Some observations. 1) you delete your posts as fast as you post them. I get the email alert and then when I click on it, find nothing. 2) you edit posts all too frequently. End result is what we read is not your final post, unless someone else happens to quote it. Suggestion: modern version, engage brain before using keyboard/keypad. You have been very consistent in your approach of demanding proof for all claims made. I have criticised you heavily, and I have supported you for sticking to your convictions. Some observations. 1) there was that nonsense about the Death Cross posted in your journal. You cheered it. Someone else posted proof that it is nonsense, you responded by asking that person to not post on your journal again. I think we both believe in freedom of expression, and opposed self-moderation. Please be consistent, even when it is something that contradicts your views. He was polite, did not hurl insults at you, what more do you want? 2) you have made assorted claims and assertions lately, and when asked to provide proof of claim,or support, you have demurred. You are just like DbPhoenix in this respect. I'm trying to get the intelligent people on ET to accept one thing that is universally accepted in the academic and scientific community. If you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to provide proof of claim. There are too many loud mouthed charlatans who think they are very smart when they say do the work yourself, don't be lazy, anyone can figure it out. Those fools belong in a third rate bar in Hillbilly country. They think that by putting the onus on others, they are done. The only thing they are done doing is proving themselves monumental idiots of shallow intellect with no hope in life. You don't need to be one of them.
You are missing the back story on some or all of your observations--- If you get no value from my posts Your smartest move right now is to put me on ignore, big guy. surf
Don't run away sunshine. I posed valid views and questions. You avoid them the same way DbPhoenix did your questions. You use different words, you suggest different ways, but in the final analysis, you both avoid providing an adequate response. And FYI, I've only put 2 people on ignore. The first was a few years ago, that piece of shit who had nothing more to contribute to ET than tell everyone that small traders lose. The second was more recently when a Johnny Come Lately posted something along the same lines. I'm all for people who provide genuine encouragement, I have no patience for idiots who can only tell you it can't be done. And Big Guy? Sheesh, short of lurking I think I keep a pretty low profile here. Stop reaching.
You do keep a low profile and generally seem to be quite intelligent. But im not sure why posting an example of articulating a complex idea so that it can be understood by a non finance or quant type person is needed-- particularly when i explained why i will not. Feel free to ask a specific question and ill answer it if i am able. Ok, time to head back to miami for furniture shopping. :eek: So talk later. Peace. surf
Actually, you avoided answering a question by making that claim, hence I asked you to provide proof of claim. You did not explain why that claim would not be answered. So, specific question, once again. You claim to be best at articulating a complex idea so that it can be understood by anyone. Please provide an example of your explaining such a complex idea or concept. Redact as you wish, just the bare bones. Enjoy the shopping.
Here is a clear example of what I mean. You edited and substantially changed your post in #152, which I quoted, unedited, in #153. FFS, put what you call a brain in gear. Now since you edited, in addition to my original request that you provide an example of providing a simple explanation for a complex idea, would you be so kind as to provide the back story? I'm sure we would all appreciate it.
@Trend Following, @kut2k2, @Visaria: Interesting conversation on merits of long-term Trend Following. However, I do feel that both the sides (Micheal on one side, and @kut2k2 and @Visaria on the other) seem to be talking from their own perspectives without explicitly stating, what I consider to be, the key issue -- applicability of Trend Following for a given 'segment', although the core of the discussion is surrounding that issue. Long-term Trend Following 'works' when its draw-down risk is marginalized. As we all know, a tactic used to mitigate this draw-down risk is to diversify. In order to have a meaningful diversification, one needs access to enough capital. So, Long-term TF is a 'workable' strategy for funds or for HNWIs. There are two other advantages of Long-term TF (one from a fund perspective, and another from an allocator perspective, but neither of these advantages translate to an individual trader). The mechanical nature of TF gives a fund the ability to deploy TF based strats across markets, thereby providing draw-down risk mitigation (already mentioned) and fund capacity (important if one wants to attract institutional allocators). The advantage for the fund is that they can create this capacity with a lower cost structure (as opposed to employing a trader per market, and paying a fraction of returns as compensation to those traders -- compensation is required 'cos the assumption is that a successful trader understands a market's idiosyncrasies and thereby can command a meaningful 'rent'). When a diversified long-term TF fund has a draw-down, the odds are greater that the economy is not doing well. This provides a signal for allocators about the state of economy. I know of allocators who use this 'signal' to increase their expose in diversified long-term TF funds. Clearly, neither of those advantages translate to a non-HNWI individual trader. In my opinion, such traders would be better off not trading long-term TF models. Strats with high sharp and low capacity make more sense for individual traders (realm of traditional prop shops including HFTs). My only beef with Micheal is that he advocates long-term TF as a strategy for everyone. I only wished he would emphasize that long-term TF 'works' because of diversification (I believe he is very much aware of it; so, there is no need for him to be 'told' so) and would alter his message to include such. Otherwise, I think, he is a good source of information on long-term TF. Regards, Monoid.