|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Steve:
I guess I would have to know what your definition of
"squat" is in this instance. I have a friend who works
for a medium sized Brokerage house that is a subsidiary
of a large brokerage house, like the the ones you
mentioned. He was paid around $175.000 last year. He is
an assistant technical analyst. His boss makes
$350,000 plus. If this is squat give me all you got.
Norman E.
swp wrote:
>
> Norman -
>
> With the exception of Acampora, Shaw, and a few others, the brokerage
> houses pay squat to technicians. They make a fraction of what the
> economists, credit and equity fundamental analysts make.
>
> Believe me, I know. I was one of them. I was ranked #1 or #2 in fixed
> income by our customers and our group was ranked #1 in FX and money
> markets. And, they shut it down because it was voodoo. Even with an
> economist who is still calling for 100s of points in rate hikes.
>
> Fidelity still has its department. Nine people. Most of the other fund
> companies still do not.
>
> Steve Poser
> --
> Steven W. Poser, President
> Poser Global Market Strategies Inc.
> http://www.poserglobal.com
>
> Tel: 201-995-0845
> Fax: 201-995-0846
> Email: swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Norman E. Phair" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Back in the early 60's Fidelity had a technical
> > department. They did not advertise it, very few
> > people new about it. I would venture to say no other
> > mutual fund management company had such a
> > department. I attribute their superior performance
> > back then to this department which was run by Chet
> > Pado. One of the best performing funds was managed
> > by Jerry Tsai, for those of you out there who may
> > remember his name. In 1962 as the market started
> > down, he went into approximately 30% cash in two
> > weeks. Technical analysis was somewhat of a voodoo
> > culture back in that era. Fidelity did not tell
> > people because if you were a
> > technican back then people looked at you at little
> > funny. Boy have times changed. The money that
> > technicians are paid now by the major brokerage houses
> > is unbelievable. Does it pay to be different?
> > Should you keep your opinions to yourself if the
> > majority of people out there do not agree? What
> > happened to the old theory of contrary opinion? I
> > do NOT use astrology in my trading.
> > congratulate anyone
> > who uses it or any
> > other method that works. Why do people criticize
> > something when they do not know anything about ? I
> > guess it is human nature. If they can not carry on
> > an intelligent conversation about a subject, because
> > they do not have the knowledge, the subject has no
> > merit. There are died in the wool fundamentalists
> > that manage money who
> > think technical analysis is not worth anything.
> >
> > Norman E.
> >
> > > S teve McGuire wrote:
> > >
> > > > John,
> > > > Sounds like a very closed minded approach. If some
> > > > people can make astro work for
> > > > trading, why not show a little tolerance. It is the
> > > > lack of tolerance and
> > > > flexibility that is the root of many of our
> > > > problems today and throughout history.
> > > >
> > > > John Napier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Several days ago the web master asked that all
> > > > you
> > > > > astrologers converse with each other privately
> > > > through your
> > > > > own email.
> > > > > THAT IS STILL AN EXCELLENT IDEA.
> > > > > I don't want to start a rumble here but why don't
> > > > we get off
> > > > > this CRAP and get back to sharing good trading
> > > > ideas and
> > > > > information that will
> > > > > improve our trading techniques. THAT'S WHAT THIS
> > > > FORUM IS
> > > > > ABOUT. Not astrology or sun worshipping or
> > > > occultic signs.
> > > > > Whoever started this thing why don't you give all
> > > > those
> > > > > others who have joined in with their special
> > > > signs YOUR
> > > > > private email or still better, why don't you
> > > > start your own
> > > > > web page just for that stuff.
> > > > > I, Like you, don't want to offend anyone..BUT you
> > > > have
> > > > > offended me. So lets call it quits right now
> > > > while you are
> > > > > ahead.
> > > > >
> > > > > TTrue61470@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a message dated 5/12/99 7:46:59 AM Central
> > > > Daylight Time, chmeyer@xxxxxxxx
> > > > > > writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > << I'm no rocket scientist, especially as it
> > > > relates to quant skills--
> > > > > > but isn't it silly to consider this a valid
> > > > sample base; and size? >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I totally agree. At the risk of getting the
> > > > administration mad at me I'd like
> > > > > > to point out a few things about astrology.
>
> --
> Steven W. Poser, President
> Poser Global Market Strategies Inc.
> http://www.poserglobal.com
>
> Tel: 201-995-0845
> Fax: 201-995-0846
> Email: swp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|