Ok, you're talking percentage moves. That's different. Percentage moves don't particularly interest me, I'm more concerned with how much a stock will move in dollar terms, so I prefer higher priced stocks. Eg, I'd rather trade stock ABC with a average range of $3 at $60 (roughly 5%) than a $10 stock with a $1 range (10% move). That's why I prefer trading something like KLAC rather than CSCO. For example, to make $200 (gross) I could either catch a 20c move on klac with 1000shares or a 5c move on CSCO with 4000. In the latter case, IB comissions would be $45RT, so its a better deal taking klac anyway. (Plus, I don't have any real proof, but imo, klac would move 25-40 cents as easily as csco moving 5.) Also, if you look at a lot of the techs in early 01, that are still priced at similar prices today (there's not many!), you'll find that the percentage volatility was greater (albeit slightly) back then aswell.
Maybe that's why trading firms recommend their traders trade slow moving,lower priced NYSE stocks.The trader trades more shares,makes less profits,but the firm gets more commissions.Personally,i'd rather trade less shares of a higher priced stock and pay less commissions.
I didn't think a relatively simple question warranted a new board - which of these would be the quickest to respond to a move in the Naz futures: QQQ or $COMPQ ?
by the way, if you don't understand the impact of size on your trading outcome, you are even more doomed than I thought.
Did I? I guess I can be presumptive. Surely the implication is that daytrading is futile. If not, tell me which part of that I didn't understand.
From where did you infer that I don't understand the impact of size on my trading outcome?? For someone who thinks beating the s&p is a herculean achievement, you sure are one arrogant piece of work.
many studies have been done to try and determine what traits make a person a bad trader. One of the most common traits is that they deny or denigrate history. "these time are different". The markets are bigger , more securities, more total money, more players, more efficient mechanics ( computers ) but the market as a concept has not changed at all. What makes stocks go up or down today are the same things that made them move 80 yrs. ago. Personally I always listen to the rich old guys from new york, they survived.
Buddy, I'm in the markets every day. (well, except for this week) I can honestly say that your take on daytrading is grounded in freakin BS. I picture you as someone standing on the ground and pointing at Wilbur Wright in the sky and yelling, "I'm telling you Wilbur, that thing will never fly!" Your assumption that I "denigrate" history couldn't be further from the truth! In fact, I have a fascination with history, and learning lessons from it. One must realise though, that things DO change? You are aware of that aren't you? History, afterall, doesn't repeat EXACTLY. Have you ever taken a trip overseas? Did you go in a plane, or take to to the high seas?? Markets have evolved aswell. Liquidity, technology, transaction costs - all worlds apart from when Livermore was around. If you can't see the opportunity this provides, too bad for you. Or if you decide to pass on it for other reasons, fine - but don't come here telling us all it can't be done.