Technical Analysis of Commodities & Precious Metals

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Playmakur42

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
478
Reaction score
2
Hi everyone,

I've been looking online for a website that offers free access to technical analysis charts of precious metals & commodities (i.e. stochastic, MACD, etc) using different time frames (i.e. 1 month, 1 year, etc), but can't seem to find one.

Does anyone know of either a free website, or a reasonably priced pay website that provides this service?

Thanks in advance for the help.
Playmakur
 
Personally I use www.stockcharts.com. I think they have several different subscription and free options.

I believe their basic service starts at $10 a month (or less if you pay for more than one month at a time). They allow you to save your own charts etc, and see some of the public lists of other members.

They don't have all the commodities but they'll have most of the ones you can trade.

Some of the symbols they have and I could post charts on later are: $GOLD, $PLAT, $PALL, $COPPER, $SILVER, $WTIC (oil), etc

I haven't been able to get futures contracts on: wheat, soy, sugar, etc

You'll be able to chart just about anything you can legitimally trade though.

It's really a shame there isn't an ETF for platinum/palladium and copper.
 
I use www.voodoo.com when I am looking for technical analysis info. 😉

How did I know someone would make a smart voodoo related comment? 🙄

Even if you believe in those 'fundamentals'; technicals can still be used as another tool for determining when to buy and when to sell.

Look at all those people who watched their precious Google shares touch nearly 750 only to be down in the 460-470 area just a few months later. You can say the same for Apple at 200+ down to ~115-130 now (I could go on and on) in just 2 months. How much really changed fundamentally? I'd argue that fundamentally they both have changed very little. The technicals are an entirely different story.

Technicals can help you gauge the psychology and sentiment in a stock. After all, there is plenty of emotion and psychology involved. In addition, technicals help you manage your risk and maximize your reward, which is one of the most common themes among successful investors.

In addition, I'd also argue that any fundamentals the average investor is aware of has already been priced into the stock. 🙂
 
How did I know someone would make a smart voodoo related comment? 🙄

Even if you believe in those 'fundamentals'; technicals can still be used as another tool for determining when to buy and when to sell.

Look at all those people who watched their precious Google shares touch nearly 750 only to be down in the 460-470 area just a few months later. You can say the same for Apple at 200+ down to ~115-130 now (I could go on and on) in just 2 months. How much really changed fundamentally? I'd argue that fundamentally they both have changed very little. The technicals are an entirely different story.

Technicals can help you gauge the psychology and sentiment in a stock. After all, there is plenty of emotion and psychology involved. In addition, technicals help you manage your risk and maximize your reward, which is one of the most common themes among successful investors.

In addition, I'd also argue that any fundamentals the average investor is aware of has already been priced into the stock. 🙂


You are exactly right mgdsh, I've been using the emotions of buyers and sellers and looking signal on charts for when to enter and get out. Been very helpful.
 
You are exactly right mgdsh, I've been using the emotions of buyers and sellers and looking signal on charts for when to enter and get out. Been very helpful.

in the short-run, the market is a voting machine. in the long-run, it's a weighing machine.
 
in the short-run, the market is a voting machine. in the long-run, it's a weighing machine.

Whatever your time frame is, technicals can be applied to any data that you can chart.

The ignorance continues....

Let me guess, I should just be like everyone else, blindly pick out random some vanguard funds and buy on every dip ever, because that will promise me the greatest bestest most wonderful returns ever..... just 30 years from now... right?

:laugh:
 
Can you name a single person out there who has beat the market (after expenses and taxes) over the long-term (let's say 20 years) using technical analysis?

Not one? Hmmm....

Why do you suppose that is?
 
Can you name a single person out there who has beat the market (after expenses and taxes) over the long-term (let's say 20 years) using technical analysis?

Not one? Hmmm....

Why do you suppose that is?

Just one? That's it?! You can't be serious.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

Paul Tudor Jones:
- Estimated average annual returns 24%
- He believes prices move first and fundamentals come second.
- He is worth an estimated $2.5 billion, and was ranked by Forbes in March 2007 as the 369th richest person in the world

Not too shabby for a kid who started off as a floor trader in the late 70s / early 80s.

I can literally provide you with a thousand examples, but I really wonder why I even bother with those who want to be so narrow minded as to hijack someone's thread with nothing but smart @$$ comments.

Just another random question (that you probably won't answer): Since all those analysts follow fundamentals, why are their downgrades and upgrades always late to the party? Why is it that the stock has already run up quite a bit or fallen quite a bit? 🙄
 
J

Just another random question (that you probably won't answer): Since all those analysts follow fundamentals, why are their downgrades and upgrades always late to the party? Why is it that the stock has already run up quite a bit or fallen quite a bit? 🙄

Apparently you've mistaken me for someone who thinks fundamental analysis provides a way to beat the market.

P.S. You really believe the reported returns of hedge funds? There is a reason the number is "estimated."
 
Apparently you've mistaken me for someone who thinks fundamental analysis provides a way to beat the market.

P.S. You really believe the reported returns of hedge funds? There is a reason the number is "estimated."

So if you don't believe fundamentals, and you think technicals are a joke, then what exactly is your investment philosophy? Guessing? Trying to pick bottoms? Randomly buying some fund and hoping it'll be up 5? 10? 20 years later?

Re: Hedge funds, I personally don't care for most of them. IMO Hedge fund and mutual fund managers make far too much for what they do. For several them to rack in $1 billion a year in personal income alone (not to mention those that are making several hundred or even $50+ mil a year), something is definitely wrong.

That being said, I do respect the opinions and success of some hedge fund operators: George Soros, Jim Rogers, Boone Pickens, Paul Tudor Jones... among a few others.

Most of these guys started off in middle class or were even immigrants (in the case of Soros), and became so successful at trading the markets that they were all able to gain enough notoriety in order to set up actively manage funds and still continue to out perform the markets to this day.

I'm still waiting for you response to my previous post directed to you (#4 in this thread).

Finally, I'll leave you with a chart (out of all things) showing the relative under performance of the S&P over the last 10 years. The chart is a ratio of the S&P versus the Euro (or the devaluation of our own dollar). Notice how unless you bought the S&P in one of those regions highlighted in yellow you are down or flat on your investment. We won't even get into how bad it looks when you compare the performance of the S&P vs oil, gold, etc. And JMHO, but the euro is going higher (I'm long) and the markets are going lower (I'm short), which will make that chart below look even worse.

spy-euro.png
 
I believe in value investing.

All the equity analysts are not fundamentalists. Their mood swings with the market. They try to predict what the price of the stock will be 12-month later. That to me is too short-sighted and no one can predict what a stock's price is a year later. It often takes 3-5 years for stock's price to catch its intrinsic value. The analysts make changes to model AFTER the price movement has already taken price. To me, that's technical analysis.

If you believe in technical analysis, here is the ultimate question I have. Over what timeframe do you use? For example, 3-month moving average, 6-month moving average of one-year moving average (or day-to-day trading volume + price movements)? You can pretty much change your time frame easily to justify selling or buying a stock.

The issues of Apple and Google show that fundamental investment works while technical analysis doesn't. These were overvalued stocks at $200 and $170 respectively. A value investor wouldn't have bought them at those prices and hence have not lost any money on them. But when they were near their peaks, their moving averages to technical analysts were screaming buys. Yes, they might have sold the stocks since then but would have already lost 10-20% before the technical signals kick in.
 
I believe in value investing.

All the equity analysts are not fundamentalists. Their mood swings with the market. They try to predict what the price of the stock will be 12-month later. That to me is too short-sighted and no one can predict what a stock's price is a year later. It often takes 3-5 years for stock's price to catch its intrinsic value. The analysts make changes to model AFTER the price movement has already taken price. To me, that's technical analysis.

If you believe in technical analysis, here is the ultimate question I have. Over what timeframe do you use? For example, 3-month moving average, 6-month moving average of one-year moving average (or day-to-day trading volume + price movements)? You can pretty much change your time frame easily to justify selling or buying a stock.

The issues of Apple and Google show that fundamental investment works while technical analysis doesn't. These were overvalued stocks at $200 and $170 respectively. A value investor wouldn't have bought them at those prices and hence have not lost any money on them. But when they were near their peaks, their moving averages to technical analysts were screaming buys. Yes, they might have sold the stocks since then but would have already lost 10-20% before the technical signals kick in.

Heh, I hate to say it but most people really don't understand exactly what technical analysis is. They just think its taking a look at a chart and basing decisions on moving average cross overs, or based off of some random price derived indicator like the MACD or stochastics etc.

My real issue with fundamental analysis is how do you determine what your risk is, and when do you cut your losses etc? Most people who invest off of fundamentals don't really know how to do that or factor that into their investment decisions. If you look at some of the greatest investors ever, one of the common themes that resonates among all of them are: money/risk management, knowing when to cut losses short/letting winners run, and being willing to admit they are wrong.

People love to question technical analysis as they point out that it doesn't work every time. Well guess what, nothing in the market works everytime. Yes, there is NO "holy grail."

As I mentioned above, technicals can be used on any time frame you'd like, and technicals are more about following the trend than anything else. I've used them on intraday 1 minute charts or monthly charts spanning a decade+.

Now you say you are a 'value' investor. What do you base "value" on? I could easily argue that if a stock falls or falls considerably, theres a reason for that. Most value investors I know are bottom pickers. There's an old adage on Wall St. "Stocks hitting new lows continue to hit new lows and stocks hitting new highs continue to hit new highs."

Also, Re: GOOG/AAPL, I don't know what technicals you are looking at but nothing in recent memory screams a buy for me on their weekly or daily charts. Most technicians would argue that one of the best times to buy a stock is when its breaking out from a well formed base. Most technicians would also tell you that momentum stocks get hit and get hit hard during bear market corrections, and that if you decide to remain in a stock like GOOG or AAPL, that you should tighten your stops (another tool that 'fundamental' investors don't use).
 
People love to question technical analysis as they point out that it doesn't work every time. Well guess what, nothing in the market works everytime.

Thats what stop losses are for.
 
So if you don't believe fundamentals, and you think technicals are a joke, then what exactly is your investment philosophy?

I save as much as I can. My portfolio more than doubled in size last year. 🙂

I spend most of my time helping patients, and I take what the market gives. If all those full-time, professional mutual fund and hedge fund managers (whether using fundamentals or technical voodoo analysis) can't beat the RELEVANT index fund more than 20-30% of the time over the long term, what would make me cocky enough to think I can?

I buy and hold a fixed asset allocation of low-cost, mostly indexed, mutual funds. I never shoot the lights out, but my portfolio steadily grows each year. I call it the Get Rich Slowly plan. And it only requires me to spend 10 minutes a year on it (to rebalance.) If you were to calculate out your hourly pay for the time you spend on technical analysis, what would your hourly wage be? Divide that by how much you beat the market by (you did, right?) and of course compare that to your portfolio size, and see if it is really worth your time. Say you have a $100K portfolio. By spending 6 hours a week looking at charts and reading financial news you beat a passive strategy by 2%. So that's $2K. Divide that by 300, and you earned $6 an hour. I prefer to see a few extra patients at $150 an hour, save a little more, and take less risk with my portfolio.
 
I save as much as I can. My portfolio more than doubled in size last year. 🙂

I spend most of my time helping patients, and I take what the market gives. If all those full-time, professional mutual fund and hedge fund managers (whether using fundamentals or technical voodoo analysis) can't beat the RELEVANT index fund more than 20-30% of the time over the long term, what would make me cocky enough to think I can?

I buy and hold a fixed asset allocation of low-cost, mostly indexed, mutual funds. I never shoot the lights out, but my portfolio steadily grows each year. I call it the Get Rich Slowly plan. And it only requires me to spend 10 minutes a year on it (to rebalance.) If you were to calculate out your hourly pay for the time you spend on technical analysis, what would your hourly wage be? Divide that by how much you beat the market by (you did, right?) and of course compare that to your portfolio size, and see if it is really worth your time. Say you have a $100K portfolio. By spending 6 hours a week looking at charts and reading financial news you beat a passive strategy by 2%. So that's $2K. Divide that by 300, and you earned $6 an hour. I prefer to see a few extra patients at $150 an hour, save a little more, and take less risk with my portfolio.

ah, yes, the coffeehouse investor philosophy. i'm a recent convert, and although i'm not participating in the thrills of seeing naked options i wrote turn into basically free money, i've got a lot more time to focus on other things that actually matter. it's cool that my homepage is no longer bloomberg.com.
 
It's amazing how many people criticize what they don't understand.

When I trade actively I make a few % points a week (hello compound returns). I can spend as little as a half hour a day. Seeing that I'm not licensed yet, I'd make far more trading than being a resident 🙂

Personally, I don't care what investment style people use. If you look at all my previous posts on this forum, they all basically stress risk management. It's ignorance that gets under my skin. 95%+ people that invest in the markets don't know what technicals are, or how to properly use them. That's perfectly alright, just don't pretend you know.

As I've mentioned, the reason larger funds have trouble getting double digit+ returns a year, is because they have such large positions it takes them months to get in and out of each position. On the other hand, an individual investor is far more nimble. In addition, I have the satisfaction/enjoyment of trading for myself and I'm not stuffing some mutual fund managers pockets.
 
It's amazing how many people criticize what they don't understand.

When I trade actively I make a few % points a week (hello compound returns). I can spend as little as a half hour a day. Seeing that I'm not licensed yet, I'd make far more trading than being a resident 🙂

Personally, I don't care what investment style people use. If you look at all my previous posts on this forum, they all basically stress risk management. It's ignorance that gets under my skin. 95%+ people that invest in the markets don't know what technicals are, or how to properly use them. That's perfectly alright, just don't pretend you know.

As I've mentioned, the reason larger funds have trouble getting double digit+ returns a year, is because they have such large positions it takes them months to get in and out of each position. On the other hand, an individual investor is far more nimble. In addition, I have the satisfaction/enjoyment of trading for myself and I'm not stuffing some mutual fund managers pockets.

i'm not sure if anyone was criticizing you per se, but I think what people were trying to say was that there are more important things in life, especially for those in medicine, than reading charts and stuff. but like you said, you seem to enjoy it, so keep doing it. after all, most of us want to accumulate enough assets in order to retire and follow our passions - it seems like you are able to do that already.
 
When I trade actively I make a few % points a week (hello compound returns). I can spend as little as a half hour a day. Seeing that I'm not licensed yet, I'd make far more trading than being a resident 🙂

If you just make 2% per week and trade 50 weeks out of the year, you can make 169%. Compound that over 20 years, you can turn $1000 into $36 millions. Yes, the power of compound return. You should run your parents' and neighbors' money with that return.

People love to question technical analysis as they point out that it doesn't work every time. Well guess what, nothing in the market works everytime. Yes, there is NO "holy grail."

Now you say you are a 'value' investor. What do you base "value" on? I could easily argue that if a stock falls or falls considerably, theres a reason for that. Most value investors I know are bottom pickers. There's an old adage on Wall St. "Stocks hitting new lows continue to hit new lows and stocks hitting new highs continue to hit new highs."

I believe that over time, value investing is the holy grail.

A value of a business is simply the cash flow that a business generates over its lifetime. It is like when you open a mom-and-pop grocery store and you generate $50k per year in cash to keep. And if someone else wants to buy out your store, the asking price should be close to that $50k per year in cash added all together over time. Obviously, $50k made this year is more valuable than $50k to be made 5 years later (due to time value of money). So future cash flows have to be discounted to arrive at a present value.

It is difficult enough to calculate how much cash a grocery store can generate into the infinite future. So many value investors just generate a 10-year cash flow prediction and put a terminal value 10 years later (i.e. assume that 10 years later, you will sell that very business to some one else and assume that the business will be sold for 10 times the cash flow).

It is not an exact science so you always want to have a margin of safety so you can off by 30% and still come out alright. You always try to avoid ever-changing business because you can't predict cash flow in that situation. You also love businesses with steady and stable cash flow over the past decades because that predict future cash flow.
 
When I trade actively I make a few % points a week (hello compound returns). I can spend as little as a half hour a day. Seeing that I'm not licensed yet, I'd make far more trading than being a resident 🙂.

Here is where I call bull****. I am curious as to whether you even know how to calculate a return. Let's look at your claim of a "few % a week." Let's say few is 4%, just for giggles. Let's say you have $10K, which you compound at 4%/week for a year. After a year, you end up with $76865. You say to yourself, "Self, I'm pretty damn good at this, let's try that again." So you do. Taking that $76,865, and compounding it at 4%/week for another year, you end up at $590,836. Not bad you say, if I do this just one more year I can probably retire, so you do. After year three, you have $4.5 Million. Since you are so good, and enjoy it so much, you decide to go ahead and pursue this for a few more years. At year ten, you buy ALL of the companies in the Dow Jones Index. The next year you buy the rest of the stocks....in the world.

Why in the world would you spend your time putzing around on this website (or in medical school) if you had the ability to grow your portfolio by a few % every week by only spending a half hour a day? Does that make sense to you? Of course not, and that's why it is bull****. You may very well have made a few % one week. You may have been able to repeat it a few times. But this is likely due at least as much to luck as to any investing skill you may possess.

Nevertheless, I will be the first to acknowledge that there are many roads to Dublin, and one can achieve investing success via many very different investing strategies. I just happen to believe that the roads that employ technical analysis are, in the Beatles' words, a "long and winding road."
 
i'm not sure if anyone was criticizing you per se, but I think what people were trying to say was that there are more important things in life, especially for those in medicine, than reading charts and stuff. but like you said, you seem to enjoy it, so keep doing it. after all, most of us want to accumulate enough assets in order to retire and follow our passions - it seems like you are able to do that already.

Yep, cheers.

If you just make 2% per week and trade 50 weeks out of the year, you can make 169%. Compound that over 20 years, you can turn $1000 into $36 millions. Yes, the power of compound return. You should run your parents' and neighbors' money with that return.


I believe that over time, value investing is the holy grail.

A value of a business is simply the cash flow that a business generates over its lifetime. It is like when you open a mom-and-pop grocery store and you generate $50k per year in cash to keep. And if someone else wants to buy out your store, the asking price should be close to that $50k per year in cash added all together over time. Obviously, $50k made this year is more valuable than $50k to be made 5 years later (due to time value of money). So future cash flows have to be discounted to arrive at a present value.

It is difficult enough to calculate how much cash a grocery store can generate into the infinite future. So many value investors just generate a 10-year cash flow prediction and put a terminal value 10 years later (i.e. assume that 10 years later, you will sell that very business to some one else and assume that the business will be sold for 10 times the cash flow).

It is not an exact science so you always want to have a margin of safety so you can off by 30% and still come out alright. You always try to avoid ever-changing business because you can't predict cash flow in that situation. You also love businesses with steady and stable cash flow over the past decades because that predict future cash flow.


Yep unfortunately the law of diminishing returns will and has set in over time.

Back to the value investing, how can you call it a holy grail? You do realize companies can go out of business, and many often sit there and continue to go down or drift sideways to the point your returns are really flat to negative when compared with your opportunity cost.

I'm guessing you have a set of defined rules of what you call a value stock? I'd love explanations on F, GM, Worldcom, Enron, all the airlines, the current mess in the home builders and financial companies, etc.

How long do you wait for them to recover?

When do you cut your losses and preserve your capital?

What's your target to sell?

Also, do you really believe everything the companies report to you as a matter of what their balance sheets look like, etc. I mean look at all those unpriced and undisclosed assets on the tier 3 of all the financial companies. I personally don't trust them to tell me whats going on. No CEO will ever tell you "things look terrible." They're designed to be puppets who will keep falsely reassuring investors as long as it takes. Heck, go on youtube and look up all the videos of Angelo Mozillo of countrywide claiming everything is fine and dandy as the stock went from $40+ to ~4-5 a share when the fed gave BAC the incentive (under the table for that matter) to buy them.

Here is where I call bull****. I am curious as to whether you even know how to calculate a return. Let's look at your claim of a "few % a week." Let's say few is 4%, just for giggles. Let's say you have $10K, which you compound at 4%/week for a year. After a year, you end up with $76865. You say to yourself, "Self, I'm pretty damn good at this, let's try that again." So you do. Taking that $76,865, and compounding it at 4%/week for another year, you end up at $590,836. Not bad you say, if I do this just one more year I can probably retire, so you do. After year three, you have $4.5 Million. Since you are so good, and enjoy it so much, you decide to go ahead and pursue this for a few more years. At year ten, you buy ALL of the companies in the Dow Jones Index. The next year you buy the rest of the stocks....in the world.

Why in the world would you spend your time putzing around on this website (or in medical school) if you had the ability to grow your portfolio by a few % every week by only spending a half hour a day? Does that make sense to you? Of course not, and that's why it is bull****. You may very well have made a few % one week. You may have been able to repeat it a few times. But this is likely due at least as much to luck as to any investing skill you may possess.

Nevertheless, I will be the first to acknowledge that there are many roads to Dublin, and one can achieve investing success via many very different investing strategies. I just happen to believe that the roads that employ technical analysis are, in the Beatles' words, a "long and winding road."

Thanks I know how to calculate my returns. Would it make you feel better if I said I return 5% a year like you've been brainwashed into believing?

While I love to trade, I don't really believe it contributes much to the world. I mean in all honesty, I could retire today and never work, but what is the point in doing that? Going into medicine offers quite a bit and IMO its one of the most honorable professions out there, even if it has fallen out of favor a bit.

Let me also add that IMO doctors are underpaid. If anything as time goes on we continue to drift back into the middle class. The ultra rich continue to separate their gap from the rest of society. In that group of people are those that manage your money, like the fund managers etc. We basically get paid by the hour, or some standard salary. We live in a world that's all about the bonus, or commission etc.

And I'm afraid things may get worse before they get better with all the problems the government is having with budgets etc (inflation is more rampant than people give it credit). In addition, it will be interesting to see how the push for universal health care plays out. I'm voting for Obama because I think he is the only one that can provide this country the spark and the change it desperately needs. I don't mind paying a higher tax rate and higher capital gains rate as a result. I want this country's future to be as bright as possible.

Back on the subject, being an adept trader may help me in other ways in the future. While I eventually plan on trading during the AM (PST 6:30-1 daily) and working in the afternoons/evenings, like one of my favorite traders Dr. Alexander Elder (MD - psychiatrist) .. if indeed medicine does get to the point where it burns me out, I will always be able to take a break later on and work for myself/be my own boss.

At the very worst, I'll work during the day and setup swing trades at night.

BTW if you take a look at the post I made in the thread "Whats your asset allocation for 2008" on Jan 16th and base the returns just on that (most of my positions were entered at far better prices), lol... you'll see with that alone I've done pretty well. I also manage my dad and brother's accounts. Needless to say they are up handsomely as well over the last (insert time frame of your choice here).

intermittently long gold and black gold and all commodities for that matter

short the dollar

short commercial retail

short tech

some CD positioning

somewhat long healthcare, selective pharma

long utilities


saying stocks are on sale here are like saying stocks were on sale in 2000-1


my main intermediate term trades have been: GLD, USO, FXE, SKF, SRS, QID, SDS, and TWM.

Fortunately I was stopped out of the XLV and XLU for a small loss. Let me guess, you don't believe in stops either? and I'm guessing all that was luck too eh?

Good luck.
 
Fortunately I was stopped out of the XLV and XLU for a small loss. Let me guess, you don't believe in stops either? and I'm guessing all that was luck too eh?

Impossible to say with so few data points. You could be skillful, or just lucky. What I do know is I don't have the skill to significantly beat a passively invested portfolio, so I'll stick with something that I know will work. I don't have to be good, or lucky, for my investment plan to work out.

There are probably better ways to invest. But there are thousands of worse ways to invest, and my long-term returns will best most investors.
 
I'd be interested to follow your current trades as they happen. If you'd be willing to post a few, after you're in, of course to prevent slippage.

I worked for 3 years for a hedge fund trading equities and futures with a purely algorithm-based platform. I'm sure you're familiar with the fund-- the owner defined wide range and narrow range mean reversion tech...

Regret going to med school everyday...
 
Impossible to say with so few data points.

Yep, I was just going with what I've displayed publicly here in the past. I figure you won't believe me anyways.

You could be skillful, or just lucky. What I do know is I don't have the skill to significantly beat a passively invested portfolio, so I'll stick with something that I know will work. I don't have to be good, or lucky, for my investment plan to work out.

Nice low blow.

What if the market just drifts sideways in a trading range for the next 5 or 10 years, similar to how the market traded between 1968 and 1982? (That too was a secular bear market, like the one we've been in since 2001).

What if the dollar continues to decline during that period and our economic hardships take a while to resolve?

Just some things to think about.

I'll finish by saying that if you can trade successfully in a market like the one we've got, you can trade successfully in any market.

I'd be interested to follow your current trades as they happen. If you'd be willing to post a few, after you're in, of course to prevent slippage.

I worked for 3 years for a hedge fund trading equities and futures with a purely algorithm-based platform. I'm sure you're familiar with the fund-- the owner defined wide range and narrow range mean reversion tech...

Regret going to med school everyday...

Most of my trades right now are day trades. I do have swing trades on those ETFs mentioned above and a few others. But until the volatility settles down I'm not swing trading any stocks. Heh, I seriously feel like any day you could wake up and see the market gap down 300+ points. Any short swings are pretty much done with options right now. Looks like the Ag plays and solar stocks are starting to show some cracks.

I have been thinking about starting a blog or something for a while, but even then I wouldn't be able to effectively post entires and exits in real time.

Just out of curiosity why do you regret going to med school, and since that's the case, why did you leave the hedge fund in the first place?

Personally I wouldn't have it any other way. I mean managing peoples money or trading is great and all, you get paid really well and its an always challenging, constantly changing, competitive field, but I figure I could always manage my own $$ on the side. IMO, and not to take the high moral ground or anything, but at the end of the day, most people that work on Wall St. don't really do much for the world. I've also noticed that quite a high percentage of people are in it just for the money. I mean look at all these people screaming like little babies for rate cuts anytime the market starts to go down. IMO most of those people would do anything to make a dollar, even if it would result in a more serious economic situation in the future.
 
What if the market just drifts sideways in a trading range for the next 5 or 10 years, similar to how the market traded between 1968 and 1982? (That too was a secular bear market, like the one we've been in since 2001).

What if the dollar continues to decline during that period and our economic hardships take a while to resolve?
.

Honestly, I couldn't ask for a better situation. As Warren Buffett and Benjamin Graham have said, a young investor early in the accumulation phase should get down on his knees and pray for a bear market.

Hopefully diversification between asset classes (domestic stocks, international stocks-protect against dollar devaluation, small stocks, value stocks, REITs, nominal bonds, inflation indexed bonds etc etc) will provide an acceptable return, even in a long "sideways" market. Alternatively, I'll save more and work longer. If I can make a return of 8%, I can retire at 52. But to retire at 60 only requires a return of 4%. Surely you don't think my return over the next 30 years will be worse than 4%, even in a "sideways" market. Plus, the longer we have a sideways market, the more likely we come out with a fantastic bull market like 82-2000, just in time for the last few years of the accumulation phase and the first few of the distribution phase. If for some crazy reason I make historical returns (which I doubt) I could retire after as little as 15 years of practice.

I'll never be able to buy all the shares in the world though.
 
Just out of curiosity why do you regret going to med school, and since that's the case, why did you leave the hedge fund in the first place?


I left the hedge fund world because of your very reasoning. I went to work to make one number into a bigger number. I was stressed out literally every second because of someone else's account balance... Also, the fund I worked for had some ethical flaws that I trust are ubiquitious in the market.


I should have stayed in finance because it was my passion. I thrived on the challenge and the objectivity. Ironically, the very same things I was critical of the field for were what draw me back to it.

Part of my apathy toward medicine is the due to the system we have to operate within. We are expected to provide a service (luxury?) to our clients and do so with a humanitarian underpinning (that we SHOULD help people). The problem is that this same service we provide is then evaluated and compensated in REAL business terms.

I appreciate the simplicity of financial models more now than I did in my youth.


Don't get me wrong-- I do embrace my roll as a physician and don't deny the profundity of our work. I, however, am ultimately an objectivist at heart and our field is anything but.

Cheers to the simple-minded!
 
Honestly, I couldn't ask for a better situation. As Warren Buffett and Benjamin Graham have said, a young investor early in the accumulation phase should get down on his knees and pray for a bear market.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Hopefully diversification between asset classes (domestic stocks, international stocks-protect against dollar devaluation, small stocks, value stocks, REITs, nominal bonds, inflation indexed bonds etc etc) will provide an acceptable return, even in a long "sideways" market. Alternatively, I'll save more and work longer. If I can make a return of 8%, I can retire at 52. But to retire at 60 only requires a return of 4%. Surely you don't think my return over the next 30 years will be worse than 4%, even in a "sideways" market.
It definitely seems like you have very reasonable expectations. That's always a good thing.

Plus, the longer we have a sideways market, the more likely we come out with a fantastic bull market like 82-2000
Uh oh, now you're talking technicals 🙂

"The broader and more well formed the base, the more powerful the move upon the break out." :laugh:

I left the hedge fund world because of your very reasoning. I went to work to make one number into a bigger number. I was stressed out literally every second because of someone else's account balance... Also, the fund I worked for had some ethical flaws that I trust are ubiquitious in the market.


I should have stayed in finance because it was my passion. I thrived on the challenge and the objectivity. Ironically, the very same things I was critical of the field for were what draw me back to it.

Part of my apathy toward medicine is the due to the system we have to operate within. We are expected to provide a service (luxury?) to our clients and do so with a humanitarian underpinning (that we SHOULD help people). The problem is that this same service we provide is then evaluated and compensated in REAL business terms.

I appreciate the simplicity of financial models more now than I did in my youth.


Don't get me wrong-- I do embrace my roll as a physician and don't deny the profundity of our work. I, however, am ultimately an objectivist at heart and our field is anything but.

Cheers to the simple-minded!

Yea, I guess that's one of the real positives of trading from home. I never have the chance to glance over at someone else's screen/account, and my returns are not pressured in anyway.

I think that's also another real benefit to medicine, while as you mentioned we as a profession are undervalued and have definitely been so over the last 10 years (compared to previous times), it is one of the more stable professions out there earning a decent wage. In no way am I pressured to make a certain amount, or am I forced to participate in a market that's not cooperating. I can gradually build up my account balance and not have to withdraw capital to pay bills, etc.

The current system is definitely broken in a lot of ways, but I think it's possible to carve out a niche of what you're comfortable with. I've long believed that no one in medicine really ever gets rich or really wealthy anymore, but that's not to say you can't transform that stability into something on the side.

I also think another real benefit to medicine is that it maintains your humility, which has been the downfall of many successful traders in the past.

Maybe I'm just optimistic but I really do believe over time that the system will change for the better. We're starting to have positive discussions on a national scale of some of the real problems in medicine and how we can change them, namely:
1) frivolous lawsuits and a lack of limits on them
2) insurance companies screwing doctors and patients alike
3) a better system for electronic medical records (and hopefully a better billing system as well)
4) some type of subsidized care in which more people will buy into non medicare plans

And, again maybe I'm just thinking (just hoping?) we don't get screwed in the whole situation. I really believe if things get dramatically worse with out making sure doctors, nurses, and all health care workers aren't on board with whatever plan is proposed, we'll leave the field in droves. Compassion only takes you so far, at some point the opportunity cost of it all will be the bottom line.
 
Top