who ruined the US markets ?

Quote from austinp:

Markets aren't "ruined" per se... but they are nowhere near bountiful as before

Price movement has changed dramatically in several ways. First of all, average daily ranges have contracted to half or less from years past. That's one major difference now than before... overall intraday ranges are much smaller, so average potential profit is likewise much less.

Secondly, price swings cover more sideways distance thru these contracted ranges. Some call it "chop". Whatever the label, price action moves against longs or shorts far enough to take out stops repeatedly, but does not move far enough in favor to reach profit objectives nearly as often.

So now more than in the past, stop loss orders are harder to hold while profitable trades are fewer than before. Skews the win/loss ratio against traders relative to large-range, higher volume markets.

With low-volume price movement, the directional turns are much more rapid and abrupt. Because there is no density of resting orders in the market, a price peak at highs or lows tend to v-turn and fire off the opposite direction now.

In the past, price turns would unfold in more deliberate rounding tops or bottoms, double tops or bottoms, 1-2-3 swings. Now it is much more "traps" and "springs" in rapid v-turn fashion. That makes it tougher to change directions with deliberation because one minute price is going one way, two minutes later it is flying the opposite direction.

Lastly, all markets tend to make zero to two directional swings per session and then shut right down into dead consolidation. Years past when volatility was high, price action swung around numerous times all day long more than not. Now that is a rarity of all-day opportunity.

Anyone who has been around for years can easily see the difference in price movement now versus times of higher volume and volatility. But all anyone needs to do is ask the big six and seven-figures annual traders archived in older P&L threads here.

Ask lescor and red-ink and szeven and reardon metal and dustin and others if this year was a record-profits producer for them. I already know what the collective answer is... that is plain and obvious.

Financial markets are still tradable, but not nearly in the same manner as years past. It is a different game now, and it will be different still in the years to come. It always is :)

My thoughts exactly. :cool:
 
Quote from mm19:

Also bump up your bet size :D

Everyone advocates this in these markets but I think this is just recipe for disaster. Increasing size to account for lower volatility is destined to fail because the R/R is horrible when you try to trade "noise" (or a tiny range), you will lose on spreads and on commissions in the long run. Its worse with a bumped up size because you lose even more.
 
Quote from Grandluxe:

Worse if we do a Japan, have zero growth and muddle along where nothing really happens.

Nikkei had plenty of volatility in the last years...
 
As for "crappy markets" - those grind-up periods we get after each major Fed intervention (e.g. late 2010-early 2011) tend to be my best months, with the lowest drawdowns etc. The market is so predictable that you can trade it with tremendous size and no worries (though you do have to hold through multiple days). It's boring, but the point is to make money not to be entertained.

That said my personal sweet spot is an average ES daily range of maybe 12-14 points. Less than that and it's hard to be flat at EOD and still get reasonable trades, while I don't necessary do any better with much higher vix levels. There is more range but the movements and 'mood' of the market are less predictable, you aren't in practice at your maximum level of focus all day to take advantage of every swing, etc.
 
Quote from Specterx:

Nikkei had plenty of volatility in the last years...

I guess that there are a few ways to view volatility. Most guys want "tradeable" volatility, not illiquid crash type volatility, as that wipes out more traders than it actually helps.

And realistically, as much as I hear about guys longing for 2008 type volatility, I bet we lost more than half of the regular posters on this site during that time frame...and how many prop firms disappeared around that time. Those short bursts of intense volatility seem to hasten the process of rewarding those who are exceptional at this and literally slitting the throat of those who are marginal players.
 
Quote from pemully:

Livermore said no man can beat the market ...

And from what I can recall, Livermore literally bit the big one in markets just like we've experienced the past few years (if you believe that the current markets have similar analogs to the mid-late 1930's).
 
Quote from denner:

And realistically, as much as I hear about guys longing for 2008 type volatility, I bet we lost more than half of the regular posters on this site during that time frame...and how many prop firms disappeared around that time. Those short bursts of intense volatility seem to hasten the process of rewarding those who are exceptional at this and literally slitting the throat of those who are marginal players.

Most (all?) edges contain implicit assumptions about volatility or the trending character of the market of which the trader may not be fully aware, but will sure get exposed in dramatic fashion by a 2008-style event.
 
Quote from trickshot:

Everyone advocates this in these markets but I think this is just recipe for disaster. Increasing size to account for lower volatility is destined to fail because the R/R is horrible when you try to trade "noise" (or a tiny range), you will lose on spreads and on commissions in the long run. Its worse with a bumped up size because you lose even more.

totally agree. but if one plays perfect only setups (few) then bet size can be increased, providing it is not play with noise as markets may react on your size - so longerterm.
 
The main reason the markets have survived in reasonably working order is because the politicians haven't managed to get their thieving hands on them too much.
Even prize clowns like Greenspan/Bernanke etc. have been kept at bay thank god.
 
Back
Top