|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Have you heard about how they plan to make money on the brain backup
procedure? Will we have to pay for periodic backups, or will they gig
us with a huge bill when we get a restore period. Can you get a
restore from long ago without having a traumatic accident? Can you
get a restore from someone else backup? This is too cool. How long
before they can market this? 2008, is that what you said?
Thanks for the info
Cooke
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 03:11:36 -0400, you wrote:
>QCOM gained 2000% last year. It's volatile. I believe the ATR stop is
>supposed to be used on trending vehicles and not vehicles which are stuck in
>trading ranges which QCOM has been since December. Tuesday was a 5 or 6
>standard deviation event for the NASDAQ. Any trading method you develop,
>test or optimize strictly around that event will fail going forward. The
>same goes for QCOM, it is not an average stock. Fact is, last year QCOM was
>an 8 or 9 standard deviation stock. It is a stock that everyone, EVERYONE,
>E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E knows was up 2000% last year and few of them got a piece
>last year, but everyone wants a piece this year but apparently none of them
>want to risk 24%.
>
>Having said all that, your assessment is correct: you would be risking 24%
>in the current conditions. That's the risk. The reward (possibly) is half
>of last year's gain? 1000%? The current price target on it by one analyst
>is $250. That's about %60 from where it is now and when (if) it gets there,
>the "analyst" will come up with a perfectly rational (in this market)
>explanation for why $5000 is reasonable (if they develop a way to backup
>your brain so that if you're ever in a car accident, you can restore it,
>then the stock should trade at 47.8 times it 2008 revenues...unless IBM
>develops a competing system and then there will be lawsuits if you back you
>brain up with a QCOM system and the hospital where they take you only has
>the IBM restore utility...).
>
>There are 10000+ stocks on the NYSE and NASDAQ. ATR stops will work well on
>some of them right now. But not forever. And some of them will need an
>ATR*2 stop, others will need ATR*3. You have to figure out which ones, when
>and how much. Are we having fun yet?
>
>Kent
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Altman <paulha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 12:59 AM
>Subject: Volatility stops novice
>
>
>Folks:
>
>I'm experimenting with trailing volatility stops and I'm immediately
>confused by the enormous resulting size of the stops, based on Tharp's
>suggestion to experiment with a 3 * ATR trailing stop, as a starting point.
>
>1) Let's look at QCOM: a recent 10 day weighted moving average of the ATR
>is, according to my calculations, ~8% at the close of Fri 4/7/00. OK, it's
>a volatile stock, but a trailing stop of 24%?!! Doesn't that seem like an
>awfully large stop? Yes, you could position-size yourself down such that
>you only had, say, 1% of capital at risk, but still...if you're willing to
>take a 24% loss on a stock, aren't you pretty much admitting that you have
>no general confidence in the underlying concept of your entry signal? What
>entry signal could you still believe in once you've lost more than 20%
>because of it? It seems that if you're going to tolerate a 24% loss on a
>stock, you might as well have random entries, certainly they'd do just as
>well.
>
>2) Additionally, assuming for a second that QCOM remains as volatile for a
>while into the future, you'd have to have a profit of 32% before you'd even
>be assure of breaking even (after a possible 24% drop back to your original
>buy price). After a 20% or 30% profit, shouldn't you be allowed to tighten
>your stop so that you actually are assured of keeping some of it?
>
>3) If the whole point of an x*ATR stop is to make sure that you're not
>stopped out due to the normal fluctuations of noise, isn't x=3
>extraordinarily generous? If you very loosely assume that TR's tend to
>straddle the closing price, then really only _half_ of the TR should
>represent the normal downward fluctuations. So x=3 means that you're
>setting a stop very approximately _6_ times larger than the average normal
>downside fluctuation in a given day.
>
>What am I missing? How can anyone seriously discuss a 3 * ATR trailing
>stop? It sounded good until I actually looked at some numbers, and then I
>was completely perplexed! Any help from you experienced volatility stop
>guys much appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>
> Paul
>
|