|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Robb:
You have made a good point.
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Robb" <mlrobb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> Usually, when you look at the increases in the money supply ( M 3 ) for
any
> ten year span, you find a near doubling, or even more. I only used 5 1/4%
> because that takes a 300 DOW in 1929 to over 10,600.
>
> If you look at recent M numbers you see a dilution of purchasing power in
> the dollar of over 7% for 10 year periods.
>
> Calculating off actual prices can be misleading, because the natural
process
> of enterprise, left to its own devices, is a rise in quality and a decline
> in price; as Smith said; "...a plentiful supply of goods and services at
low
> prices equals prosperity".
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
>
>
> > I don't think that this is the right approach.
> >
> > Take the DOW for the 1929 high and multiply it by the differences in the
> > cost of living. We can guesstimate the difference by looking at selected
> > salaries and products. My guesstimate is about 6000 and 15000 for the
DOW.
> > This puts the present DOW value roughly around the same level as in
1929.
> >
> > Since my data is very sparse, I'd appreciate other comments on this.
> >
> > Lionel Issen
> > lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Robb" <mlrobb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 8:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> >
> >
> > > If you subtract for the purposeful destruction in purchasing power of
> the
> > > dollar (often misnamed inflation), the DOW average is not still not
> > equal
> > > to the 1929 high, at 5 1/4%.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 10:02 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> > >
> > >
> > > > Matt:
> > > > You are correct.
> > > > After the 1929 crash it took 20 years for the Dow to reach the
levels
> or
> > > > 1929.
> > > > Lionel Issen
> > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Yarroll" <komin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 6:14 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Matt,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this idea goes against the grain of all TA...
> > > > >
> > > > > Have a look at Nikkei index futures. Nikkei has had a freefall
back
> in
> > > > 1990
> > > > > and it never went back. I was listening to CNBC the other day...
> they
> > > were
> > > > > saying Japan is _on the verge_ (!!!) of recession and stock could
> NOW
> > > > start
> > > > > to be going down!
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you be ready to hold on to your strategy for more than 10
> years,
> > > and
> > > > > that without ANY guarantee it will ever make any profit? (There is
> no
> > > such
> > > > > guarantee. Future will not be the same. Hell... 10 years from now
> > there
> > > > even
> > > > > can be NO markets as we know now).
> > > > >
> > > > > Buy&Hold is just another way to play Russian roulette. Don't fall
> for
> > > it.
> > > > > (JMHO)
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > > Yarroll
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the following system.
> > > > > > Assuming one has the necessary capitalization and patience,
would
> it
> > > > work?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rules
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Go long only.
> > > > > > 2. Buy the front month Naz emini at 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500,
1400,
> > > > > > etc. all the way down or all the way
> > > > > > up!
> > > > > > 3. Sell each contract only when it reaches a 100 point profit.
> > > > > > 4. Rollover if necessary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously if one had begun this strategy when the Naz was at
4000
> > > > > > or 5000, one would have a lot of
> > > > > > still open positions.
> > > > > > But given where we are now, doesn't the risk/reward seem
> reasonable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I seem to remember that a similar strategy was pursued with gold
> > > > > > and silver futures in the 1970's.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buying and holding the Naz emini has the advantages of
> > > > > > diversification and leverage. I know a lot of
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > who are playing a similar game with the QQQ's, but they don't
> > > > > > have quite the leverage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the long, long term trend is NOT up, is this strategy still
> > viable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think that slippage from rollover's will have too great
an
> > > > impact?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Matthew Kratter
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|