Okay, I have two questions. It is not a challenge. I am genuinely curious. 1. Suppose one of the interrelated markets you follow moves in a meaningful way, by whatever standard you judge as meaningful. Will you get into the other market even before that other market gives you its own setup or signal? Or will you also wait for that other market to generate its own setup or signal before you make your move? 2. Suppose a market gives you a stand-alone setup or signal, even though the interrelated market does not. Will you act on the stand-alone setup or signal, or will you necessarily wait for confirmation from the interrelated market? Please respond.
Can you please define intermarket? Edit: When I think of intermarket, I think of information (price, quotes, etc) being disseminated across all exchanges trading that security...
Really? Were you in such a rush to present yourself as an asshole to miss the subtext of my prior post? I suppose it's a matter of priorities.
Yes, really. I am 100% positive you are fishing. Especially now that I have struck a nerve so quickly. I may be an asshole. But you`re def not a trader with your 10.15 posts a day of dribble.
Oh, sorry. Ever since reading Murphy's book on the subject in the mid '90s, I always regarded "intermarket" relationships as referring to different markets that have a "meaningful" correlation in price movement, either positive or negative. Unfortunately, it never worked quite as well for me as advertised in day to day trading. And so I'm curious to know if people find the analysis of such intermarket relationships to have real tangible value in their actual nuts and bolts, day to day trading. Perhaps it was a matter of time frame or some such, but I never found a related market to give better "signals" than the market I was looking to either enter or exit. It also didn't provide confirmation that was better than the traded market itself, either. And so, for my own limited purposes, I found it largely redundant. But then, I'm not a big picture guy. This is why I asked the following question of a previous poster: 1. Suppose one of the interrelated markets you follow moves in a meaningful way, by whatever standard you judge as meaningful. Will you get into the other market even before that other market gives you its own setup or signal? Or will you also wait for that other market to generate its own setup or signal before you make your move? 2. Suppose a market gives you a stand-alone setup or signal, even though the interrelated market does not. Will you act on the stand-alone setup or signal, or will you necessarily wait for confirmation from the interrelated market? I wanted to know whether it was effectively redundant and only gave comfort, or if it provided tangible, nuts and bolts, bottom line value. That, and I was bored. But curious nonetheless.
How interesting. And I am fairly confident that you are a fish head. As I recall, the only other post of yours addressing me was also an insult. I have delicate sensibilities when it comes to trolls. Of course you are. Show more confidence.
My apologies but I am bothered by your question. What markets arenât interrelated? I believe your question is within the realm of lead-lag relationships between securities, right? Merci
Essentially, yes. I am trying to isolate the discussion to those markets that are sufficiently "related," either positively or negatively, such that a movement in one gives rise to placing a trade in another. Again, I don't care which markets traders use or what their criteria for sufficient relatedness may be. I don't even care how one market may generate signals for another market. My only interest is whether people rely on interrelated market relationships in their trading, whatever those relationships may be, and answers to my two questions posted earlier.