|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Kent:
No, at least not for the comparison we are making to whether the DOW is
ahead of 1929 high is concerned.
You might make some kind of an indicator out of money divided by population,
but it won't have anything to do with money; it will be socialogiccal or
anthropological, I guess; and could be a good indicator for something.
The money we are talking about, of course, is 1929 money; that's all. It has
diminished in purchasing power by the paper printed since then; regardless
of who got the fresh ones, it's all worth much less now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
> If you're going to count the increase in the number of dollars as
inflation,
> shouldn't you also take into account the number of people competing for
> those dollars? Worldwide?
>
> Kent
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Robb" <mlrobb@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 11:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
>
>
> Matthew:
>
> The 5 1/4% is the compounded rate that takes the 300 (1929 dow) to over
> 10,600 (higher than the current DOW average).
>
> Some gov't agency shows the amount of the money supply each year, or even
> every quarter, back to 1929. You can look it up. I am just estimating,
> however, based on previous searches, and analysis. As I said, I think you
> will find the actual increase in the money supply to be in excess of 5 1/4
%
> compounded for the 72 years since 1929.
>
> Certainly the recent increases are higher; the Greenspan reign has
produced
> paper at more than 7% compounded since 1987.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew R. Kratter" <mkratter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 12:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Naz 100 futures buy and hold system
>
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > Could you explain how one might calculate this observation?
> > I.e., I believe you, but where does one get the "inflation" statistics
and
> how
> > does one do the math??
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Matthew Kratter
> >
> > Michael Robb wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
|