Bonsai,
I also think people forget that FTSE has yet to regain 38% of the 2002-2003 bear market (4680), let alone its 50% level (5110). Given FTSE's very,very low tech weighting this suggests, to me anyway, that being overly bearish may be a frustrating experience. I have no idea where the FTSE is going, but I am aware its performance, to-date, has been nothing to write home about. Now if only those Oil companies could get interesting....
I also think people forget that FTSE has yet to regain 38% of the 2002-2003 bear market (4680), let alone its 50% level (5110). Given FTSE's very,very low tech weighting this suggests, to me anyway, that being overly bearish may be a frustrating experience. I have no idea where the FTSE is going, but I am aware its performance, to-date, has been nothing to write home about. Now if only those Oil companies could get interesting....
Ok, whilst it's in limbo, a quick question. I was having a chat with someone last night and we were debating whether the indivdual stocks move the index which move the FUtures or whether it's the futures doing the leading. Although we couldnt agree we did come to the same question,; ignoring the debate of who leads who, how is it possible that, with the amount of money traded on an index with 100 stocks and in future contracts , that the two can track each other so closely? With the amount of exchanges in stocks and contracts and time delays of orders, fills, and information flow surely one would explect more fluctuation between the two than there is.? So why isnt there? Is it because the same people are playing both games?
In general terms it's all rather more sophisticated than it used to be.
Once they created FTSE100, it all changed.
Everybody is watching everything, computers create almost
instantaneous fills and Option traders hedge with futures etc etc.
So it is all interwoven like 'string' theory ?
It all happens too fast to give a simple explanation of who is leading who.
It's a global market these days.
Whatever you do, don't blink !
lol
unless perhaps if you go OTC.
Once they created FTSE100, it all changed.
Everybody is watching everything, computers create almost
instantaneous fills and Option traders hedge with futures etc etc.
So it is all interwoven like 'string' theory ?
It all happens too fast to give a simple explanation of who is leading who.
It's a global market these days.
Whatever you do, don't blink !
lol
unless perhaps if you go OTC.
that was my answer during the debate that its all interdependent, but I still find it quite amazing how similar the futs and cash charts look like at the end of the day. I guess its a Market mystery for someone alot birghter than me to understand
Arbitrage is the answer. Having worked in the smoke I can tell you that it is a significant occupation trading the minute differences between the cash and futures. The big houses have very, very powerful mainframes marking to market constantly. It is the analysis of fair value. When it the futures moves away from it a trade is initiated. (remember these traders have no costs- stamp duty or commission and can deal within the quote)
and in theory anyway, electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. (its a pity some programs arent that efficient- lol)
so how many transactions do you think can be processed
in a minute ?
how fast is your own computer ? (ignoring BT)
100 mips is nothing these days.
so how many transactions do you think can be processed
in a minute ?
how fast is your own computer ? (ignoring BT)
100 mips is nothing these days.
Who is Molly?????
I do not think you can come to any conclusion.
The process is dynamic.
Each product reacts to each other.
It is the similar to the addage: "Which came first ? The chicken or the egg?
City types have only one interest: making money.
I do not think you can come to any conclusion.
The process is dynamic.
Each product reacts to each other.
It is the similar to the addage: "Which came first ? The chicken or the egg?
City types have only one interest: making money.
who said anything was random ?
but its something else to say there is a natural order to things that we are able to perceive.
they are not opposites, surely.
why couldnt there be a whole series of overlapping 'cycles'
some are in phase, so we may recognise them and others out of phase which we call 'noise' .
I suspect the only thing about the market that is random is when
Aunt Agatha buys 2000 shares in Gidgets plc ?
but its something else to say there is a natural order to things that we are able to perceive.
they are not opposites, surely.
why couldnt there be a whole series of overlapping 'cycles'
some are in phase, so we may recognise them and others out of phase which we call 'noise' .
I suspect the only thing about the market that is random is when
Aunt Agatha buys 2000 shares in Gidgets plc ?
