It might actually not be BS in a sense that you do trade those instruments in the same way. But then the question becomes how efficiently?
With the exact same efficiency on both instruments. In the end, anything is just an amplitude signal vs time, and the volatility of this amplitude can be calculated very precisely. Suppose you have instrument A with a volatility of 9% / day and Instrument B with a volatility of 1% / day. You're going to use 9x more leverage (or capital) than Instrument A to trade Instrument B, therefore balancing the volatility of your portfolio to be a perfect match for your risk tolerance.
I hear frequently on ET ...trade what you see...price action.....ignore fundamentals and so on. Why then could not treasuries be traded without the slightest, and I do mean slightest, knowledge of them?
You are talking about risk management here. You still have to be right more often than wrong in order to make money. How do you achieve that trading bitcoins the same way as T notes one being heavily manipulated and the other one being highly liquid, transparent and centralized?
There has never been so mush shorting complacency in 10 & 30 year, history shows that these types of speculators eventually get clobbered. The central banks are active on this market & not just as hedgers - they can clean up on all the shorts any time they please.
You can ignore fundamentals and rely on price action, but do you believe someone who specializes in say T notes, and really knows the way that market moves and behaves, has no edge over someone who is trading 50 other markets and treating them all the same way?
By removing pattern recognition from trading algorithms. By making them reactive instead of predictive. This way, every instrument becomes a different chess game to play, but the rules stay the same. Exact. You have to be right more often than wrong, or doing the exact opposite of your strategy becomes profitable.