Posted by junkmaylbox on 25th of Nov 2008 at 03:11 am
Steve, You mentioned orderly pullback several times during your
market recap tonight. Could you please give defining criteria for
it that would permit to distinguish it from not an orderly
pullback? I inferred from your comments that anything larger than
38% retracement is not an orderly pullback, and a 38% retracement
of the previous moving _is_ orderly. Does volume also factor into
this definition, and if so how? Thanks in advance!
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 07:36 pm
Matt, Thank you for taking your time to explain this trade. I
mistook the bullish wedge for a forming Head and Shoulders
pattern. I noticed that volume was higher on up-moves, but
the price action was trending down. I did not pay attention to the
divergences. That's been a good lesson from you! Have a good
weekend. -Roy
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 08:00 am
I read that one could get about 25 cents per "gallon" of
electricity with a eight-hour recharge of batteries each night on
an electric plug-in car. You can generate electricity off solar
panels, wind, etc. so that you don't have to pay anyone else for
driving your car that way. In theory, so far.
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 06:08 am
I have recently switched to IB and noticed that if I do a day
trade, my buying power is not restored till the end of the day,
even though I close a position intraday. I noticed a similar
pattern in TD Ameritrade. The only broker that fully restores the
buying power after a day trade -- that I know of -- is
Scottrade.
My question to day traders who use IB is, how do you get around
this issue in IB to do multiple day trades during one day? I hold
under $10,000 in IB, I don't know if that matters or not. Thanks
for any comments on this puzzle.
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 03:23 pm
I reckon that there is accumulation happening at 838, which
causes the market to bounce off that support each time. Or short
covering, which has the same effect. It's a very clever strategy, I
must admit.
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 02:20 pm
Dodger, assuming that 838 is broken to the downside, where is
the next support then? I am wondering how risky would be to open a
new short position when SPX at 838 is lost. Thanks in advance!
The solution to this problem is really simple and it involves
smart decisions on position size and stops.
Of course SKF is volatile, it's 100% leveraged so at the very
least, your position size should be half and your stops double what
you would use for, say, XLF.
I've laid out this approach before, and it is based on the
Turtle Rules, but here it is again.
Start with the amount of money you want to risk (i.e. how
much you will lose if your opening stop gets hit). Then determine
your stop using a multiple of average true range (i.e. scale your
stop to the volatility of the issue). Then divide your risk amount
by the stop to figure out how many shares to buy (i.e. to size your
position).
e.g SKF ATR(35) is $10. Let's say you want 2 times ATR as a
stop = $20. Let's say you want to risk losing $1,000 on this trade.
Buy 50sh with a stop $20 below your breakeven, for a $5,500
position.
In this case you have no more chance of being stopped out and
no greater risk than buying, say, 550 shares or $52,250 of TLT.
After a while doing this you will get to the point where you
don't even think to calculate the $ value of your position sizes.
You will only think of capital at risk.
Submitted by Gerald Clifton on Sun,
2008-11-16 21:41.
During the reporting period, gold futures prices remained
range-bound, between 765 and 725, closing Tuesday the 11th at 732.
Thursday, which is not included in this current report, saw gold
spike down to make a double-bottom at 698, almost to the penny, but
prices rebounded immediately to close out the week with a small
gain, Friday to Friday.
On the report, 122 large speculator longs (down 6 from last
week's registrants in this category) were long 102,869 contracts,
down from 107,197 last week. 81 large speculator shorts (up from 68
in last week's report) were short 50,873 contracts, up from last
week's 46,032 contracts. For the third straight week, the longs
liquidated a bit and the shorts got more aggressive. Still, the
average position for large speculator bulls was up slightly for the
week (from 837 contracts to 843 contracts), because the 6 players
who liquidated got out of relatively small positions, considering
the category. The average position for bears declined a bit (from
677 contracts to 628 contracts), again because the new shorts who
came in established relatively small positions. Although the
numbers aren't as dramatic as they have been over the past 6
months, the large speculator bulls still outnumber and outspend the
large speculator bears.
The commercial net short position declined quite a bit, from
last week's 71,169 contracts to this week's 59,204 contracts. This
is the lowest commercial net short position I can remember since
before 2002. This seems bullish on the surface, but may not be. A
fellow named John Cassimatis published a piece on Kitco's
commentary page that raved over how bullish this week's report is,
because the large speculator bears came in with over 4,000
contracts in new short positions. He remarked that large
speculators "...should always be faded." Not necessarily. You fade
the large speculators who are losing the fight for power, not those
who are winning. Right now, it is the large speculator shorts who
are still underfinanced and underrepresented in this report,
relative to the large speculator longs, so the report IS bullish,
but only slightly. For the last 3 reports, the bears have actually
gained a little ground on the bulls.
This is starting to concern me. 3 weeks MAY be the beginning of
a trend. What I do NOT want to see is the large speculator bears
continue to gain on the large speculator bulls, ESPECIALLY on
rising gold prices. Most people who follow these reports on only a
casual basis tend to look at the commercial net short position --
they are conditioned to deduce that the more this number shrinks,
the more bullish things are for gold. Not necessarily, say I. If
they are buying to accomodate a shift in the large speculator
balance of power, then a shrinking net commercial short position is
BEARISH, not bullish. Commercials do NOT speculate -- they merely
balance and re-balance their net positions according to what the
large speculators are doing.
Still, the report is more bullish than bearish, and by a fair
amount. Back in 2007, when gold began its historic run from 640 to
1030, the bulls outmanned and outgunned the bears, but by MUCH
smaller margins than we are seeing now. 641 contracts per large
speculator bull, to 491 contracts per large speculator bear. So,
this week's report IS still on a bullish trajectory. But it is not
the cinch Mr. Cassimatis is drooling over.
Again, we do NOT want to see the large speculator bears doing
scale-up selling -- that is, increasing in number and positions
held while gold is rallying.
Just before this bull market really got going, in 1998-1999, and
again in 2000-2001, the large speculator bulls were doing scale up
BUYING, into falling prices, as the bears were slowly losing THEIR
grip on what was then a gold bear market.
Tops are like bottoms, in that power shifts slowly, and momentum
comes later. So, we'll have to watch these numbers carefully during
the coming period of traditional seasonal strength in gold. So far,
though, the bulls are firmly in charge. Open interest, overall,
dropped another 10,000+ contracts, to a total of 460,180 contracts.
In a sideways market, this is good for the bulls. The long
liquidation may be coming to an end. In the past, especially into
seasonal lows, overall open interest levels of 400,000 to 470,000
contracts have served as launching pads for substantial seasonal
rallies, almost always to new highs. We'll just have to wait and
see.
Posted by junkmaylbox on 14th of Nov 2008 at 06:39 am
Points 2) and 3) are rarely mentioned, IMO. What's puzzling is
that the nature of the subsequent drop should be vicious, yet so
far all breakdowns have been bought to result in intraday reversals
for the past five weeks.
Steve, Your market update from yesterday was one of the best
I've even seen. It has clearly outlined the possible scenarios,
emphasized the preferred course of action, given likely targets for
the ongoing up-move and a subsequent down-move,
described the patterns in which the downside could likely end
(triangle or wedge), and given a time frame for the
completion of wave 5. On the metrics side -- the complement of
technical analysis -- you have stated a number of objective metrics
that support your conclusion that another leg down is likely to
take place in this highly oversold market. I especially value this
reality check-up part: I helps to distinguish between personal
fantasies (this and this will happen, trust me!) and objective
observations (I see that and that, folks; go and check for yourself
if you don't believe me!). Having an ability to _look_ for
_oneself_ is a source of power, and giving objective metrics to
_others_ so that they could use them transfers that power to
others. IMO, that's the difference between a good market analysis
and a stellar one.
Just want to give my words of appreciation for the five hours
you spent in preparation of the market update. Many many thanks to
you!! -Roy
Posted by junkmaylbox on 12th of Nov 2008 at 04:13 pm
You trade on your own. Trying to imitate somebody else is a
recipe for quick losses regardless of whether or not that person is
right. If you are accumulating losses, you are either: going
against the market or aren't letting your trades work for you. Day
trading is more difficult than position trading. You could enter a
position and stay in it till the trend changes, that's much easier.
My advice to you is to paper trade first or trade 10% of your
amount at most till you get it. This is the most difficult market
to trade in decades. Good luck!
Posted by junkmaylbox on 10th of Nov 2008 at 12:55 pm
Matt, what was an indication that the bearish count was primary
in yesterday's newsletter? I got the opposite impression, perhaps
from the fact that you were discussing long trade ideas. I wonder
what I misunderstood or misinterpretted. Through PM if necessary,
please. Thanks, Roy
Newsletter
Subscribe to our email list for regular free market updates
as well as a chance to get coupons!
The community is delayed by three days for non registered users.
How to spot an orderly pullback?
Posted by junkmaylbox on 25th of Nov 2008 at 03:11 am
Steve, You mentioned orderly pullback several times during your market recap tonight. Could you please give defining criteria for it that would permit to distinguish it from not an orderly pullback? I inferred from your comments that anything larger than 38% retracement is not an orderly pullback, and a 38% retracement of the previous moving _is_ orderly. Does volume also factor into this definition, and if so how? Thanks in advance!
URE
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 07:36 pm
Matt, Thank you for taking your time to explain this trade. I mistook the bullish wedge for a forming Head and Shoulders pattern. I noticed that volume was higher on up-moves, but the price action was trending down. I did not pay attention to the divergences. That's been a good lesson from you! Have a good weekend. -Roy
URE
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 04:41 pm
rp, What convinced you to hold on to URE? I sold it before it went negative, and I did not expect it would recover. Merely curious... Thanks!
Yeah, I totally concur with
Thanks - Matt/Steve
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 11:36 am
Yeah, I totally concur with you. Your analysis is spot on, and so are the majority of your guesses. Thanks!
I read that one could
Electric Hybrids/clean coal
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 08:00 am
I read that one could get about 25 cents per "gallon" of electricity with a eight-hour recharge of batteries each night on an electric plug-in car. You can generate electricity off solar panels, wind, etc. so that you don't have to pay anyone else for driving your car that way. In theory, so far.
A question on intraday cash settlements
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 06:08 am
I have recently switched to IB and noticed that if I do a day trade, my buying power is not restored till the end of the day, even though I close a position intraday. I noticed a similar pattern in TD Ameritrade. The only broker that fully restores the buying power after a day trade -- that I know of -- is Scottrade.
My question to day traders who use IB is, how do you get around this issue in IB to do multiple day trades during one day? I hold under $10,000 in IB, I don't know if that matters or not. Thanks for any comments on this puzzle.
interesting, thanks!
use it lose it
Posted by junkmaylbox on 21st of Nov 2008 at 05:50 am
interesting, thanks!
Bearish in 9 out of
Posted by junkmaylbox on 20th of Nov 2008 at 02:45 pm
Bearish in 9 out of 10 cases.
It looks like funds are buying at the support 838
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 03:23 pm
I reckon that there is accumulation happening at 838, which causes the market to bounce off that support each time. Or short covering, which has the same effect. It's a very clever strategy, I must admit.
yeah, she's pretty good for
Louise Yamada thinks if we break the 2002 lows which ...
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 02:50 pm
yeah, she's pretty good for a public commentator.
Dodger, assuming that 838 is
SPX
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 02:20 pm
Dodger, assuming that 838 is broken to the downside, where is the next support then? I am wondering how risky would be to open a new short position when SPX at 838 is lost. Thanks in advance!
On SSO 55 Period stochastic
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 10:23 am
On SSO 55 Period stochastic has given a buy signal on the 15-minute time interval. Waiting to see if it holds.
Money management
Money Management
Posted by junkmaylbox on 18th of Nov 2008 at 08:31 am
Submitted by Ian Rayner on Sat, 2008-09-06 14:15.
Yankee,
The solution to this problem is really simple and it involves smart decisions on position size and stops.
Of course SKF is volatile, it's 100% leveraged so at the very least, your position size should be half and your stops double what you would use for, say, XLF.
I've laid out this approach before, and it is based on the Turtle Rules, but here it is again.
Start with the amount of money you want to risk (i.e. how much you will lose if your opening stop gets hit). Then determine your stop using a multiple of average true range (i.e. scale your stop to the volatility of the issue). Then divide your risk amount by the stop to figure out how many shares to buy (i.e. to size your position).
e.g SKF ATR(35) is $10. Let's say you want 2 times ATR as a stop = $20. Let's say you want to risk losing $1,000 on this trade. Buy 50sh with a stop $20 below your breakeven, for a $5,500 position.
In this case you have no more chance of being stopped out and no greater risk than buying, say, 550 shares or $52,250 of TLT.
After a while doing this you will get to the point where you don't even think to calculate the $ value of your position sizes. You will only think of capital at risk.
COT report (Nov 5 to Nov 11), a repost
Posted by junkmaylbox on 17th of Nov 2008 at 02:51 am
Submitted by Gerald Clifton on Sun, 2008-11-16 21:41.
During the reporting period, gold futures prices remained range-bound, between 765 and 725, closing Tuesday the 11th at 732. Thursday, which is not included in this current report, saw gold spike down to make a double-bottom at 698, almost to the penny, but prices rebounded immediately to close out the week with a small gain, Friday to Friday.
On the report, 122 large speculator longs (down 6 from last week's registrants in this category) were long 102,869 contracts, down from 107,197 last week. 81 large speculator shorts (up from 68 in last week's report) were short 50,873 contracts, up from last week's 46,032 contracts. For the third straight week, the longs liquidated a bit and the shorts got more aggressive. Still, the average position for large speculator bulls was up slightly for the week (from 837 contracts to 843 contracts), because the 6 players who liquidated got out of relatively small positions, considering the category. The average position for bears declined a bit (from 677 contracts to 628 contracts), again because the new shorts who came in established relatively small positions. Although the numbers aren't as dramatic as they have been over the past 6 months, the large speculator bulls still outnumber and outspend the large speculator bears.
The commercial net short position declined quite a bit, from last week's 71,169 contracts to this week's 59,204 contracts. This is the lowest commercial net short position I can remember since before 2002. This seems bullish on the surface, but may not be. A fellow named John Cassimatis published a piece on Kitco's commentary page that raved over how bullish this week's report is, because the large speculator bears came in with over 4,000 contracts in new short positions. He remarked that large speculators "...should always be faded." Not necessarily. You fade the large speculators who are losing the fight for power, not those who are winning. Right now, it is the large speculator shorts who are still underfinanced and underrepresented in this report, relative to the large speculator longs, so the report IS bullish, but only slightly. For the last 3 reports, the bears have actually gained a little ground on the bulls.
This is starting to concern me. 3 weeks MAY be the beginning of a trend. What I do NOT want to see is the large speculator bears continue to gain on the large speculator bulls, ESPECIALLY on rising gold prices. Most people who follow these reports on only a casual basis tend to look at the commercial net short position -- they are conditioned to deduce that the more this number shrinks, the more bullish things are for gold. Not necessarily, say I. If they are buying to accomodate a shift in the large speculator balance of power, then a shrinking net commercial short position is BEARISH, not bullish. Commercials do NOT speculate -- they merely balance and re-balance their net positions according to what the large speculators are doing.
Still, the report is more bullish than bearish, and by a fair amount. Back in 2007, when gold began its historic run from 640 to 1030, the bulls outmanned and outgunned the bears, but by MUCH smaller margins than we are seeing now. 641 contracts per large speculator bull, to 491 contracts per large speculator bear. So, this week's report IS still on a bullish trajectory. But it is not the cinch Mr. Cassimatis is drooling over.
Again, we do NOT want to see the large speculator bears doing scale-up selling -- that is, increasing in number and positions held while gold is rallying.
Just before this bull market really got going, in 1998-1999, and again in 2000-2001, the large speculator bulls were doing scale up BUYING, into falling prices, as the bears were slowly losing THEIR grip on what was then a gold bear market.
Tops are like bottoms, in that power shifts slowly, and momentum comes later. So, we'll have to watch these numbers carefully during the coming period of traditional seasonal strength in gold. So far, though, the bulls are firmly in charge. Open interest, overall, dropped another 10,000+ contracts, to a total of 460,180 contracts. In a sideways market, this is good for the bulls. The long liquidation may be coming to an end. In the past, especially into seasonal lows, overall open interest levels of 400,000 to 470,000 contracts have served as launching pads for substantial seasonal rallies, almost always to new highs. We'll just have to wait and see.
Good luck, all.
She gets 6 months worth
yesterday the only person i know
Posted by junkmaylbox on 14th of Nov 2008 at 04:43 pm
She gets 6 months worth of free rent that way.
I've just got a sell
Posted by junkmaylbox on 14th of Nov 2008 at 03:49 pm
I've just got a sell signal on SSO on 5-minute 7/21 EMA.
Points 2) and 3) are
Posted by junkmaylbox on 14th of Nov 2008 at 06:39 am
Points 2) and 3) are rarely mentioned, IMO. What's puzzling is that the nature of the subsequent drop should be vicious, yet so far all breakdowns have been bought to result in intraday reversals for the past five weeks.
Excellent update last night: Many many thanks!
Posted by junkmaylbox on 14th of Nov 2008 at 05:41 am
Steve, Your market update from yesterday was one of the best I've even seen. It has clearly outlined the possible scenarios, emphasized the preferred course of action, given likely targets for the ongoing up-move and a subsequent down-move, described the patterns in which the downside could likely end (triangle or wedge), and given a time frame for the completion of wave 5. On the metrics side -- the complement of technical analysis -- you have stated a number of objective metrics that support your conclusion that another leg down is likely to take place in this highly oversold market. I especially value this reality check-up part: I helps to distinguish between personal fantasies (this and this will happen, trust me!) and objective observations (I see that and that, folks; go and check for yourself if you don't believe me!). Having an ability to _look_ for _oneself_ is a source of power, and giving objective metrics to _others_ so that they could use them transfers that power to others. IMO, that's the difference between a good market analysis and a stellar one.
Just want to give my words of appreciation for the five hours you spent in preparation of the market update. Many many thanks to you!! -Roy
You trade on your own.
well I am stopped out . $5000 loss since I started ...
Posted by junkmaylbox on 12th of Nov 2008 at 04:13 pm
You trade on your own. Trying to imitate somebody else is a recipe for quick losses regardless of whether or not that person is right. If you are accumulating losses, you are either: going against the market or aren't letting your trades work for you. Day trading is more difficult than position trading. You could enter a position and stay in it till the trend changes, that's much easier. My advice to you is to paper trade first or trade 10% of your amount at most till you get it. This is the most difficult market to trade in decades. Good luck!
Matt, what was an indication
S&P 500 15 min chart.pngS&P 500 30 min chart.pngremember from ...
Posted by junkmaylbox on 10th of Nov 2008 at 12:55 pm
Matt, what was an indication that the bearish count was primary in yesterday's newsletter? I got the opposite impression, perhaps from the fact that you were discussing long trade ideas. I wonder what I misunderstood or misinterpretted. Through PM if necessary, please. Thanks, Roy