|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I should make a couple of corrections to my last post.
It shouldn't say "most" seminar promoters, it should say "many"
seminar promoters.
Before I get a bunch of emails telling me how great candlesticks are,
I have no problem with candlesticks. Nison's products are the best on
the subject, no question. Since he's told people I know that trading
is too risky for him, as long as someone knows he's not using his
tools to make money for himself, I have no problem with others using
his tools. If someone wants to use candlesticks, which I do from time
to time, his books are the best source of info.
The editorial I mentioned a link to in my other post regarding the
editor of Active Trader Magazine saying he is a bad trader is good for
several reasons. He says trading is very hard. He says he's not good
at it. The questions that raises for me is here's a guy with access to
the very best of everything in the trading world, and he's not getting
it done. That should cause everyone who is thinking about trading to
stop and reconsider.
However, the good news is he tries to trade, so at least he has some
perspective on the articles he approves for publication. I would
prefer he were a great trader, then more of the articles might have
value. However, that's only speculation.
As far as the people behind the scenes go, I don't care if they trade.
If they happen to be mathematicians like David Sepiashvili who apply
their math to developing new indicators, great. If David says he's a
trader and his tools make him money, then disclosure of some type is
necessary to set the correct expectations. If David says he's not a
trader but a consultant to traders, then that's a different story.
I'll look at his material with zero expectations. I'll test it and if
I like it I might use it. To me it is important how someone positions
themselves.
I used to trade but I don't anymore. (Why did you stop? Did you get
too old to see the charts, or maybe you got tired of going broke every
three or four years.)
I made millions using this technique. (Why didn't you keep on making
millions from your trading rather than fishing in my wallet?)
Trading is too risky for me. (Well, then maybe it's too risky for me too.)
I wish I could use my tools to make money the way you'll be able to
make money, but I just don't have the psychological make up to trade.
(However, I do have the psychological make-up to take your money and
sleep well every night.)
Wouldn't it be nice if you knew when to buy low and sell high. (Okay,
let's finish the statement. "and wouldn't it be nice if I knew how to
do that too.")
I'm so busy selling seminars, systems and tapes, I just don't have
time to trade. (Okay, let me think about that.)
When I use the term, trader, you have no idea if I mean one trade a
year, one trade a day or one trade one time and then I knew I had
better find something else to do. (Hmmm, I thought trader meant you
were trading all the time--in your hotel room, from the airport, from
resturants when your Blackberry goes off!)
I'm sure other people can think of many more ways information is
positioned.
What I care about is some disclosure so the right expectations are on
the table going in. When I write trading articles I say in the
articles how well something works for me. I don't disclose how much
money I make. I put everything in percentages whenever possible. At
least the readers have some clue as to what my reality is rather than
having wild eyed expectations.
Roy doesn't give trading advice. He only gives coding information. His
coding track record is obvious.
In the other articles, which don't give trading advice, but do
describe someone else's trading techniques, discussing the returns
from their methods is up to the person that wrote them.
If Roy wrote trading books, I would hope he would disclose his trading
activities.
Bernstein indirectly discloses his results. Clayburg doesn't and
Ehlers doesn't. If a guru manages other people's money often there is
some disclosure. No Load FundX for example tells you exactly how much
they make following their own advice. Since the fund has to report to
the shareholders, it doesn't matter what the newsletter says they
make, the mutual fund figures are the ones someone should base their
evaluation on.
There are books I like such as the Clayburg book that don't disclose
John Clayburg's track record. I've spoken with him a few times and
know what he uses in his trading. However, I would be more comfortable
if he had more information on how much he trades and his expectations
for his methods. Like most traders, he probably knows that
information, but if he put it in his books his books might not sell.
Books sell due to marketing and a big part of marketing is the
perceived expectation of making lots of money in buyer's mind. If the
writer does anything to change that expectation, book sales will drop.
Trading books don't sell many copies anyway. It's a small market. Most
of the time trading books are simply intro's to high dollar system
sales or high dollar seminars.
I hope this clarify's my opinion. I don't expect many people to agree
with it, but maybe for some it will be worth reading. For others they
should take me off their reading list completely--I would be happy
with that.
So far my royalities from posts have not met my expectations so losing
readers won't drop my income by any substantial amount.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|