|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Regretably, I don't have time to handle all of the private emails I receive with
the same depth which I try to provide in my list contributions, which I perpare
as time permits. When responding to your question, I noted that it was private,
rather than copied to the list, so my response was brief and to the point.
Perhaps, you would consider posting your questions publicly if you wish to
debate the response publicly.
Now to the question. I'm a technical analyst, pure and simple. I believe that
everything known to the market is reflected in the price and volume data;
therefore I have no need to comprehend the details and nuances of the
fundamentals. Further, I'm not convinced that it's possible, in this global
market place, to stay on top of fundamentals before they are incorporated in
price. While new to futures, I selected and position traded stocks for years
based purely on technicals without, in many cases, knowing a thing about the
company other than its name. I'm finding the same ability to move around in many
of the futures. As I mentioned here in another recent post, I base my trading on
chartwork (pivots, channels, fibs) rather than indicators.
You asked "Would you buy a stock that has terrible earnings now and is expected
to have terrible earnings in the future because of a
chart formation?" Absolutely! Those smashed up, discarded and unloved stocks
were my specialty for many years. The charts told me when the were ready for a
pop and I routinely knocked off 10-20% profits on position trades of a couple of
weeks. I will admit to eyeing many of these beaten down commodities with some
relish as well as considerable caution.
I went through a period of "investing" where I used fundamentals to find
"undervalued" stocks. They seemed to remain undervalued or become even more
undervalue. It was a period which yielded some bad losses. There was also a
period of time in which I tried using fundamentals provided by ValueLine as a
pre-screen for TA, however that didn't seem to add anything to my work as VL
rankings seemed to lag the price moves of stocks considerably.
My cup of tea may not be yours and that's fine. In fact, that's what makes
markets. I'm no missionary, so I'm afraid I'll have to pass on debating
fundamentals vs technicals. Been there, done that, far too many times.
Earl Adamy
-----Original Message-----
From: Proeber, Tim <TProeber@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: FUTR: Sugar & Fundamental Analysis
>Why wouldn't you care? For example, some people on the RT site went
>long Beans last week. Oversold or some wave count was the reason. But
>S.America was in the middle of a bumper harvest -- and U.S. plantings
>were expected(and did) to exceed last year. I read the Ag reports, an
>was, of course, already short on the last rally (%R timed the entry). I
>just don't know why people think supply/demand in a finite commodity
>world doesn't matter. It's like buying a car on looks without looking
>at the mechanical condition. It is easier to play with 100 different
>indicators, and most seem to work in retrospect. But if the
>odds(system) are that you should not get hit by a car if you cross the
>road, because you have sensors telling you that a car is too far away to
>hit you, you may benifit by actually looking before you cross. I am
>what Larry Williams calls a "contextual trader". I use basic
>fundamentals and COT data to see what is happenning in the market, as
>the market exists for commercials(producers and food companies). Larry
>Williams, who is a rennowned trader besides writting books, and who
>knows just a little about TA, says that TA is alot of hogwash if its not
>put into context. Would you buy a stock that has terrible earnings now
>and is expected to have terrible earnings in the future because of a
>chart formation?
>
>I am not trying to preach, and I do of course have losing trades. But I
>can not imagine trading something that I have no earthly idea about the
>conditions. For most casino games, there are no real "conditions" that
>affect anything. But this is commodities, we need these things to
>sustain life on earth and to enjoy a modern lifestyle. There is a
>finite supply of these things. If, for example, there are Beans
>aplenty, no Elliot Wave formation will make Archer Daniels Midland pay
>$7 a bushel.
>
>I would like to start a thread on the pros and cons of using obvious
>fundamental influences for overall direction, and TA to time entries and
>exits.
>
>Tim Proeber
>tproeber@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Earl Adamy [SMTP:eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 1998 5:33 PM
>> To: Proeber, Tim
>> Subject: Re: FUTR: Sugar
>>
>> Don't know, don't care.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Proeber, Tim <TProeber@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: 'eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx' <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 3:18 PM
>> Subject: RE: FUTR: Sugar
>>
>>
>> >What are the fundamentals?
>> >
>> >tproeber@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Earl Adamy [SMTP:eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> >> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 1998 11:11 AM
>> >> To: RealTraders Discussion Group
>> >> Subject: Re: FUTR: Sugar
>> >>
>> >> I believe it's likely that sugar has put in lows but has not yet
>> based
>> >> enough to
>> >> move agressively higher. Chart suggests that probabilities are on
>> long
>> >> side once
>> >> the pivot low at 9.70 is tested. A failure to hold 9.70 and then
>> take
>> >> out the
>> >> previous pivot high at 10.20 would change my mind. See attached gif
>> >> for play by
>> >> play details.
>> >>
>> >> Earl
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Arnold Thompson <arnoldt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> To: Alan Sears <asears@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> Cc: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 7:41 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: FUTR: Sugar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Well Sugar retreated today to a level that stopped me out at 9.89.
>> I
>> >> am
>> >> >now uncertain. A 3 wave rise is evident. The retracement was too
>> >> deep
>> >> >for me to see this last wave as impulsive. Any opinions???????
>> >> > << File: SUGAR.gif >>
>
|