Wallstreet1928 Analysis & live calls on FTSE,DAX,S&P...aimed to help New traders

Status
Not open for further replies.
that was a good call, my system crashed just as i went to put it on though..so i missed out!!
 
ftse100.an update to the chart with the triangle.
close data.eod
30 point box size by 1 reversal
the range has got even tighter.i think uneless there is really positive or negative news,then there might be some false breakouts.watch for the breakout and then recoil into the pattern and out the opposite side
 

Attachments

  • even.jpg
    even.jpg
    106.3 KB · Views: 120

Attachments

  • 23rd 0900.png
    23rd 0900.png
    28.2 KB · Views: 94
pelzar said:
When you say two contracts, are you actually trading futures contracts or is it £2 a point?
Click to expand...


welcome, welcome my friend .....


closed last contract as well @ 4006 ...........not happy with long!!

I know believe that this market will fall today ...................

1 contract on CFD's = £1 per point on spreadbetting
 
good morning everyone

SP500 cash trading at 846.8 we should get a down swing of minimum 8pts (838.8) imho
 
wallstreet1928 said:
It won't belong before the carnage starts ...........
Click to expand...
:cheesy: I took 28 points. I'm learning not to leave them on the table. I'll wait for it to come back into the Bollinger.

If that H&S works out on ES/S&P it will be real carnage! I'm short there and I'm long Silver, though Silver is a longer term bet.

Are you not out shooting neighbours and council officials?
 
I did well to get out of that. This could roll over again but it's back at the Cash Pivot.

I'm looking a lot at ambush and pivot trades these days. Mostly observing until I get the hang of it. There's a potential ambush short at 8506 on ES/S&P. Worth keeping an eye on if it gets there.
 
RennieAMR said:
I did well to get out of that. This could roll over again but it's back at the Cash Pivot.

I'm looking a lot at ambush and pivot trades these days. Mostly observing until I get the hang of it. There's a potential ambush short at 8506 on ES/S&P. Worth keeping an eye on if it gets there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that should be 8476. I was using the Cash. Apologies.
 
RennieAMR said:
:cheesy: I took 28 points. I'm learning not to leave them on the table. I'll wait for it to come back into the Bollinger.

If that H&S works out on ES/S&P it will be real carnage! I'm short there and I'm long Silver, though Silver is a longer term bet.

Are you not out shooting neighbours and council officials?
Click to expand...

haha.....................no I have a normal day today!!

my tenant hasn't paid rent again and has been pretty quiet for the last few days. He claimed that 40% of electricity wasn't working, so my property manager offered an appointment for an electrician on 3 separate occasions and he refused everyone.

Very strange individual.............

I can evict him on grounds of misrepresentation as he told me he was a solicitor and he derived his income doing private consultancy work for LIFFE(London stock exchange). The law society said he was struck off in 1988 and he is not allowed to practise........!!!!!

"Re Simpson (decision 4222)
Wednesday 13 July 1988

Tribunal: Mr P J Gaynor (chairman), Messrs Bamford and Griffin
Hearing, 17 March 1988; decision, 26 May 1988
Clients' money -- use for own purposes -- conviction on criminal charges -- failure to produce accounts for inspection.
Paul Stephen Simpson, the respondent, was admitted in 1966. For some 17 years he ran a flourishing and busy practice specialising in legal aid work. His accounts were kept in good order. Many of the respondent's clients could not read or write, and he spent a great deal of time with them. By 1982 his workload had become too great for one person and in September he entered into partnership with a solicitor of ten years' experience who had the highest possible references. The partnership did not work out; the respondent's partner appeared to make a number of silly mistakes an d to introduce irregularities into the firm's accounts. The partner had attempted to take his own life, and the respondent decided not to burden him further and tried to put matters right himself. The partnership was dissolved in March 1983. Thereafter the respondent practised on his own account until the Law Society intervened in his practice. The firm's books of account were inspected by the Law Society's investigation accountant in February 1984. A cash shortage on client account of £2000 was discovered; this was promptly remedied. The books of account were otherwise found to be in order, but the investigation accountant did not inspect the respondent's office account where (the respondent later alleged) a substantial debit balance had been created by the respondent's former partner. The respondent did not keep properly written-up books of account after January 1984.
The respondent was advised that the investigation accountant would again call at his office to inspect his books of account on 20 February 1985. When the investigation accountant arrived he was handed a letter stating that the respondent's accountant would sort the matter out. The investigation accountant made a further appointment to see the respondent, but again the respondent did not attend. The respondent's accountant said that he had no documents in his possession later than the end of 1983. Some £42,000 had been paid to clients of the respondent from the compensation fund and further claims totalling £3500 were pending. An accountant was appointed by the police to examine the respondent's financial records; in October 1987 he was convicted on his own confession of four offences of theft and three offences of false accounting and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Complaint was made on behalf of the Law Society tot he Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 8 July 1987 (and a supplementary affidavit was filed on 24 November 1987) that, inter alia, (i) the respondent had failed to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1975, in that he had failed to keep properly written-up accounts, contrary to r. 11, he had improperly withdrawn money from client account, contrary to rr.7 and 8, and he had failed to make his books of account available for inspection by the investigation accountant, contrary to r.12; and (ii) the respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct, in that he had used clients' money for the benefit of a person not entitled thereto, and he had been convicted and sentenced for offences of theft and false accounting.
Andrew Lockhart-Mirams, a partner in Hempsons, London WC2, for the applicant. The respondent appeared in person.
The tribunal found the allegations set out above, which had not been contested, to have been substantiated. The use of clients' money by a solicitor for his own purposes constituted serious misconduct. The respondent had been convicted on his own confession of offences of theft and false accounting and at the time of the hearing was serving a custodial sentence. The tribunal was mindful of both the public interet and the preservation of the good reputation of the profession as a whole. The tribunal ordered Paul Stephen Simpson of HM Prison, Kirkham, Preston, to be struck off the Roll. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs (to be taxed)."

the problem: legal costs = £1000

is it worth it.............

option A- pay £1000 and have him evicted

option B: be patient and just get what ever i can out of him as he is claiming £400 per month of housing benefit and then evict him at his 12 month short hold tenancy agreement

what would you do?
 
wallstreet1928 said:
haha.....................no I have a normal day today!!

my tenant hasn't paid rent again and has been pretty quiet for the last few days. He claimed that 40% of electricity wasn't working, so my property manager offered an appointment for an electrician on 3 separate occasions and he refused everyone.

Very strange individual.............

I can evict him on grounds of misrepresentation as he told me he was a solicitor and he derived his income doing private consultancy work for LIFFE(London stock exchange). The law society said he was struck off in 1988 and he is not allowed to practise........!!!!!

"Re Simpson (decision 4222)
Wednesday 13 July 1988

Tribunal: Mr P J Gaynor (chairman), Messrs Bamford and Griffin
Hearing, 17 March 1988; decision, 26 May 1988
Clients' money -- use for own purposes -- conviction on criminal charges -- failure to produce accounts for inspection.
Paul Stephen Simpson, the respondent, was admitted in 1966. For some 17 years he ran a flourishing and busy practice specialising in legal aid work. His accounts were kept in good order. Many of the respondent's clients could not read or write, and he spent a great deal of time with them. By 1982 his workload had become too great for one person and in September he entered into partnership with a solicitor of ten years' experience who had the highest possible references. The partnership did not work out; the respondent's partner appeared to make a number of silly mistakes an d to introduce irregularities into the firm's accounts. The partner had attempted to take his own life, and the respondent decided not to burden him further and tried to put matters right himself. The partnership was dissolved in March 1983. Thereafter the respondent practised on his own account until the Law Society intervened in his practice. The firm's books of account were inspected by the Law Society's investigation accountant in February 1984. A cash shortage on client account of £2000 was discovered; this was promptly remedied. The books of account were otherwise found to be in order, but the investigation accountant did not inspect the respondent's office account where (the respondent later alleged) a substantial debit balance had been created by the respondent's former partner. The respondent did not keep properly written-up books of account after January 1984.
The respondent was advised that the investigation accountant would again call at his office to inspect his books of account on 20 February 1985. When the investigation accountant arrived he was handed a letter stating that the respondent's accountant would sort the matter out. The investigation accountant made a further appointment to see the respondent, but again the respondent did not attend. The respondent's accountant said that he had no documents in his possession later than the end of 1983. Some £42,000 had been paid to clients of the respondent from the compensation fund and further claims totalling £3500 were pending. An accountant was appointed by the police to examine the respondent's financial records; in October 1987 he was convicted on his own confession of four offences of theft and three offences of false accounting and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Complaint was made on behalf of the Law Society tot he Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 8 July 1987 (and a supplementary affidavit was filed on 24 November 1987) that, inter alia, (i) the respondent had failed to comply with the Solicitors Accounts Rules 1975, in that he had failed to keep properly written-up accounts, contrary to r. 11, he had improperly withdrawn money from client account, contrary to rr.7 and 8, and he had failed to make his books of account available for inspection by the investigation accountant, contrary to r.12; and (ii) the respondent had been guilty of unbefitting conduct, in that he had used clients' money for the benefit of a person not entitled thereto, and he had been convicted and sentenced for offences of theft and false accounting.
Andrew Lockhart-Mirams, a partner in Hempsons, London WC2, for the applicant. The respondent appeared in person.
The tribunal found the allegations set out above, which had not been contested, to have been substantiated. The use of clients' money by a solicitor for his own purposes constituted serious misconduct. The respondent had been convicted on his own confession of offences of theft and false accounting and at the time of the hearing was serving a custodial sentence. The tribunal was mindful of both the public interet and the preservation of the good reputation of the profession as a whole. The tribunal ordered Paul Stephen Simpson of HM Prison, Kirkham, Preston, to be struck off the Roll. The respondent was also ordered to pay costs (to be taxed)."

the problem: legal costs = £1000

is it worth it.............

option A- pay £1000 and have him evicted

option B: be patient and just get what ever i can out of him as he is claiming £400 per month of housing benefit and then evict him at his 12 month short hold tenancy agreement

what would you do?
Click to expand...

option B - patience then take action (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

wallstreet1928
Wallstreet1928 is back-Analysis & Live Calls on FTSE/DAX.aimed to help new traders 2
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
15K
francisfinley
F
Mr Squirrel
  • Locked
Reminiscences of a Wallstreet1928 Subscriber
2
Replies
21
Views
6K
shewolf
S
rossored
emini S&P Intraday Charts
2
Replies
23
Views
5K
ES0
E
8
Ftse,dow,gold,aim....
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tempted
T
Dinos
Trading the DAX
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
28K
DuCaan
D
Top