chump
You are certainly giving it a fair crack of the whip, however, where your analogy is a little weak is in the fact that you are using a corner shop type of business.
When I say this, it is not the product at this point that is the issue, but rather the financial structure of the company. Corporations, have very different dynamics due to their capitalisation structure amongst many others.
All businesses will suffer swings through business and economic cycles, this is standard. The financial condition of the business is one of the important factors in determining how that storm is weathered.
Quote:
|
however , if you took the observation of feet through the door to be TA observations you would have found out much earlier that your expectations were going to be confounded...and this is the equivalent of TA observations because feet through the door is no part of your fundamental data as you would find it in a set of accounts..it is an indirect event that will form an outcome that you will eventually see in your accounts.. just as the observation of a lack of momentum on a chart will eventually be seen to be reflected in the future outcome to price on that chart...
|
However you have touched on the central tenet of this thread, and that is via "networks" or other factors, yet to be discussed, how is new information released, how is it spun, who gets to act upon it first..........those with the first look, how are they analysing this information, how influential are they in others decisions.............and, do they form the herds opinion.
If they do, then the above questions may interest you. Regarding TA "leading" from FA, does it?
I personally disagree. I feel TA is so lagging, as to be trying to run through treacle.
Quote:
|
what your approach is doing is no more and no less than ignoring and washing away the noise that occurs within your timeframe for a trade..in other words it's keeping you in the trade longer than might be the case if you implemented a different trade management (stop approach)...but you could have done the same using either TA or Quants .it's about observation of what you are trading and the forming of a strategy for that instrument that leads to profit ..nothing more ..the methodology is irrelevant ..
|
Here I strongly disagree. The methodology that can sweep, or remove noise, is by a very wide margin the more profitable.
Noise will cost you a great deal of money in failed trades. The entire point of a stoploss, is however to prevent potentially even larger losses.
Notice the emphasis on losses.
This constant attrition of capital will grind down all but the superior traders, as it tends to be frequent. The tighter the stop, the greater the number of times it will be hit, especially in higher beta securities.
Technical traders cannot remove the stoploss in traditional TA, as of course TA measures sentiment, nothing else.
In the other thread, we discussed methodologies that did not rely on measuring sentiment, and the consistent commonality, was the ablation of the stoploss concept as a money management technique ( I accept your modified concept, but this is not an option for a technical trader )
Quote:
|
My footnote on this is you are guilty of confusing poor application with poor methodology...
|
Actually, I just posted the complete opposite on the other thread......................spooky.
Cheers d998