|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
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------------------
|