|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
i said it before, look at insight scanner.
a very small %age of hard core pro stock traders are
using it, if they know how...
it's been out since the eighties...
it allows tick by tick scan of a limited ( typically either
1000 or 10K symbols ) for user defined buy and sell rules
which are basically filters. this is an example of tick by tick
stock filtering... Volker, no offense, but neither WL nor TRAD are
able to pull it off tick by tick on 1000 universe of stocks at this time.
as far as i know insight is the only company that specialized in that.
next is end of bar time scanner, like TC2000 has...
you can scan a very limited universe of stocks end of bar
or at any time ( have to press enter )
next is the typical retail EOD stock scanner...like the one
WL has, i guess. TS needs one badly but that would require
an EOD database on user machine for at least one year back...
the big plus of stock trading vs say futures trading is
that stock trading allows stock selection, ie you
scan the markets for buy and sell signals using filters
and trade only the stocks with the highest probability
of success determined based on your filters...
for some traders it works real well, others get married to
a stock or two and trade those only, like futures traders...
TS only has a prehistoric generic type scanner:
highest volume, highest gain, most active, etc...
TS would not need a scanner if you could do 1000 systems
on 1000 symbols tick by tick :) but alas, that ain't gonna happen
soon...
TS won't be able to pull it off tick by tick due to the limitations
of on demand server technology ( you need to broadcast up to 1000
symbols tick by tick to users ) but at least they could do is
to code a good EOD on demand scanner. such eod scanner is very important
for portfolio selection. i don't think they are going to do it though...
bilo.
ps. scanner sometimes called screener or stock filtering app,
TS 5.0 has radarscreen which was an attempt on capturing
that market share... but it fails because of speed and limited
symbol universe it could do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Volker Knapp" <vk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Bilo Selhi" <biloselhi@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: AW: TRAD Stock Slides further
> Hi Bilo,
>
> what exactly do you mean by scanner, what would is that it would need?
>
> ++yet another one is to keep adding features to the platform... they badly
> ++need a good scanner because scanners are what pros use nowadays
> ++( scanners are basically half ass systems )
>
> Thanks.
>
> Volker Knapp
> Wealth-Lab Inc.
> http://www.wealth-lab.com
> http://www.wealth-lab.de
>
> ++-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> ++Von: Bilo Selhi [mailto:biloselhi@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> ++Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. März 2002 20:53
> ++An: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> ++Betreff: Re: TRAD Stock Slides further
> ++
> ++
> ++that's what they need now more than anything.
> ++with under a buck a share i'd buy them in a heartbeat
> ++if i were Bear Sterns... so i see something on the
> ++horizon. :) and who knows who's selling and for what...
> ++
> ++however consider this, the system trading market is still very small...
> ++there is probably less than 10 systematic traders per every 100
> ++descretionary,
> ++ie 90% are still methodology traders. but even at those number TS can
> ++survive off those system traders...
> ++the reason is it's hard to develop a good system...
> ++however the future of trading is in systems...
> ++
> ++take a look for example at there CNBC adds, they are geared toward
> ++systematic traders only... where if you visit a typical trading
> ++shop and talk
> ++to traders, they typically frown on trading fully mechanical systems.
> ++ typically you hear from experienced traders: systems are too
> ++stiff, need to be flexible, systems only
> ++only work on paper and in the past, are hard to code ....
> ++and you hear from newbies: TS is too hard to use, i need to
> ++know programming...
> ++all of those are basically valid points considering again that
> ++systems are hard
> ++to code a good one , so at the end the majority of experienced
> ++and new traders
> ++say thank you but no thank you... and they choose a less
> ++sophisticated platform...
> ++
> ++it might be a good idea for trad to develop a decent system and
> ++go partially proprietary ie. go manage money... i bet they'd be
> ++making more that way instead of depending only on systematic traders...
> ++
> ++that or tilting the marketing toward not only systematic but
> ++desc. traders
> ++is also the solution...
> ++
> ++other option is going 100% proprietary...( least expected )
> ++
> ++yet another one is to keep adding features to the platform... they badly
> ++need a good scanner because scanners are what pros use nowadays
> ++( scanners are basically half ass systems )
> ++
> ++in any case they have several options to pursue here if they
> ++are smart...
> ++
> ++bilo.
> ++ps. i wonder how much $ would it take to take em over...
> ++they've done to lot to stay afloat: data on demand, routing
> ++executions, etc...
> ++i mean they got some value...
> ++
> ++----- Original Message -----
> ++From: "Jim Bronke" <jvbronke@xxxxxxx>
> ++To: "Alexander" <alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ++Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 1:50 PM
> ++Subject: Re: TRAD Stock Slides further
> ++
> ++
> ++> Bear Stearns would do pretty good buying them out. They are probably
> ++> considering it.
> ++> That stock is doing well.
> ++>
> ++>
> ++> Jim Bronke
> ++> Phoenix, AZ
> ++>
> ++>
> ++>
> ++> ----- Original Message -----
> ++> From: "Alexander" <alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ++> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ++> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:41 AM
> ++> Subject: Re: TRAD Stock Slides further
> ++>
> ++>
> ++> : So then what happens?
> ++> :
> ++> : I go back to TS5? Someone buys them? I would think there's
> ++enough value
> ++> there
> ++> : for them to be acquired. I've got a few bucks in my wallet...
> ++> :
> ++> : alexander the bottom-feeder
> ++> :
> ++> :
> ++> :
> ++> :
> ++> : --- TFutures@xxxxxxx wrote:
> ++> : > Jim,
> ++> : >
> ++> : > I would ask you to think about the number of companies that
> ++> realistically
> ++> : > slide into sub $1 price levels that ever really recover and become
> ++> : > successful.
> ++> : >
> ++> : > I think the caveat "the trend is your friend" applies..
> ++> : >
> ++> : > They may survive, but I think most statisticians would
> ++agree, this dont
> ++> look
> ++> : > good..
> ++> : >
> ++> :
> ++> :
> ++> :
> ++>
> ++>
> ++>
> ++
>
>
|