I find that "management" reacted to the big zero. I do not think that this was the only segment of this conglomerate that was reduced, revamped for efficiency reasons... I can hear the next speech at the stockholders meeting right now... Michael B.
If they were making them money beyond what the T/A group were costing them, they would not be gone, for EXACTLY the reason that they would raise shareholder value by having greater earnings. nitro
Nitro, Something has to be done over at Citigroup. If your a CEO you strategize on what yields the best efficiency. Thats all Thats it... Transamerica once upon a time diversified out to consumer finance. They got a slow and stable income from that division....but they returned to insurance after selling out that portfolio of loans they made, as it was more efficient. ...this is just one example of the mentality in the quest for efficiency. As far as this thread and TA....I believe in TA....Intraday is a tough nut to crack, however. Citigroup firings was just a kog in the wheel...of a much bigger picture, is my point. Michael B. P.S. Your boring too...(and it's not your thread)
Also illliquid, track the certain index of the stock you are currently in. For example, if your Trading KLAC, watch the SMH. Especially S&R levels. When the indices get tired, you stocks will come soon after.
This I think is the crux of the whole matter (and I think it extends to all time frames) -- are the terms "random" and "having an edge" a readily definable polarity in the market, or does the concept just fall into the eyes of the beholder? The convention seems to be that movement one does not understand and anticipate is considered "random", while moves that fall within that trader's ability to anticipate is labeled "non-random". Where do we draw the line where "random" becomes a qualitative rather than quantitative term, along the lines of Hume vs Descartes? If a move is anticipated by you and develops much as you expected, the market for that time being becomes "non-random" in your eyes; you have the edge for that move, having sold or bought already. But there is no reason, to use the above example, to assume a prolonged thrust in one direction would equate to a "huge edge" for a collective "us"; nor should movement most would deem "noise" be automatically assumed to have no profit potential. One trader's noise is another trader's bread and butter; one trader's "anomaly" = another's long-awaited windfall. To say that markets are "random most of the time, [with] brief instances when it is not random and that is our edge" makes sense for a directional or momentum trader who exposes his capital for relatively short-term periods; contrast this with the options seller who makes steady gains as prices remain range-bound but who must be on guard for "outlier" moves -- his opinion of where his edge lies would be in direct contrast. I was going to say that this is a separate argument concerning the application of "random" from that of nitro's, which are more conceptual "starting-point" views on the nature of markets (forgive me if I misunderstand, I'm sorely lacking in the mathematical/scientific dept, which may explain my angle on things), but he seems to agree with easyrider's take (and vice-versa). But if we assume that random = mathematically equal probabilities of occurence for all events, how does an outsized move, which at any given moment is less probable than a relatively smaller move, provide a "bigger" edge aka "even less" random state? The "bigger edge" would only make sense for a directional or momentum trader, who in actuality trades infrequently precisely because the probability of a large move worthy of taking the risk of paying the spread and commission (besides being outright wrong) is relatively low, and whose biggest profits come from riding the largest "noise-free" moves. To contrast this with an example from earlier posts, my argument would be that market makers provide a constant bid/ask because they believe most of the time markets are NOT random, but rather range-bound. Their profits (and those of mean-reversion traders) come from the mirror-image profile of that of the directional trader: that is, the outsized momentum moves that don't retrace are their anomaly or area of greatest risk and so they compensate with less liquidity/wider spreads in faster markets, while noise and chop are a directional trader's bane (this balance of profit and loss makes sense as equilibrium between customer and vendor). From these angles, there is really no space for the term "random" (aka equally mathematically probable outcomes) to apply absolutely to any market behavior except in relation to what we consider our edge.