|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Guy,
QuotesPlus 2.2 is now out of beta, so you might want to check out their
commodity data.
For their free 2-week trial see http://208.240.130.216/
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Guy Tann
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 9:48 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Weekly Picks/Family Email
David
I'm reticent to post any numbers before a year ago, simply due to the fact
that we weren't applying any money management techniques. We would be up
100% a month for 6 or 7 months and then go broke and have to start over.
It's amazing how well you can do applying money management. :)
I have a few slips to file, but I am up to date for this year through
February 25, and I have last year's numbers, so let's see what they say. I
really never look at the numbers and just look at individual trades, since I
don't take any money out of the account.
1999 August - December 60% net return on capital (money in the account).
Before that, we were up and down and not applying our money management rules
so effective our return from January through July was a big ZERO!
2000 Jan through February 25, 2000 41% net return on capital.
With our money management rules, we are only investing 1/3 of our cash. In
real terms, you could triple those results, but again, you have to account
for the excess cash we have invested in bonds. I'm really not sure how we
should count it, and any suggestions would be appreciated. Should our
return be calculated based upon initial margin, or should it be based upon
margin plus Bonds? I really don't know. There's a big difference. Initial
margin on a mini S&P is $4,688. If we make $7,000 on this in 3 months, how
should I look at the rate of return?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of David Bozkurtian
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 5:57 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Weekly Picks/Family Email
Guy,
Thanks for the post. I agree with your supporters. There is a whole lot to
learn from one another and their successes/failures. Unfortunately, all I
would post are failures, and I don't think anyone wants to hear about those.
BTW, what is your annual profit over last 5 years. Can you break down?
Thanks
David
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Weekly Picks/Family Email
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 22:41:22 -0800
Hi All
What a painful day. When we make money, you know about it and when we lose
money, we don't hide that either. :)
My brother closed out the QQQ, DIA and SPY this morning for a pretty good
profit. He lost a little on the DIA and the SPY, but made a bunch on the
QQQ. Unfortunately we hung in there too long with the S&P futures and ended
up taking a pretty good loss on those. The Index profits, unfortunately
only covered half of the futures losses.
We are still short a couple of S&P contracts, but have substantially reduced
our exposure.
That's one of the problems with a mechanical system. You sometimes get
caught on the wrong side of a trade. Normally it ain't so painful. ;-)
Except for the S&P contracts mentioned above, we're on the sidelines.
The reason we missed this long is and I'm offering no excuses:
We had a buy signal, but as part of our trading system, we require
that the Bonds not be in disagreement with our S&P trade. Unfortunately,
the Bonds kept us out of going long. I don't know if any of you recall my
posts a year or so ago when we discussed the apparent uncoupling of Bonds
and Equities. For a year to a year and a half, we traded without the Bonds,
but all the while kept our eye on what impact Bonds had with our system's
results. Sometime last year, we decided that Bonds and Equities had fallen
back into their traditional relationship and that we should revert to our
old methodology (used for the past 15 years). That decision is what bit us
in the rear for the last couple of days.
Now, I know some of you enjoy my rather heated discussions with my brother.
(When he needed a handle for AIM, I suggested things like "bellybuttonlint",
and a couple of other ones I won't repeat here) We're having one right
now. He's come up with something he calls 2 2s. I call it happenstance. :)
He's been pushing those darn 2s for years. He sees something in them and I
feel they're an anomoly. Oh well, I'll spend the weekend looking at those
2s again. Maybe he's finally right about something. :)
He has spent the entire day, re-testing our system with his new 2 2s added
in. Says it looks remarkable and we would have been long for the last 2
days.
I, on the other hand, am going to check to see if Bonds have snuck up on us
and decoupled again in the last 30 days or so. That would be my guess, and
wouldn't require going back over the past 16 years to check it out.
All I can say is thanks to Rick, Lionel, Ton, JimG and all of the others who
contributed to our money management rules. While today was painful, it was
in no way, a catastrophic event. We lost about 53 points per contract, but
we're up over 300 since the first of the year. It's always painful giving
anything back.
Finally, for those interested, here is my brother's comparison spreadsheet
comparing our current system with the current system with the 2 2s added.
Two 2's system Current System
# Trades # W # L % Total pts #
Trades # W # L % Total pts
1997 39 32 7 82 673 26 22 4
84 493
1998 36 28 8 77.8 731 27 21 6
77.8 549
1999 28 23 5 82 639 20 17 3
85 676
2000 10 9 1 90 358 4 4 0
100 324
According to him, we would have been long and according to me, we would have
been long (if we ignored the Bonds). In both cases, we would have been
long. That's would of, could of, should of. Now comes the contrarian in
us. According to our numbers, it's time to go short tomorrow. So here are
our new positions as we see them.
Short the QQQ on strength in the NASDAQ. Who knows when my brother will
jump back in. I will add to our short S&P positions in the morning.
Regards,
Guy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Jim Greening
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:31 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Weekly Picks/Family Email
All,
OK guys, I give up <G>. Thanks for all the kind words! Sorry to have
caused all these posts that are cluttering up the list. To keep them down,
I'll let this post be the answer to all the other posts. I'll let Guy
answer for his Family email, but I will continue my weekly picks, but not
this week since we are leaving in the morning for a long weekend in Atlantic
City. For those of you that are interested, I jumped back in with both feet
shortly before noon today with positions in BEAS, JDSU, RFMD, SCH, and SDLI.
My thought was that with the Dow moving so strong the NASDAQ just had to
follow sooner or later.
JimG
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Ashton" <golden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Weekly Picks/Family Email
> Come back JimG & Guy all is forgiven <g>. If you want to post here on the
> hour every hour, it's alright by me.
>
> George.
>
>
> At 22:41 14/03/2000 -0800, you wrote:
> >I am sorry to know that you have decided to change the beauty of working
on
> >Metastock. It is going to be hard to work on it without the true
knowledge
> >of Jim. Please be sure that i will follow your advice on your web
> >If i may add. I am trully missing the familly letters. It was my sunday
> >pleasure with my coffee to enjoy the misery of the so famous Brother.
> > Well if you two are started your own list please let me know because
it
is
> >surely going to be boring without you guys.
> >
> >sincerely.,
> >
> >eric
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|