We actively trade individual equities as well as major indices, currencies etc., and often find attractive setups on an individual stock level even as the broad market is in "wait and see" mode. Exposure levels are somewhat organic in terms of what's setting up / what the market is telling us from a bottom up as well as top down perspective, with the ability to dial up exposure aggressively at warranted inflection points. In otherwords, we're actively shorting now (when setups confirm) and adjusting total exposure levels based on day to day assessment of market conditions.
Fading into Fed Day (SPY) Got some good looking shorts on now... further ramp tomorrow is possible, but odds of stim already being 'priced in', plus strategic constraint for the Fed and bear-favored technicals, make wide open downside a far more attractive bet. You want to take the bets with excellent risk reward and high expectation, even if they don't work out every time (the times when they do lead to major payoffs).
'We / our / us' equals a trading operation / organization that consists of more than one person... isn't that kind of obvious?
Serious nut cases they are. They have been wrong nearly 90% of the time. They make vague calls as they never specify entry and exit points. Looks like nobody here pays attention to them. Don't bother, they get too hostile thinking probably that hostility equates to credibility. Just an example of their stupidity. On July 20 they wrote: "To sum up, anyone long PNRA into earnings is smoking crack" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=237628&perpage=6&pagenumber=32 See what language they use. To the contrary the stock rose to beyond $160, up more than $13. They are losers.
Our very own pet troll, how nice. And oh look, this is post 3000 while you are at post number... 9. This guy is from Price Action Labs. He's angry because I defended my good friend Peter Brandt somewhere else on the web, and now I'm in his crosshairs too. I think the "loser" definition more appropriately applies to stalkers, don't you? Not to mention 'nut case'... there is real and mounting evidence that you are crazy. And not like 'ha ha that's crazy,' but seriously crazy.
Interesting...Do you still think that "anyone long PNRA into earnings is smoking crack". You didn't answer that... Do you trade any of the stocks you suggest to ET members not to own unless they smoke crack? Please try to focus on the subject of the question. I know it is hard for you...
Your fixation is showing. You have clear stalking tendencies -- following me around on multiple threads -- and you are grasping at straws. And yes, I do still think it would have been incredibly dangerous to hold PNRA into earnings. Consider: * The stock was at a dangerous technical juncture at the time of the chart posting. * CMG, a reasonable comparable, had gotten smashed on slowing same store sales and the threat of rising organic food costs via drought. * PNRA actually DID have a stomach churning drop following my posting. On July 20th, the day of my post, PNRA closed above 150. The NEXT DAY it gapped down, and proceeded to trade sharply lower - touching below $139 pre-earnings -- before turning around on a surprisingly good result. Notice I never said "trade PNRA into earnings." In swing trading, we don't take heavy directional risk into earnings as a rule, that's gambling. What I said, in the colorful language I chose, was that holding PNRA into earnings was a serious risk. And it was. The fact that PNRA pulled out surprising strength is great for them, great for PNRA bulls. But that doesn't change the fact that, given the situational dynamics, the observation was correct (PNRA = seriously risky hold ahead of earnings given foreshadowing of CMG and overextended technical position). But of course, you don't really care about PNRA. Your goal is to scroll back through everything I've said and try to find something that didn't work out so you can jump on it. In this you seem not to understand how trading works, or how risk management works. The best traders in the world are wrong half the time. Stevie Cohen once said his best trader ever was only right 65% of the time. This is a game of skilled judgment and risk management, not being right every time. But of course, you aren't playing the trading game. You are playing some weird point-scoring game where you are attacking me because I defended my friend Peter Brandt (whom you seem to irrationally hate) and questioned the value of your anti-TA screeds... p.s. As for trading, yes. We eat our own cooking, and have the majority of our own liquid net worth in play. As for PNRA, there was an observation of risk, not a recco to trade it.
Ugly drop for Harley Davidson Sobering quote from CEO Keith Wandell "...weâre sort of swinging back into being more conservative and trying to figure whatâs going to happen with the global economy and the election and where our economy is headed."