BTW you people know that the market crashed today?
-
As I said before, I am hoping for the stocks market to crash. The financial institutions may well be the main losers this time round...the fact is, none of them can be honestly sure how much exposure they have to the US sub-prime market. From the readiness with which local banks were ready to lend to even undergrads to speculate in the property market, I would say we have a sub-prime property problem of our own. Property prices are far too high, private condos are overvalued.Originally posted by LordIcarus:recession predicted next year. cause it happens every ten to eleven years? signs are showing: us property stocks?
I am hoping for a major crash and pick up the mortgagee sales afterwards. -
WTF
i dunno who here is actually listening to andrew, but you should stop doing so right now.
About the only thing he says that is really applicable is the fact that you should not over-leverage.
if you make only 3 trades in 10 years, as he advises, you're just as well off buying and holding to make the market beta. Only in a bull market does such a strategy pay off, and often poorly. The whole point of the game is to beat the market beta.
That said, you should not be trading with technical analysis either unless you understand the concept of stop loss. The reason alot of ppl lose out big is because of the lack of a stop loss. As an "Ex commodities trader", andrew should understand this very well. He's really just fear mongering here.
This sub-prime crash has been long coming, but no one really knew when the trigger would be pulled. Andrew could just have easily sold late and made a loss. The fact that he is milking this random result as testament to his trading abilities is just ridiculous. For crying out loud, he's actually proud that he made the beta on a bull market. In fact, i'm left wondering if he didn't really underperform the market beta.
Of course, his entire aim is to minimise risk(if his book is to believed, he's pretty risk adverse). But risk/profit is a direct ratio. His approach may not work for you if you(and i hope so) are not looking to safely invest with underperforming returns.
As he has said many times, he is uncle liao. He probably prefers a quiet life. For most investors here, you're looking to make money. Taking his advice will NOT be giving you the returns you expect to see. You'll start to tweek it a little to increase profits without knowing what variables he utilised to come to his conclusion. That is how gambling will start.
I'm sorry andrew, if you don't think there can be "bread and butter" trading, I don't see why you're in the market at all. If you do not believe that the market is a profitable venture, why are you even in it. And if it can be profitable, is it that inconceivable to you that someone more competent than yourself can make a living out of it?
Andrew jeers at technical analysis, but it is a fact that technical analysts are the ones who reap in the most profits. They up the stakes of risk to gain greater profits. They are the ones who indubitably outperformed andrew many times in the past few years. And they are the ones who will possibly still pull in small profits while andrew holds his paper loss during bear markets. Sure, some of them will blow up along the way, but obviously the risk of this is offset by the potential profits. That's why they are still around.
I do have a direct question for you andrew. Did you blow up? Is that why you're no longer a trader? If so, i can really understand why you're so risk adverse. -
deathbait... dun teach him... He thought he already know everything in the world le
he dare to write a book wif this limited knowledge he surely dare to hold a seminar wif the same limited knowledge...
wait till he hold one seminar we go his seminar wif all the questions... tear his stage
me got many idols... LKY.. warren buffett ... followed by Larry Williams (TA Guy wif Guts~~)
-
Technical analysis is good if you have a "stop loss" strategy?Originally posted by deathbait:WTF
i dunno who here is actually listening to andrew, but you should stop doing so right now.
About the only thing he says that is really applicable is the fact that you should not over-leverage.
if you make only 3 trades in 10 years, as he advises, you're just as well off buying and holding to make the market beta. Only in a bull market does such a strategy pay off, and often poorly. The whole point of the game is to beat the market beta.
That said, you should not be trading with technical analysis either unless you understand the concept of stop loss. The reason alot of ppl lose out big is because of the lack of a stop loss. As an "Ex commodities trader", andrew should understand this very well. He's really just fear mongering here.
This sub-prime crash has been long coming, but no one really knew when the trigger would be pulled. Andrew could just have easily sold late and made a loss. The fact that he is milking this random result as testament to his trading abilities is just ridiculous. For crying out loud, he's actually proud that he made the beta on a bull market. In fact, i'm left wondering if he didn't really underperform the market beta.
Of course, his entire aim is to minimise risk(if his book is to believed, he's pretty risk adverse). But risk/profit is a direct ratio. His approach may not work for you if you(and i hope so) are not looking to safely invest with underperforming returns.
As he has said many times, he is uncle liao. He probably prefers a quiet life. For most investors here, you're looking to make money. Taking his advice will NOT be giving you the returns you expect to see. You'll start to tweek it a little to increase profits without knowing what variables he utilised to come to his conclusion. That is how gambling will start.
I'm sorry andrew, if you don't think there can be "bread and butter" trading, I don't see why you're in the market at all. If you do not believe that the market is a profitable venture, why are you even in it. And if it can be profitable, is it that inconceivable to you that someone more competent than yourself can make a living out of it?
Andrew jeers at technical analysis, but it is a fact that technical analysts are the ones who reap in the most profits. They up the stakes of risk to gain greater profits. They are the ones who indubitably outperformed andrew many times in the past few years. And they are the ones who will possibly still pull in small profits while andrew holds his paper loss during bear markets. Sure, some of them will blow up along the way, but obviously the risk of this is offset by the potential profits. That's why they are still around.
I do have a direct question for you andrew. Did you blow up? Is that why you're no longer a trader? If so, i can really understand why you're so risk adverse.
Either it works or it doesn't. If it works "sometimes then you might as well tikam tikam because when you tikam tikam, you also get it right "sometimes". Is it then a valid conclusion that as long as you have stop loss, then tikam tikam is good?
People. always remember that when others ask you to gamble, they have ulterior motives.
They hate people that trade 3 times in ten years because you will be the winner without letting the "system" earn their "commissions".
Some of them know that if you trade excessively using bogus techniques like "technical analysis" you will damage yourself, but to them it is, "hey, who cares as long as I earn my commissions." Some of them are just too stupid to know it.
I used to be a manager in a brokerage and I have seen so many people being fooled with bogus techniques and strategies that sounds so good unless you have studied it and know how bad it is. -
There is no need to "know everything in the world".Originally posted by sunny6110:deathbait... dun teach him... He thought he already know everything in the world le
he dare to write a book wif this limited knowledge he surely dare to hold a seminar wif the same limited knowledge...
wait till he hold one seminar we go his seminar wif all the questions... tear his stage
me got many idols... LKY.. warren buffett ... followed by Larry Williams (TA Guy wif Guts~~) 
You just need to know enough (and more than you). -
lol your reply is such a joke.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Technical analysis is good if you have a "stop loss" strategy?
Either it works or it doesn't. If it works "sometimes then you might as well tikam tikam because when you tikam tikam, you also get it right "sometimes". Is it then a valid conclusion that as long as you have stop loss, then tikam tikam is good?
People. always remember that when others ask you to gamble, they have ulterior motives.
They hate people that trade 3 times in ten years because you will be the winner without letting the "system" earn their "commissions".
Some of them know that if you trade excessively using bogus techniques like "technical analysis" you will damage yourself, but to them it is, "hey, who cares as long as I earn my commissions." Some of them are just too stupid to know it.
I used to be a manager in a brokerage and I have seen so many people being fooled with bogus techniques and strategies that sounds so good unless you have studied it and know how bad it is.
let's talk about my 2 questions to you.
1) did you beat market beta? If not, you already losing money
2) did you "blow up"? I guess not, since you like..erm...weren't even a trader?
and now, regarding your reply:
1) Analysis of fundamentals have been known to turn out bad results also. How is that different from technical analysis? The only reason you hear about more errors from technical analysis is because of the sheer volume. When holding out to reap beta, ie, fundamentalist trader, you make a few trades every year. When you're doing TA, you make many trades a month.
2) I'm sorry, for the dim witted, pattern mining may seem tikam. For those who understand what patterns mean, they represent a gamble where odds have been shown to be in your favor in the past.
I'll list an example anyway since you're an idiot. Say i show you a game. There's this box that will reveal the result of whether you won or lost, but the process of the gamble is totally out of sight. What I will give you however, is the records of everyone who has won or lost. If you notice that 70% of the time, after 21 ppl have lost in succession, the next gamble is always a winning result, would you wait for 21 ppl to lose, then play? Or you jump straight in? Andrew suggests all TA teaches you is to jump straight in. But in reality, TA just gives you the additional odds to jump in. Andrew obviously does not understand odds. Even if the odds are 99% in your favor, u can STILL lose. But no one is ever going to turn down gambles with odds>50%. That's what TA hopes to achieve.
3) I'm not against ppl who are stupid enough to think they are investing geniuses when they only make 3 trades in 10 years. Hell, they are the backbone on which the investment bubble is built upon. By that, i mean that they are the losers in the game. Small losers to be sure, but almost certainly constant losers.(repeat after me: making money on the market does not mean you made money unless you made more than your OC, which in this case is market beta). I am, however, against idiots such as andrew who think they are so good they want to influence everyone else into having such a silly pasttime. Invest and then ignore completely? The stuff of legends!
4) The key point here is the term "Excessive". Anything done in excess is obviously bad. Andrew shows his how desperate he is by putting up a strawman argument. A broker never gives you advice, and god help you if you actually listen to his advice. It's a conflict of interest, duh. But we're talking about investors to investor advice here. Well done side-stepping the topic...well almost.
Let's not talk about brokers(which we never were.seems only andrew is). Talk about investors, or investment firms that invest for you. They will never advice you to expose yourself to ridiculous risk. The more you earn, the more they earn. No conflict of interest. Let's talk about the advice that is given on this forum. How many ppl here would actually benefit directly by giving bad advice?
Seriously.
Here's a name.
Andrew, the consultant.
btw andrew, how often did you stay awake in class when "studying up" on TA.
(or if you prefer, do you even understand statistics?)
I want to post more, but decided the explanation of gambler's ruin should be left as an exercise for the reader on wiki. FYI, that's the reason why stop loses are important. Nothing to do with tikam tikam. -
cynics~!!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Technical analysis is good if you have a "stop loss" strategy?
Either it works or it doesn't. If it works "sometimes then you might as well tikam tikam because when you tikam tikam, you also get it right "sometimes". Is it then a valid conclusion that as long as you have stop loss, then tikam tikam is good?
People. always remember that when others ask you to gamble, they have ulterior motives.
They hate people that trade 3 times in ten years because you will be the winner without letting the "system" earn their "commissions".
Some of them know that if you trade excessively using bogus techniques like "technical analysis" you will damage yourself, but to them it is, "hey, who cares as long as I earn my commissions." Some of them are just too stupid to know it.
I used to be a manager in a brokerage and I have seen so many people being fooled with bogus techniques and strategies that sounds so good unless you have studied it and know how bad it is.
me still young ... cannot tink like u... -
If you pay a hundred thousand and you get one hundred and ten thousand, you are losing money????Originally posted by deathbait:lol your reply is such a joke.
let's talk about my 2 questions to you.
1) did you beat market beta? If not, you already losing money
"beat the market beta" is just another red herring concept the scam artists use to con people. They talk like beating the market beta is free and if you do not take it, you are stupid. That is what con artists like people to believe.
Delusional to the max... believing in things you have no idea of.Originally posted by deathbait:2) did you "blow up"? I guess not, since you like..erm...weren't even a trader?
Why do you believe or you think I believe that fundamental analysis will never turn out bad results is beyond me.Originally posted by deathbait:and now, regarding your reply:
1) Analysis of fundamentals have been known to turn out bad results also. How is that different from technical analysis?
hahaha if you think that is the "only" reason, you so need to read my book.Originally posted by deathbait:The only reason you hear about more errors from technical analysis is because of the sheer volume. When holding out to reap beta, ie, fundamentalist trader, you make a few trades every year. When you're doing TA, you make many trades a month.
Gambling is bad, read my book to find out why, or you can take a gamble and not read it.Originally posted by deathbait:2) I'm sorry, for the dim witted, pattern mining may seem tikam. For those who understand what patterns mean, they represent a gamble where odds have been shown to be in your favor in the past.
What a stupid example. In a roll of a dice, the odds are the same whether it is the first "try" or the 21st "try".Originally posted by deathbait:I'll list an example anyway since you're an idiot. Say i show you a game. There's this box that will reveal the result of whether you won or lost, but the process of the gamble is totally out of sight. What I will give you however, is the records of everyone who has won or lost. If you notice that 70% of the time, after 21 ppl have lost in succession, the next gamble is always a winning result, would you wait for 21 ppl to lose, then play? Or you jump straight in? Andrew suggests all TA teaches you is to jump straight in. But in reality, TA just gives you the additional odds to jump in. Andrew obviously does not understand odds. Even if the odds are 99% in your favor, u can STILL lose. But no one is ever going to turn down gambles with odds>50%. That's what TA hopes to achieve.
Just because it was 70/100 for the previous outcomes, it does not mean.... hahaha read my book to know the answer.
hahaha bubbles are created by delusional people that are chasing the market all the time because they think they have discovered a way to see the future...Originally posted by deathbait:3) I'm not against ppl who are stupid enough to think they are investing geniuses when they only make 3 trades in 10 years. Hell, they are the backbone on which the investment bubble is built upon. By that, i mean that they are the losers in the game. Small losers to be sure, but almost certainly constant losers.(repeat after me: making money on the market does not mean you made money unless you made more than your OC, which in this case is market beta). I am, however, against idiots such as andrew who think they are so good they want to influence everyone else into having such a silly pasttime. Invest and then ignore completely? The stuff of legends! As long as outcomes in the future remain uncertain, all "predictions" are just a gamble and gambling is bad... why is gambling bad? hahaha, you know where to find the answer.
Trade three times in ten years, do not sell until you see a profit and these people are losers for sure? hahahahaha, I think you need to see a psychiatrist.
So don't, trade only about three times in ten years.Originally posted by deathbait:4) The key point here is the term "Excessive". Anything done in excess is obviously bad.
Strawman? How can it be when you agree with me that there is a conflict of interest? hahaha you have an ad hom fallacy in your head.Originally posted by deathbait:Andrew shows his how desperate he is by putting up a strawman argument. A broker never gives you advice, and god help you if you actually listen to his advice. It's a conflict of interest, duh. But we're talking about investors to investor advice here. Well done side-stepping the topic...well almost.
"stay awake in class when "studying up" on TA."???!!!Originally posted by deathbait:Let's not talk about brokers(which we never were.seems only andrew is). Talk about investors, or investment firms that invest for you. They will never advice you to expose yourself to ridiculous risk. The more you earn, the more they earn. No conflict of interest. Let's talk about the advice that is given on this forum. How many ppl here would actually benefit directly by giving bad advice?
Seriously.
Here's a name.
Andrew, the consultant.
btw andrew, how often did you stay awake in class when "studying up" on TA.
(or if you prefer, do you even understand statistics?)
I want to post more, but decided the explanation of gambler's ruin should be left as an exercise for the reader on wiki. FYI, that's the reason why stop loses are important. Nothing to do with tikam tikam.
I was TEACHING TA
There is BTW a difference between TEACHING TA and SELLING TA. -
wah. * clap* clap*
-
lol you're cute.
1) ""beat the market beta" is just another red herring concept the scam artists use to con people."
i never said you needed to beat the beta. But you should at least match it, because it IS erm...free? You never answered me as to whether you managed to beat the "free" beta.
2) your rebuttal to my second point was even better. Claim i'm delusional when you keep evading my direct questions. You could have answered the question directly in the last 3 posts, inclusive of your last one, but chose not to do it.
3) I so do not need to read a book written about gambling by an author who doesn't even know how the numbers are placed on a roulette wheel.
4) strawman arguments seem to be your forte. Gambling is bad. Well duh, genius. But that wasn't the issue i raised. I talked about playing the odds. If you think playing the odds is the same as blind gambling, i urge you to actually find out what a book is and read some.
5) i wonder why you assume it's a dice roll when i specifically told you the mechanisms were hidden. What if i told you the process was really a pack of cards that are always in the same order, with the winning card always after 21 losing cards, and the only time it doesnt occur is due to machine failure? I know i know, you'll still bet every single round equally because you're so smart. I like how you assume everything is a random dice roll just because you don't understand the mechanics.
6) Oh look captain obvious. Obviously future outcomes are uncertain. Are you totally cut off from gambling? by your defination, anything which is not 100% is a gamble. I assume you wake up every morning, afraid that getting up will trigger the 0.0003% odds of you spraining your back. Hey it's not 100% safe. I'm sure you probably don't even go out. OMG CARS!
7) Like i said, you can trade 3 times every ten years. Hell you can burn your money for all i care. Just don't influence everyone else to do it just so you can earn money via books and talks.
I'm sorry if you misunderstand simple english. Brokers don't give you advice, and you're never supposed to listen to them. If you're dumb enough to have ever taken a broker's advice, any further debate is like taking candy from a baby. I'm not a broker, and neither are you. To bring brokers into the argument is as on-topic as talking about flying pigs. Btw, i've just explained what a strawman arguement is.
9) Oh so now you're a teacher of TA. But you openly admit TA is BS. So what you've been doing thus far as a teacher was knowingly teaching your students BS for a living. I find your credentials very disturbing.
I've pointed this out before, and i'll do it again. The only person who stands to benefit from andrew's fear mongering is andrew himself. Everyone else who has voiced his opinion here has 0 interest vested in the topic.
Andrew has made money in a bull market via buy and hold. That's hardly testimony to a great strategy. He's not making money. He's losing opportunity cost.
Of course, andrew can debunk my last point by revealing how well he did in comparison to the market beta over the time frame of his investment. But i'm starting to think that will never happen.
Andrew, as long as you hide behind all the strawman logical fallacies you put up, you'll always be a liar. Why not back it up with solid logical arguments for once. -
TA works well in forex !!!
stocks works well with fundamentals . -
Nonsense.Originally posted by goldevil:TA works well in forex !!!
stocks works well with fundamentals . -
Oil Rises to Record on Concern Turkey May Attack Northern Iraq
Ho Ho Ho.... maybe sparks will fly again....
By Grant Smith
Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose to a record near $88 a barrel on concern Turkey may attack Kurdish militants in Iraq and disrupt oil shipments. -
I am curious, the market rebounded and hit a new record, but did the shares you own rebounded and hot new highs... hmmmmm .....
-
"This too shall pass."
-
ah... words of wisdom...
-
All those using borrowed money to buy... don't wait until they force you to sell at the bottom than you happy ah!
-
Don't say you were not warned hor....
VALUE 13,522.02
CHANGE -366.94
% CHANGE -2.64
TIME 10/19
TOTAL MEMBERS 30
UP 0
DOWN 30
UNCHANGED 0
Party time tomorrow.
The index might hold up... watch your own stocks to gauge if market manipulation to make it look rosy is taking place... -
u dunno which index stocks rise to push up index, do u?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I am curious, the market rebounded and hit a new record, but did the shares you own rebounded and hot new highs... hmmmmm .....
as usual, talk v loud, but lack of knowledge -
How can anyone know? They don't publish it in the newspapers, they don't publish it online, you cannot ask your brokers... how can anyone know?Originally posted by sunny6110:u dunno which index stocks rise to push up index, do u?
as usual, talk v loud, but lack of knowledge -
If u do ur homework well enuff, u'll know. Everytime they take out a stock frm the index or add in, they'll publish in 1 small corner in the newsparer.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:How can anyone know? They don't publish it in the newspapers, they don't publish it online, you cannot ask your brokers... how can anyone know? -
hello andrew
you like to quote from bloomberg
it can be found on your bloomberg terminal -
wah can even be found on wikiOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:How can anyone know? They don't publish it in the newspapers, they don't publish it online, you cannot ask your brokers... how can anyone know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_Times_Index#List_of_index_stocks
you actually dare to consult the index as a reference without knowing what moves the index?
And to quote it as evidence is just LOL. -
last updated feb 2007.Originally posted by deathbait:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_Times_Index#List_of_index_stocks
not accurate anymore... got quite some changes -
You need to know some things but some things are not important.
Some things, people guess but they will talk to you like they have inside knowledge and talk like what they say follows scientific laws and predictions.
Be careful of people like that. They are trying to manipulate your mind.