Piker... tsk tsk... you didnt read the question carefully. The relevant numbers are: SSO SPY High 97.80 157.52 Low 14.16 67.10 Last 40.77 115.13 (Note that high is the high of the rally, low is the low point and last is incorrectly labeled... this is the january high.) Using SSO the decline was $83.64. The rally was 26.61. 26.61 / 83.64 = 31.8% My math is correct. Dude, you play at this... I do it all day, every day... stop being arrogant and you might learn something (within the limits of your capabilities of course.) Now, go read the previous question again. I'm trying to show you something important (to your "strategy".)
Dude you are still missing the point, but maybe we should consider the SSO's 85% decline from the high as compared the SPY's 57% or so decline? Anyway, I know this is a new way for you to think (and I know that's difficult for you), but please try... what matters is the percentage against the previous swing. Consider it like that and try to consider WHY i'm telling you this is important. This is a perfect illustration of the issues with the levered products, right here with real-world numbers. This is also a perfect illustration of why traders fail. Piker (love the handle dude) is a textbook case for inflexible thinking coupled with arrogance. Why be flexible when you know everything? Why learn anything new when you are the smartest person in the world? At least it's internally inconsistent, right?
You ask a legit question which I have already answered elsewhere on this thread, but I will also address it here. Trading for a living can really suck. It's boring, it's lonely and you do some destructive things to create excitement. You want excitement? Load up on them palladium futures, then! Stupid stuff like that. Also, I wanted to learn and get better because even though I was making good money I knew there were people who knew more than I did. (That's where you and I are different. You don't believe there are people who have the skill and knowledge.) So I moved to New York. A lot of my friends are money managers and traders... you can't imagine what an edge it is to be surrounded by people focusing on trading full time. I chose to train a few people partly as a way to give back but also partly as a way to stimulate and challenge myself. (I make it a point not to train people from finance backgrounds for the most part, btw.) The way this works is I hire someone, pay them a salary, teach them to trade, give them money to trade while they learn and build confidence then eventually if they want to continue they are able to either go out on their own, move to another fund, or start managing OPM if that's what they want to do. I've had people choose all three routes, and some decide trading wasn't for them. (If you haven't read my other posts... please please please read this. This is NOT an advertisement for any kind of job posting or mentorship. I employ two traders, an IT person and a couple programmers. The traders do rotate in and out, but I do not expect to hire anyone anytime sooner than 18 months to 2 years from now. I am sorry but I will not respond to resumes or requests for any kind of private help beyond what I post here. I already have a huge backlog of people to interview when I am looking for someone... they are all friends of friends so I wouldn't look at an outside resume anyway. I absolutely do not sell training materials of any kind and probably won't even respond to requests. Sorry in advance.) My performance has improved since I moved to New York and my learning accelerated at a rate that was incredible to me. At some point, maybe I will move out west... maybe a cabin in the mountains... maybe a shack on the beach somewhere... maybe, but not yet. Sorry this is off topic, but you asked.
Actually Piker, if you want to focus on the SSO's 187% return (and I'm sure attach words like "astounding", "amazing", etc to it) I thought of a better way to look at this that might be more meaningful to you. So yes, the SSO had a 187% return, but following an 85% decline. So the relevant math is: Loss of 85.5% + Gain of 187.9% = net loss of 58.3% for SPY over same period: Loss of 57.4% + Gain of 71.6% = net loss of 26.9% now, since you're the guy of the numbered list, two points: 1) the gains and losses might be off by a few basis points or so, but they are close enough to illustrate the point. accept them as correct, ok? assuming they are correct, do you understand the math above? does it look correct to you? you will need more than your 3rd grade math skills here, so if you think my numbers don't add, be very very very very careful before you call me stupid. 2) and we're back to the same questions I asked before... which you chose to ignore... which is interesting because they are THE pivotal questions for this thread. (but they don't stroke your raging ego.) thoughts, Mr Piker?
That earlier mentioned site just gave a Buy signal. From the previous Sell signal to this Buy there was at least 5% gain to be had, with your leverage, that is +12%. (instead of your -15% down) I know you are not interested in good ideas, because you are way smarter than we are, just saying...
Not really...it has come to the point that Piker is talking to blackened glass...he does not want to see the other side... NiN
After reading through this whole thread, I'm convinced Indexpiker is just pulling everyone's leg here. There's no way someone could put their retirement money into leveraged etfs and try to time the market. The math is just absolutely idiotic, these instruments were meant for day-trading, and the funds got in trouble because they didn't emphasize that enough when they were created. There is no way this guy is for real.