|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Back in January I was sooooo sure that Sugar was going to make a move up
some time between February and March. I was humbled and reminded again that
we can not predict the markets, we just have to listen and follow the
market.
Right now sugar has been consolidating for about a month and forming a
wedge. I think maybe we should look at the break out of from the wedge
formation to determine where sugar will be going next.
----------
> From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: FUTR: Sugar & Fundamental Analysis
> Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 5:13 AM
>
> 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 >>
> >
|