.. then you'll have to pay the premium.
the early bird gets the worm.
See you at the bottom shorty!
the early bird gets the worm.
See you at the bottom shorty!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Sell in May's" track record
- Thread starter a529612
- Start date
I don't know why people get excited about these proshares, but they only make sense if you can't trade futures. The fees and slippage and bid/ask spreads in these thinly traded things (TWM!!!) is crazy. You're throwing away money trading these.Quote from S2007S:
your better off shorting with the proshares if your going to short the market
DXD
QID
SDS
MZZ
TWM
If you can, stick with the index futures. Much better liquidity.
Quote from makloda:
I don't know why people get excited about these proshares, but they only make sense if you can't trade futures. The fees and slippage and bid/ask spreads in these thinly traded things (TWM!!!) is crazy. You're throwing away money trading these.
If you can, stick with the index futures. Much better liquidity.
Proshares are not a good way to short unless in a retirement account where you have no other choice. In fact, you should not short a substantial amount of equities unless you are getting paid the interest on your short, this means not in most retail accounts.
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
I don't understand????
BLSH, the article states that "If you'd done the opposite, and invested every May 1 and sold every Sept. 1, you'd have $12,083.". You started with $10K. That record suggests a POSITIVE expectancy - one that you have suggested shorting. This amounts to a fool's (negative expectancy) game.
Quote from BlindLemonBoosh:
BLSH, the article states that "If you'd done the opposite, and invested every May 1 and sold every Sept. 1, you'd have $12,083.". You started with $10K. That record suggests a POSITIVE expectancy - one that you have suggested shorting. This amounts to a fool's (negative expectancy) game.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it's saying you'd have 600k if you bought in October, and sold in May. You'd have 12k if you bought in May, and sold in October.
So, one would not want to hold positions from May through October.
I was saying that not only would one not want hold through that period, but to actually achieve gains, since it is such a destructive period, one should consider shorting particular stocks.
Sell in may is a myth and is the last resort for shorts who have failed to cover and are looking for any last resort to break even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_effect
Sell in may didnt work in 2000, 2005, 2003, 2004, etc
Sicne 2000 it only worked in 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_effect
Sell in may didnt work in 2000, 2005, 2003, 2004, etc
Sicne 2000 it only worked in 2006
did the mkt first start trading in 2000? Wow I thought it started under a buttonwood tree? I think i'll look at the entire history of the theory and not 6 years.
Quote from stock_trad3r:
Sell in may is a myth and is the last resort for shorts who have failed to cover and are looking for any last resort to break even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_effect
Sell in may didnt work in 2000, 2005, 2003, 2004, etc
Sicne 2000 it only worked in 2006
What are you talking about? The market got slammed until June of last year.
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
I was saying that not only would one not want hold through that period, but to actually achieve gains, since it is such a destructive period, one should consider shorting particular stocks.
You start with $10K. You end up with a tad over $12K. How is that an indication that the period is "destructive"?
"Underperforming"?... yes. "Destructive"?...the numbers don't back up this characterization.
I wouldn't consider basing any active trading strategy on the Sell in May "phenomenon". Those who typically buy & hold (especially mutual funds) might want to take a closer look at it.
Quote from BlindLemonBoosh:
You start with $10K. You end up with a tad over $12K. How is that an indication that the period is "destructive"?
There has been a fair bit of inflation since 1950. Some posters on ET could tell you what 10K would buy you in 1950 - I'm guessing a very large house. What can you buy today for 12K?