PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Just a thought.
May be it makes sense to normalize Dow to
CPI or smth. else to take inflation into account and after that conduct linear
regression to estimate the fair value of Dow.
Best regards.
Sergey.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:11
AM
Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987 Spiral
Calendar Analog update
Reflecting on
your chart further. Reversion to the mean applied to the Dow would be
reversion to the regression mean which means reversion to the linear
regression line that I anticipate is, again, probably in the 4000
vicinity. And, of course, the overshoot of the regression line would be
lower?into the 3000s. Good guess on my part about when the parabolic
move started.
Jim
From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
SergeyTS Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:49 AM To:
realtraders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RT] 1929-1987
Spiral Calendar Analog update
The 100 year
Dow is a trend line reflection of a straight line which is upward
sloping. The last 30 years has been a parabolic move up and the current
level is likely 4000 points above the mean.
I believe this is the
result of modern monetary policy. Parabolic trend has been ran 36 years
ago (flat currencies versus gold standard).
See Dow (black)
together with Consumer Price Index (red):
or Dow in logarithm
scale, it is still linear:
----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:54
PM
Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog
update
Reversion
to the mean is a math concept that can be explained in many ways.
Suppose you had a population of 500 numbers ranging from 1 to 1000.
You?ve already put all 1000 of them in a computer and you know, without any
doubt whatsoever, the population?s mean is 500. Well, you decide to
draw all 1000, one at a time and each time you average all the items
you?ve sampled to date. Well, the first item drawn at random is a
10. Well, that?s a 490 away from the mean. The next time is a
590 so the sample average is (590 + 10) /2 = 300. Well, your sample
mean is now a lot closer to the mean. The next you pull is 990 so the
sample mean is (990 +590+10) /3 = 530. Well, not only have you
?reverted? to the mean, you?ve surpassed it. And that?s a concept
implied by reversion to the mean. Observations exceed or go past the
mean.
The 100
year Dow is a trend line reflection of a straight line which is upward
sloping. The last 30 years has been a parabolic move up and the
current level is likely 4000 points above the mean. Reversion to the
mean would imply the Dow would want to return to its long term
average. But it also means that when there is an overshoot of the
mean. If Dow wants to get to the straight line regression ?mean? at
4000 (I don?t know what the number is but 4000 is in the ballpark), then it
will likely exceed the regression line and go lower, 3000 or 2000.
What are
the probabilities? Depends on your personal belief system.
Mandelbrot and Taleb conclusively proved that the market is not a ?random
walk? Gaussian coin toss. Mandelbrot believes there?s a hidden order
to the market that exceeds human ?linear? thought to understand and allusion
to it can only be gleaned by fractal geometry. In Taleb?s
calculations, the possibility of the 1987 crash was a 1 in 5000 lifetimes
(where a lifetime is the lifetime of the universe) possibility. In
other words, it is infinitely impossible that 1987 occurred according to
Gaussian gaming or bell curve probability.
So, if you
believe in Gaussian randomness, the answer is the next coin toss is a 50/50
probability. If you believe there is order, the next toss is a
head. If you believe in randomness, I believe the vast improbability
that the first two dates COULD NOT HAVE occurred. Hence, I cautiously
believe the next two dates will occur. It?s good enough for me to take
a levered short position (I like QQQQs so I have 2400 contracts or 240K
shares of November 38s and 5880 contracts of 37s).
My
positions are based on entirely unlikely events and I lose most of the
time. The time I won was this time last year and I won enough that it
dwarfs all losses I?ve had in multiples of 10s. I call it my Black
Swan Black Sholes strategy. Black Sholes was created by Merton, Black,
and Sholes to project fair pricing for options. The Gaussian
stochastic probability, as Mandelbrot proved rather conclusively in The
Misbehavior of Markets, dramatically underprices the risk of ?long tailed
events? in the bell curve; that far more of these long tailed events
(renamed by Taleb as Black Swan events) occur than thought. And when
they occur, out of the money options pay far too much given their Black
Sholes pricing. So, at the most critical points of the crisis last
year, there was question verbalized on CNBC by Joe Kernan as to whether the
organized CBOE options market could survive. Of course it did, but
that?s the defect in Black Sholes. And remember, the principals of
Titanic LTCM quant fund were none other than the brilliant quants who
developed Black Sholes (I hope I get this right), Fisher Black and Myron
Sholes. The 1998 crisis that nearly melted the world economy was
created by the greatest of all bell curve quants. So, I?ll take my
losses and try to find the Black Swan that dwarfs the losses in
leverage.
Jim
From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Simms Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 9:13 PM To:
realtraders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [RT] 1929-1987
Spiral Calendar Analog update
What about
"reversion to mean" theory ?
IOW, although
100 heads in-a-row is POSSIBLE, what are the probabilities of it occurring
?
So, in this
case, what are the probabilities of 5 heads in-a-row occurring
?
Just a
thought.....
From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Ross Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:39 PM To:
realtraders@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [RT]
1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update
Nassim
Taleb posed exactly that question in his book The Black Swan. The
question was put to the MIT quant and Guido the street wise bookie as
such:
This is a
FAIR coin and FAIR coin toss and it has resulted in four heads in a
row.
The quant
said ?Of course not, the fifth trial is an entirely independent event and
the probability is 50/50.?
Guido
said. ?It?ll be a heads. Yas jest can?t flip four heads in a
row. The game?s rigged. It?ll be a heads.?
The
question is whether there?s a hidden order in time and space. Benoit
Mandelbrot, the greatest mathematician of our lifetime IMO and the
discoverer of the Mandelbrot set, would say there is a hidden order.
But it isn?t a Gausian ?bellcurve? order; its not a gaming coin toss
population of events . It is not linear and likely we will never
discover it. Our only glimpse of it will be through fractal
geometry.
Jim
From: realtraders@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:realtraders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
GerryB Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:08 PM To:
realtraders@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [RT]
1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update
Now, consider that the model HAS SUCCESSFULLY predicted the
first two out of the four dates? Does that make the improbable
less improbable? I know it does, but by how much. About
that I don?t have a clue. But, again, it is
interesting.
SAY YOU FLIP A COIN 4 TIMES IN A ROW AND IT COMES UP
HEADS...........DOES THAT INCRECREASE THE PROBABILITY THAT ON THE
NEXT FLIP IT WILL NOT BE HEADS?.................OR DOES IT
REMAIN THE SAME: 50/50 AS IN THE FIRST 4
CASES?????
GERRYB
__._,_.___
__,_._,___
|
|