Trend Following "SUPER FUND" down

That what make me to wonder, not for the meaning of the question itself but for why you asked yourself this question. :D

Quote from Pekelo:

Why am I in this thread? :confused:
More...
 
Quote from marketsurfer:no edge in knowing the past trend.

how about guessing randomly direction and applying correct money management?
More...
Who says markets are random and you have to guess market direction? If markets were efficient and random then what's the point of trading?

Trendfollowers exploit a market inefficiency, namely the tendency of past direction determining the bias of future price movement across different asset classes. SSRN (www.ssrn.com) has half a dozen of scientific publications substantiating this claim.

Keep posting away your typical BS replies without ever substantiating anything

- Surf's Theory #1 "Markets are random"
- Surf's Theory #2 "No edge in trend following"
- Surf's Theory #3 "Trends only exist in hindsight"

Why keep repeating the same old, Surf? Why not post "God doesn't exist". The resulting discussion with you will be just as fruitless as these trend following threads. You refuse to look at verified facts -- or, much more likely, you don't understand them -- while all your answers are not verified facts but merely an opinion.
 
Quote from makloda:SSRN (www.ssrn.com) has half a dozen scientific publications substantiating this claim.

Without expressing a view on the merits of trendfollowing... I'd challenge Mr Makloda to provide links to SSRN papers that explore the profitability of futures trendfollowing and include reasonably current data -- say, thru 12/2008... The ac papers on SSRN are often interesting and insightful, but typically woefully outdated even as of their pub dates.
More...
 
I posted one article in this thread. It was updated through 2008 with out of sample data.

On SSRN, look for the keywords
* EMT (efficient market hypothesis)
* momentum
* managed futures
* tactical/commodity asset allocation

If you find the SSRN papers outdated, why not take their claims, formalize them and throw them in a backtesting software (I used tradingblox), use professional grade commodity future data (I used csidata) and see for yourself. Good luck.
 
Quote from makloda:

If you find the SSRN papers outdated, why not take their claims, formalize them and throw them in a backtesting software (I used tradingblox), use professional grade commodity future data (I used csidata) and see for yourself. Good luck.
More...

Well, probably I'm not at your level of aptitude and perspicacity so I'm not sure I could accomplish all that. But that's another question. My broad point was that the data in the great majority of papers referenced on SSRN are several years stale, and the markets change every day.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Absolutely amazing. Did you read what you posted after you wrote it?

Proflogic, you're wrong. I have an open mind to everything I believe in already but if it is outside my comfort zone then it CAN'T exist.

I'm not talking about what I do specifically but you just made my point to the letter.

I work in an agriculture community so allow me to put this in a structure that even you might be able to comprehend:

Through generations of farming, successful techniques have growth out of a system of "what works". Great-grandfather passes down techniques to grandpa that work. Grandpa verifies them through practical application and potentially improves on them through further or expanded use. Grandpa passes down techniques to dad that work, dad verifies them through practical application and potentially improves on them through further or expanded use. Dad passes down techniques to me that work, I verify them through practical application and potentially improve on them through further or expanded use.

None of these individuals challenged the validity of the techniques as "magic". They personally applied them to insure the success of the techniques and then improved upon them if possible. They weren't summarily dismissed simply because they wanted outside verification from a inconsistent 3rd party. If this were the "norm" you wouldn't be alive or at best you would running around with leaves around your waist eating dead animal carcasses because you don't have the where-with-all to initiate independent thought or testing on your own.

What great-grandfather, grandpa or dad did was anything but bending spoons or walking on water. Common sense dictated that things were tested personally first before they are dismissed. Why, because I personally trust no one more than I trust myself. Evidently you can't make that statement about the faith you have in your own abilities and that is sad. It is also very telling.

Innovation comes from curiosity and creativity. Necessity is the mother of invention.
More...


is this the post you want to response to? i don't understand your analogy or its application to investing. does one need to personally experience practicing surgery to find a good surgeon? of course not. just like professional investors don't need to "personally" witness or practice with an investing method. one relies on verification to determine if an edge exists in a method. im not following your logic. markets are in a constant state of flux, you simply cant apply a fixed methodolgy and claim you have a money machine. makes no sense.

anyway, regardless of your method, i didn't think you were a "trend believer".

surf
 
Quote from marketsurfer:

is this the post you want to response to? i don't understand your analogy or its application to investing. does one need to personally experience practicing surgery to find a good surgeon? of course not. just like professional investors don't need to "personally" witness or practice with an investing method. one relies on verification to determine if an edge exists in a method. im not following your logic. markets are in a constant state of flux, you simply cant apply a fixed methodolgy and claim you have a money machine. makes no sense.
More...

You are condemning what I do without an understanding of it. You call it "voodoo" or "magic" without an assessment of it. That would be like saying that everything you post is lies without first reading it to verify that statement.

What I do is no different than most traders, with the exception that I do it in a fixed environment. I simply look at price without the variables.

It's like you refusing to watch a football game on a High Definition TV because it's "magic" and can't work. Same market, same data, same price action but better clarity of oscillations.

I never claimed a money machine, I never claimed to be perfect, I claim to be able to see price movemnt in a clearer environment. Common sense would dictate that if one could see price in a clearer environment that their decision making process should be clearer, regardless of their method.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

You are condemning what I do without an understanding of it. You call it "voodoo" or "magic" without an assessment of it. That would be like saying that everything you post is lies without first reading it to verify that statement.

What I do is no different than most traders, with the exception that I do it in a fixed environment. I simply look at price without the variables.

It's like you refusing to watch a football game on a High Definition TV because it's "magic" and can't work. Same market, same data, same price action but better clarity of oscillations.

I never claimed a money machine, I never claimed to be perfect, I claim to be able to see price movemnt in a clearer environment. Common sense would dictate that if one could see price in a clearer environment that their decision making process should be clearer, regardless of their method.
More...


well, hey, a method is a method. i guess you have retracted your claims of perfection. that was ( is ) my only issue with your claims. surf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top