Quote from marketsurfer:
yo bro,
you know better than pointing at a succesful fund and extrapolating that the method makes sense for everyday traders. without knowing the entry criteria, and its been shown statisically over and over, that the commonly understood trend following method of buying new highs, or selling new lows is an inferior trading method----( see "how markets really work--connors, for a nice demonstration of this rule) trend following is nothing but BUY and HOLD or SELL and HOLD. this is demonstrated by the large drawdown the fund you listed and many other trend funds are experiencing now--obviously, they are on the wrong side of the supposed trend and are holding.
best,
surfer
Who said anything about 'everyday traders'?
If by everyday trader you mean the average joe, who loses money at worst or fails to compensate for his time and energy with sufficient profits at best, then the only thing that makes sense is to dramatically improve -- i.e. rise above the level of 'everyday trader' -- or stop trading.
As for knowing better, you should be the one who knows better. The argument was whether trend following methods have merit. In proposing (or broadly insinuating) that trend following methods do not have merit, you create a negative proposition, i.e. a proposition that can be disproven by concrete example to the contrary.
You are in the same position as someone who says that purple hydrangeas do not exist, and is then presented with a documented field of purple hydrangeas growing on a mountainside. (Whether Joe Blow can cultivate purple hydrangeas in his greenhouse is irrelevant.)
Come on Surf, get off this. Your referral to entries highlights a grasping at straws born of ignorance. Your BUY and HOLD caricature is ignorant straw man. And your universal dismissal of a strategy based on one year of drawdown -- and implication that trend following is not a valid strategy because of such -- beggars belief. A real mathematician would be embarrassed to even hint at such a statistically absurd line of criticism. (Well, it worked for 16 years, but this year it hit the skids. Yep, the previous performance must have been a fluke. Say what???)
And it is especially eyebrow raising to hear the 'recent drawdown' critique in light of your, ahem, deep reverence for the musings of he-who-shall-not-be-named (initials V.N.), who has suffered at least one total blowout, another partial blowout or two, and no doubt many gut-wrenching drawdowns (which he has had the audacity to brag about in print).
You are blatantly changing the subject in an effort to mask your unwinnable proposition, and your defensive efforts are growing more silly by the post. Listen to snapdragon, man! I don't know who the guy is, but he is obviously concerned about your well being. Maybe we can turn this thread into an intervention.
Then again, maybe it's time to just let it go. Good luck in your search for a new methodology -- or your new life away from markets, whichever path it may be.
