|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Way to go Steve, well said Jim Simko
Steve Karnish wrote:
>
> Ton,
>
> Although this is not a pleasant task, I feel compelled to defend myself
> against your relentless attacks (which are untrue and certainly unbecoming).
> For anyone not interested in this defense, please delete this post now. I'm
> not interested in boring the public...just trying to set the record straight
> against a vicious and false attack. Just a quick review (boy, this sure
> sucks when I have to defend my background to a lying, accusatory attacker):
>
> I started my career in 1975, as a commodity broker, with Merrill Lynch.
> Within a year, I was invited join the MLFPS trading group in Manhattan, at
> One Liberty Plaza, and manage 5 million at the Merrill home office. That
> was a few years after I started reading Edwards and Magee, a book, I
> believe you were introduced to in 1998 (remember, I suggested that maybe you
> read it). In 1978, while working for Paine Webber, I developed my first
> oscillator system and submitted every trade to New York for two years in
> order to gain approval to trade managed, discretionary accounts. By 1980, I
> owned and controlled thirteen "seats" on the short-lived New Orleans
> Commodity Exchange (specializing in rice and "sunshine state" soybean
> contracts). Then in 1984, I was appointed Executive Vice President of First
> Financial Futures. I trained, taught, and had responsibility for 60+
> brokers, designed the firm's commodity fund, chose John Henry as the CTA
> (when John had less than a million under management).
>
> During the '80s, I consulted to Tim Mathers, in Glenwood Springs, Colorado,
> when he was starting Commodity Quote Graphics. He needed insight on what a
> technician might need to trade with a satellite feed. I suggested a number
> of indicators and arranged for him to talk to Welles Wilder. During 1981, I
> spent a week with Welles, in Houston, TX, while he was filming an
> instruction video, based on his first book. The CQG experience led to
> numerous consulting jobs in the data feed industry. During this period, I
> also published a fax service for trading OEX options. The service provided
> classic Black-Scholes fair valuations and was complemented with a daily
> two-paragraph technical overview of the S&P 500.
>
> In the late 80's, I took a couple of firms public. The most successful is
> an Oklahoma City pharmaceutical firm: Physician's Dispensing Rx (PDRXE.OB).
> I retired in 1990. Although 1990 to 1994 was an interesting time, filled
> with many fun stories of La Costa, Palo Alto, Vancouver, and beyond...I'll
> spare you and cut to my additional education. I completed my undergraduate
> degree (at the age of 49) in 1996 and then pursued my MBA at a PAC 10
> school. This allowed me to argue with award-winning graduate economic
> professors about randow walk and mechanical trading systems versus economic
> "theory. I also added some knowledge I was lacking in advanced math and
> statistics.
>
> In 1997, I decided to get back into the business (I live two miles from my
> closest neighbor and I don't necessarily have a lot of job opportunities in
> this area). Six months ago, I decided to share some of what I do on a free
> website. At the site, publicly posted for everyone to see, I explain and
> give credit to every technician I have "borrowed" from: John Bollinger,
> Edwin Sedgewick Coppock, Tushar Chande, William Blau, Chick Goslin, Stanley
> Kroll and Welles Wilder. I've always maintained that I have done nothing
> but substitute numbers in their formulae and developed sensible, mechanical
> trading systems. By the way, Mr. Dutch Master (dude), I've never alluded to
> or claimed, mentioned or written that I'm a CMT. So please, take your tired
> argument about those initials and peddle that psycho-babble on another
> forum. As far as "ethics" go, I don't know what goes down in Europa, but
> "ethics testing" is mandatory every two years in Amerika.
>
> System testing? I've submitted my rules and formulas to Futures Truth and
> the public will soon be able to follow my track record by an independent
> service.
>
> Just wanted to set the record straight. You're not being honest or fair. I
> have many national firms as partners (including Equis) and many list
> contributors are my clients. All of them know me as honest, fair and
> hard-working. I don't "dig" your libelous attacks. As Jerry West, my
> American Thought and Language professor (Michigan State University-1965)
> once said:
>
> "The farther a monkey crawls up a tree, the more of his ass you can see".
>
> Keep on climbin' Ton,
>
> Steve Karnish
> Cedar Creek Trading
> http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A.J. Maas <anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Wheaties
>
> > I have always made my homework upfront. That's practical and makes common
> sence.
> > Neither do I rely on strangers, to handle my affairs. And if f.e. I have
> an injury, something
> > that I am not able to fix myself, I will then go to a (qualified) doctor
> (most certainly for an
> > operation) not to a medicineman. In this working the markets is the same,
> you are operating
> > on them to gain and you are the one in/holding the control(s).
> >
> > That doctor too can be a stranger, but at least I know that he/she has had
> years and years
> > of studying to go through for getting good and proper qualifications and
> later the most of all
> > required experience. Then too, they have had to go for years into
> apprentice-training to later
> > perhaps become practioners of their own and that then is only allowed in
> large work
> > environments (eg like hospitals etc.).
> > When fully qualified and carrying enough experience in their luggage, and
> having set out
> > a carreer build on this "a solid practicioners records", they(doctors)
> will then perhaps qualify
> > for the tests that are held among the many other practioners(doctors) that
> are in that same
> > position, for getting a license for their own
> practice-under-qualified-supervision.
> > Succesfully going through this period, will then have that doctor finaly
> quantifiable and
> > qualifiable for starting out his own practise.
> > Come close, I would expect all of this above to take up 15-20 years:
> > - thouroughly studying a minimum of 10 years
> > - succesfully finishing the apprenticeship at least 2-5 years
> > - getting the work-experience and building of solid records in a
> protective supervisory
> > environment another 5-10 years
> >
> > Since going public with his cybercause co. last year, means that he or his
> co. is no exception
> > to the rule that you can judge a man (or co) by its cover, eg what can be
> generally be seen as
> > either solid craftmanship or porkupine pies.
> > Duplicating a few formulas and then screaming out loud how that co. had
> invented/arranged them,
> > and also not showing a YOY track-record for them, eg I haven't tested them
> for years, let alone
> > that he or his firm was capable to test these formula's thouroughly, sure
> has had my eyes opened
> > to the salesman that goes behind the commercials, and most certainly not
> the Technician that should.
> >
> > The fact that his co. is also a qualified CMT certainly does not
> automaticaly qualify that co. to
> > be a Technician or Technical, perhaps at the most to be
> good-learners-who-have-read-a-few-
> > books-on-TA and that haven't had enough trade experience in what was being
> thaught.
> > CMT is a not direct publicaly nor officialy reqocknised profession either
> (eg its course is based
> > on an "evening school" like a private course, with examinations controled
> and held by a private
> > institution, the MTA - the Market Technician Assosation. These are thus
> not state reqocknised
> > exams or official professional occupations, oppose to the above mentioned
> doctor-exams.
> > It therefore cannot even qualify for being of a drivers-license level.
> >
> > CMT is also a low level course, if you purchase a few basic TA books you
> will be at their same level.
> > For example, there is no scholing in basic economics, eg on how companies
> operate or on
> > how companies have to report, eg what to report and to whom. Also what is
> being thaught there, is
> > not been thouroughly tested, eg most is been copied straight out of some
> publicaly available TA books,
> > of which origin one can very well have their doubts or that who knows who
> wrote them.
> > Training in Professional Market ethiques and ethiqettes aren't included
> either and neither are the
> > common Business regulations, that are a minimum requirement in many
> 'regulated' countries.
> > And not to forget, copied straight from the basic TA books and now we also
> know that they contain
> > a lot of jabberish, therefore it is just a simple TA course.
> > The course can also be succesfully aclomphised in over a year (!!!). What
> on experience?.
> >
> > Now looking back at my school days, only my economic upbringing schooldays
> took me alone
> > a minimum of some 10 years, and after that I still did not know "a bl....y
> thing".
> > Eg., I had to learn the too many unthaught theories in practice, in real
> life itself, eg on the workfloor
> > in real companies asan aprentice, and the biggest shock for me was that I
> had to forget all the stuff
> > that I had learned at school, since that either the school theories didn't
> make any sense at all, or were
> > plain impractical to use or were just plain old hat stuff that had worked
> in some of the previous centuries.
> > So speaking to a CMT is not the same as speaking to a market profesional.
> >
> > Too, one can make a good salesman, that can also perhaps trade & operate
> well in the markets,
> > especialy when working in his own environment, but to publicly qualify one
> as a good market
> > professional......then one has to have at least a very good and long year
> relationship with his bookkeeper,
> > eg with his accountant, since that long years of excellent track-records
> is what you use to judge the
> > cover by, eg here the public salesman and his methods(products) by (or
> that public sales co. on).
> > And be honoust, what is the only thing that a salesman is after????
> Nothing wrong with it, but you are
> > the one also holding the last strings + controls(unless you permissioned a
> co. or someone to act on your
> > behalve).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ton Maas
> > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Ledermann" <j.ledermann@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: vrijdag 5 mei 2000 21:14
> > Subject: RE: Wheaties
> >
> >
> > > Walter,
> > >
> > > Hey - I always trade against the funds - it's when I'm trading against
> Steve
> > > that I get worried <g> (and yes, I'm short July Wheat).
> > >
> > > Nevertheless I think you are making a point that has worried me about
> > > Steve's published signals for some time. I do hope Steve rises to the
> bait
> > > and tells us some more about how he does it.
> > >
> > > Now take Cybercast T-Bond trades for instance Feb-May which were more
> > > or less breakeven. No big deal or was it ---
> > > (I'll assume entry at open for this, but it doesn't make that much
> difference)
> > > 23rd Feb Short @ 95.31
> > > 20th Mar Short @ 96.25
> > > 3rd Apr Short @ 97.81
> > > by 7th/8th Apr highs we were 130pts against that first short
> ($4000/contract)
> > > Reversed on 28th April @ 96.31
> > >
> > > Now that's what I call volatility and I would have thought quite unusual
> for a CTA.
> > > As far as I can tell, Steve's system works on the principle of a very
> high ratio of
> > > wins to losses but consequently weathers very large drawdowns. Risk is
> to a
> > > certain extent limited by diversification but I do wonder how he avoids
> running
> > > out of money and yet still return reasonable NAVs.
> > >
> > > Come on Steve, how do you actually do it. We know it isn't the laser
> guided
> > > accuracy of the Cybercast signals that keeps you afloat. Don't expect
> you to
> > > give away any dark secrets but an outline of your money management
> methods
> > > would be really helpful to some of us I'm sure. I guess the key
> question is, do
> > > you really truly hand on your heart not use stops? And if so, how do
> you
> > > calculate your risk of ruin?
> > > Oats will go to "zero" one day... (but very probably not next week).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Jeff.
> > -----------------------snip------------------
> >
> >
|