I am just curious: Has anyone (or CTA/ CPO/ fund manager) done any back-testing or actual-trading performance results to show us according to the following approach/ theory that would probably require to find not only one single edge in trend trading but also additional edges in counter-trend and range-bound trading? If not, then why not?
Wouldn't make any difference whether they did or not. If the backtest is done by computer, the trader generally finds when he begins trading it for real that the results are very different from what he expected. Even if by some rare chance they aren't, the system has to be changed whenever the backtested system begins to fail, which can be more often than expected. As for actual performance, past performance, as you may have heard, is no guarantee of future results. So even if the performance results were spectacular, that doesn't mean that they would match the following year's results. Or the following month's. Or the following week's. Then of course there are the inherent difficulties in defining "trend" and "range", which would be necessary before defining "range-bound" and "counter-trend". Which is why at least some people seek edges that are at the core of continuously-adaptable systems. Those don't have to be changed.
If my memory this time is correct (usually not), I recall the above was also mentioned by Acrary for his development work-in-progress. Sounds good.
funny, reminds me of top fund manager (with largest NAV in the firm) that RENTED house. Imagine reaction of mortgaged-to-tilt employees when they found out.
I'm don't really listen to pundits, but Bill Miller says that we are in a really good market. This guy made a lot of money running a concentrated fund. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101569873
Miller said Wednesday on CNBC's "Closing Bell." "you can throw a dart at the market and about anything you hit is gonna go up the next six months." :eek:
"Perception is reality" is clearly an incorrect statement. This can be proven simply by finding one or more instances where perception differs from reality, and reality wins out. A simple test - find a thick and study concrete wall, then try to push your hand through it, while perceiving that the wall doesn't exist. If perception is reality, then you should be able to push your hand through the wall. Another absurdity - this would imply that reality would not exist, if living beings did not exist or lost their ability to perceive. Therefore either the universe in its earliest moments was a living being (highly unlikely), or the universe didn't exist until the first living being with perception abilities came into being. Clearly, acrary's investment banker friend was not skilled at forming definitions or understanding the clear meaning of words. A more accurate statement would be to say that perception can sometimes influence reality. While that's correct, the far more common state of affairs is reality forming perception. Also, perception is itself part of objective reality. If you have a theory of the world that does not take into account the role of perceptions in influencing behaviour, then your theory sucks. This is a classic case of taking a limited truth - that perception sometimes influences some aspects of reality - and distorting it by taking it to a ludicrous extreme (that perception IS reality). Just another example of sloppy thinking and lax language.
Wrong - it is supply and demand which sets stock prices. Perception influences that, but so does objective reality - especially since objective reality is one of the primary influences on perception. Examples: if a company is losing $10 billion per month, and has $1 million left in the bank, the stock is unlikely to avoid going to zero. If a stock pays a dividend of $10, it is unlikely to trade below $10. If someone launches a takeover at $50 per share, the stock is unlikely to trade at $20. If subjective perception was all that mattered, things like arbitrage would not exist. Settlement and delivery contract specifications would not matter.
Is there any evidence of causation from a profitable pundit saying we are in a really good market, and subsequent market returns? I am sceptical, and so should you be.