SEYKOTA's method?

simple answer... Leverage

He also probably needs to trade multiple leveraged markets that are highly liquid... futures is exactly that...

 

I'd guess that by now, the size of the money he's managing is presumably large enough where he doesn't need to use leverage. In fact, his size is probably making things more difficult for him -- I think he mentions this in the Schwager interview. Also, I agree that the futures markets are probably more liquid, but for a longer-term trader, would this really be a substantial problem for trading stocks?

Could it be that the futures markets are more "predictable" and "pure" from a technical analysis perspective? (And maybe also less prone to manipulation than with individual stocks?)

 

I still stand by taxes as his probable best reason.... after all, the man lives in Nevada. The tax advantage in futures is huge. At his scale, the difference probably pays his salary..

 

Diversification and kurtosis.

 

What do you mean by kurtosis?

trend

 

First, I would like to say that I have no clue at all what R. Seykota uses. I would think that he developed his own indicator or series of indicators long ago. Looking at the state of the art at least one of them has to use volatility, maybe with a little volume, open interest and consensus report thrown in.

There is no way that he could be using moving averages unless they are a component of one of his private oscillators.

To get those kinds of results he has to be a ling term trader. Long-term traders do not trade tops and bottoms. They pull the big middle, the Taoist equilibrium out of a trend.

Wally knows what is going on, “weeks to months,” or longer. Much longer.

Sure backwards just try MACD

Welcome Hungry4, risk management is not a good term for it. Tharp calls it “Position sizing!” Position sizing has a lot more to it than just how many contracts to buy, hold or sell. It also includes when to periodically adjust the number of contracts to keep your risk constant.

You will notice In Ed's explanation of risk he refers to “expectation of volatility!” This is far beyond just the number of contracts.

Not a chance!

You will have to ask Ed. But the stock market is more subject to manipulation by insiders. Commodities really have their base in the cash markets, which are wide, vast pools of international capital. By there very size, they are less subject to artificial influence.

For a long-term trade it is comforting to know that stocks can go to zero. Commodities cannot. There is always some price where the cycle will reverse and come back.

 

I trade futures and stocks, and I don't find that true at all.

 

There is more diversification in the futures market since there are more constantly non-correlating instruments. And the distribution tails are quite fat in many of them. Stocks with tails of that kind are probably non-tradeable in terms of liquidity IMO.


Can't anybody else tell this --go-we??? guy to post in a way that doesn't crack the eye immediately? I find this selfish eyecatcher thing really disturbing and completely unnecessary.

 

--oooooo Gold

could you please turn off your desire to act on a stage when you are posting on an internet board.

 

I agree