own answer, if you manage to understand the above, you will notice that this wikipedia blurp distinguishes between "broadest sense" and "restricted sense".

I wish you good luck in trying to squeeze money out of the market by applying "broadest sense science". That's the essence of my intervention.
 
Quote from nitro:

It was? I have seen several DOW +/- 200 point days in the last three months, and a slew of +/- 100 point days.

Markets are changing...

nitro
More...

Nitro, with due respect and enjoying reading your posts, I do disagree with this statement.

My model says that it is all within the normal behaviour of the markets.

If you have however some incomplete model you may be led to believe that things are changing but that is purely the result of the incomplete model.

(or in other words: The more things change the more they stay the same.)


best
psycho analitics

An old Chinese proverb:
Those who say it cannot be done ought not to interrupt those who are doing it.
 
Quote from Neodude:

Most people are under the mistaken expression that LCTM failed mainly due to a failure of their models, but it was more like the fact that they strayed away from their models. They started to make directional bets instead of following their market neutral strategy, they over-leveraged and lastly they kept adding to losing positions. According to what I've heard, if they weren't over-leveraged they could have salvaged much of their portfolio and actually made a profit.

-Neo
More...

Couldn't it be said that, if they had not over-leveraged (i.e., too cocky about their model), they wouldn't have achieved above-average returns prior to their starting having problems?
 
psycho-analitix,

Ok. I disagree that these markets are "normal". I don't disagree that your model says what it says.

nitro
Quote from psycho-analitix:

Nitro, with due respect and enjoying reading your posts, I do disagree with this statement.

My model says that it is all within the normal behaviour of the markets.

If you have however some incomplete model you may be led to believe that things are changing but that is purely the result of the incomplete model.

(or in other words: The more things change the more they stay the same.)


best
psycho analitics

An old Chinese proverb:
Those who say it cannot be done ought not to interrupt those who are doing it.
More...
 
Hi Nononsense,

I've been following this thread for some time. I'm not a scientist my self but I've always been interested science applied to crack the markets.

I’ve studied and traded the markets for the last 4 years and I did find several companies that do trade the markets applying science and are very success full.

I've found several non linear approaches that as you express it "squeeze money out of the market ". I really do not care much about if it is "broadest sense" or "restricted sense" science but about the returns, drawdown, automation and amount of money the strategy can handle.

These are just some examples.

Prediction Company
http://www.predict.com/html/introduction.html

Founded by Doyne Farmer (http://www.santafe.edu/~jdf/) and Norman Packard (http://protolife.net/packard/) They might be scientist ?

They are a bunch 40+ Mathematicians and Physicists. Started in 1992 finally fully acquired by UBS this year.

http://www.ubs.com/1/e/media_overview/media_americas/mediareleases/search1/search10?newsId=86838


Capital Fund Management 2 Bill +
CFM has developed trading strategies based upon a quantitative approach to financial markets. This quantitative approach relies exclusively on statistical analysis for all trading and asset allocation decisions.
Performed by a team of twelve Ph.D.s, all former physicists from prestigious institutions.

Their chairman Jean-Philippe Bouchaud graduated from the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he obtained his Ph.D. in theoretical physics. He is also the Editor in Chief of Quantitative Finance. (He might be a scientist ?) What do you think?

http://ideas.repec.org/s/sfi/sfiwpa.html

They won the 2005 EuroHedge Award Winner (ROI 35.15% and Sharpe 2.64) and (20.38% and 3.66 in other of their funds)

Aspect Capital 3.4 Bill
http://www.aspectcapital.com/splash.asp
Aspect Capital is a quantitative hedge fund based in London managing assets from a global institutional investor base.

And the list goes on and on.
Now, what where your concerns about science applied to the markets? Science is a very broad definition but as these 3 examples out of hundreds show, it gives us tools to “Squeeze money out of the market”.

I just wanted to provide hard numbers that are the result of Science applied by scientist to make money in the markets.




Quote from nononsense:

Quote of the 1st paragraph of your url:
"Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[1] The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense."

Although this is obviously not YOUR own answer, if you manage to understand the above, you will notice that this wikipedia blurp distinguishes between "broadest sense" and "restricted sense".

I wish you good luck in trying to squeeze money out of the market by applying "broadest sense science". That's the essence of my intervention.
More...
 
Quote from nononsense:

Quote of the 1st paragraph of your url:
"Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means.[1] The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on science in the latter sense."

Although this is obviously not YOUR own answer, if you manage to understand the above, you will notice that this wikipedia blurp distinguishes between "broadest sense" and "restricted sense".

I wish you good luck in trying to squeeze money out of the market by applying "broadest sense science". That's the essence of my intervention.
More...

Nononsense, after some research on the web I found the site www.tradingpro.com that shows what a result of the science applied to the market could bring:

06-07-24.gif

The red line is the market. The black line is the prediction.
This prediction was computed at 10:45am today. At the end of the day they show together the prediction plus the index.
This is the "broadest sense science" applied to markets. This is my contribution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top