101–110 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it the case that essentially no traders beat the performance of index funds long-term?
It isn't, there's fanous people like Warren Buffet of course, but I personally know of 3 individuals in investing forums who post all their trades and handily beat indexes over long periods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developing that trading strategy is a continuous job; that's what successful traders do. They don't play stocks, they play strategies. There are going to be computers involved no matter what. Your indicators, your trading platform, what analysts you trust. So what is a bot ? A "bot" suggests to me something just trading in and out of some security at some average frequency: weeks, days, intraday, minutes, seconds and…
An online friend just got into currency trading and went into some tutorials about reading curves. Apparently there are recurring curve patterns, which allows one to predict where a rate is going. If you can code up some pattern recognition algorithm, there might be a way to make money. Although I'm very skeptical about those patterns, because there could be someone trading back and forth to create those trends, and…
This is one of the services the market provides. It creates uniform price conditions across time and space. If there is a discrepancy that doesn't make sense (like a recurring profitable pattern in stock prices), you can make money by fixing it.
"Trading numbers", as you call it, is (through a layer or two of indirection) helping to establish true prices, transmit market information, provide liquidity, etc. All of these things are critical for "real business" to operate efficiently in a large economy. The abstract markets create huge value for "real business" and its users charge a small percentage of the value created.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ask me, daytrading seems riskier because you're essentially trading within noise. A company could rise or fall a few (and more rarely, a lot of) percentage points within a day. Is it fluctuating based on anything other than the feedback loop and noise? Usually not, I think. It seems far more unpredictable and lacking in reasoning than something like "Amazon's strategy for the next couple of years involves X, Y…
> "Amazon's strategy for the next couple of years involves X, Y, and Z, so I think they will be successful/fail." That's not really the right question. If Amazon's strategy is hugely successful, but everyone else already thought Amazon's strategy was going to be even more hugely successful and had priced that in, then you could be 100% correct about your question and lose money.
If someone is consistently good at losing money 60% of the time. Why not just do the exact opposite of whatever their initial hunch is. Then they should make money. Based on loss of 36% from the article that is more than just transaction and trade fees which are 1 to 2%of trade therefore if they just do the opposite of what they are doing they should make money.
If you go exactly even before transaction fees, on a big enough number of transaction you loose everything....exactly because of transaction fees.
If someone is consistently good at losing money 60% of the time. Why not just do the exact opposite of whatever their initial hunch is. Then they should make money. Based on loss of 36% from the article that is more than just transaction and trade fees which are 1 to 2%of trade therefore if they just do the opposite of what they are doing they should make money.
— from the your headline is meaningless and you should feel bad dept :P
If someone is consistently good at losing money 60% of the time. Why not just do the exact opposite of whatever their initial hunch is. Then they should make money. Based on loss of 36% from the article that is more than just transaction and trade fees which are 1 to 2%of trade therefore if they just do the opposite of what they are doing they should make money.
If someone is consistently good at losing money 60% of the time. Why not just do the exact opposite of whatever their initial hunch is. Then they should make money. Based on loss of 36% from the article that is more than just transaction and trade fees which are 1 to 2%of trade therefore if they just do the opposite of what they are doing they should make money.
"90% of the customers lose 90% of their money in 90 days."
A friend of mine was chatting to him about doing some business.
I would think it's more about leverage than commission. Looking at FX, you can get tiny spreads, almost comparable to what I saw in a hedge fund. It takes a while to eat up a whole account on such small percentages. Leverage, on the other hand is something you can use to demolish capital over an afternoon. Ratios like 1/200 are a formula to go broke if you haven't had a look at something like Kelly Criterion.