modesty....humility ... are good qualities .. ......comparing yourself to cnbc.....self sabotage....not a good quality
"The name of the book was 'The Big Board'..... It was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212. These fictitious people in the zoo had a big board supposedly showing stock market quotations and commodity prices along one wall of their habitat, and a news ticker, and a telephone that was supposedly connected to a brokerage on Earth. The creatures on Zircon-212 told their captives that they had invested a million dollars for them back on Earth, and that it was up to the captives to manage it so that they would be fabulously wealthy when they were returned to Earth. The telephone and the big board and the ticker were all fakes, of course. They were simply stimulants to make the Earthlings perform vividly for the crowds at the zooâto make them jump up and down and cheer, or gloat, or sulk, or tear their hair, to be scared shitless or to feel as contented as babies in their mothersâ arms. The Earthlings did very well on paper. That was part of the rigging, of course. And religion got mixed up in it, too. The news ticker reminded them that the President of the United States had declared National Prayer Week, and that everybody should pray. The Earthlings had had a bad week on the market before that. They had lost a small fortune in olive oil futures. So they gave praying a whirl. It worked. Olive oil went up." Kurt Vonnegut Jr. "Slaughterhouse Five"
It is an example, an analogy. An individual can't compare themselves to a tv show of a network. Think in abstract terms. In the essence of the example. I don't know if it is the medium that causes so much confusion, or if it is simply the nature of people to assume that other people are this mass of emotions! My only emotion on this thread is, wonder. I am a scientist at heart. The emotions you are attributing to me are completely alien to me in this endeavor! "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Einstein [Am I comparing myself to Einstein now? LMAO!]
the missing cog in FV system: ET perception on the value of Nitro's approach. Nitro, is the current incarnation still symmetric with respect to up and down moves? you said that the system may need to be asymmetric because the market itself is asymmetric. if the FV version is symmetric than the money management must be asymmetric, right?
It is asymetric now, FV has an upward bias to it in the core equation, and it comes in naturally. And you want to know what is funny? IT STILL DOESN'T WANT TO BUY BECAUSE IT IS TERMINALLY BELOW SPX! Outside of just saying, FV = FV + 30 handles (this is programmer speak for, add thirty handles willy-nilly to whatever FV model spews out), I can't put in anything that makes it go above SPX!!! It is really bizarre. I am hoping to see FV go above SPX sometime in my lifetime, otherwise something is missing. What I can't imagine at this point, but something.
Nitro, my reason for posting this was a followup to the great post by Rearden. At the end of the day, I really believe you are giving the market an almost godlike quality in your search for the holy grail. Ironically the holy grail in literary terms being the cup Christ drank from at the Last Supper. What the market really is though is what Rearden said, just people buying and selling stuff. That's all. And for all we know, the holy chalice may just be that, an ordinary cup. Your refusal to acknowledge this may well prove to be your doom. Because if the market is just ordinary people buying and selling stuff, then the further you go into this quant land, the further you remove yourself from these ordinary market participants. Listen to Rearden Nitro.
you said there are obstacles to backtesting. is spot backtesting possible (a few data points going several years back)? could you simplify your super-complicated model into something much simpler that would still exhibit many properties of complete-FV and be backtestable or spot-backtestable? maybe you consider backtesting "cheating" that will diminish the validity of the system. but a compromise where you would sneak a peak could save you a lot of time and give you some ideas why FV may have problems in particular markets conditions.
i still think your nfv was on target, if you are using past data ,performance avgs.thier mathematical representatives to move the equation out into the present, none of the past data had a 19 month (3/09)inflection of trillions by the fed, the market here is an anomoly to the past data.the only way you will get it to go above is to shorten your historical data to 19 months
NF should have accounted for $trillions. Every number that is somewhat relevant to the market and that is known should be in the model as i understand it. because the model accounts for EVERYTHNIG. what about the information that is no widely known? let's say Ben is planning to print $300B and his secretary leaks the info to a a few hegies. then the hegies start quietly to accumulate shares. is the model supposed to detect this via price-action?
if 300 b inflections were the norm or at least 4 or 5 times a year for the last 5,it probably would, its not just apples to oranges ,its apples to the moon rocks mentioned earlier