Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I agree and I think it just ended at 7:57 EST.
I meant theoretically as an exercise, just to test what the results would be.
Can you run your software to take signals from TNA and buy/sell UVXY instead? UVXY is a 2X VIX where XIV is only 1X I think, hence the different returns.
That's okay, dumping Windoze is the best thing I ever did for my desktop. I'll happily put up with the odd incompatibility. It beats huge security holes, bloated over-complicated software, frequent crashes, planned obsolescence and endless patches any day.
I get "An exception has occurred." It doesn't support Firefox on Linux apparently.
I put XIV and TNA in the "compare" box in a google finance chart, and XIV seemed to mirror TNA's performance but with higher leverage, so I think the proxy idea is valid. If I could post a screenshot here, I would, but I can't.
Liquidity and bid/ask spread are always a concern, but XIV for instance has about ten times the volume of TNA.
The signals could still be taken from the Russel as a proxy, but the trades executed in the index ETFs. I'm thinking that the extra leverage could be highly profitable, but it would maybe best be restricted to the very high probability trades.
I have been trading TNA/TZA for some time, but given the weekness in the Russel, TZA is great, but TNA is somewhat lacking. Until the small caps indicate that they're going to play catch up to the medium and bigger caps, I'll prefer TQQQ for the long side. And if TZA isn't leveraged enough, UVXY is a good substitute with approximately double the performance as a previous poster noted a while back. I don't know of a double inverse volatility ETF, but XIV seems to give slightly better performance than TZA.
Couldn't the megaphone just completed on the SP since 8/26 be a 5-3-5-3-5 wave, wave 4 (which finally ended)?
If you would be so kind, I have a few questions. I tried again to post on the 3% thread but it still won't let me.
1) What are the requirements to print a green bar on your charts
2) What do "foot" and "glen" mean?
I enjoy your posts. Thanks!
Hi TREND1, I have a question about your latest TZA entry, but I couldn't post on the other thread for some reason. I saw your stop loss was 5.3% away from your entry, but your profit taking point was 3%. This seems inverted from typical practice. Is the profitability derived from the confidence in the trade, i.e., the odds of being correct are better than twice as good as being wrong?
Thanks.
If the five wave down was preceded by two 3 wave moves, why couldn't it be a C-wave down? Thanks.
Is there a type of TA that H1 won't twist into something that it isn't? You can't make this stuff up:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29157951
He actually has someone congratulating him on his "abcde" now:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29151931
Here's another funny thing, and I just know you're going to get a laugh out of this:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29148928
I don't think I've seen a more tortured misinterpretation of a leading diagonal before.
Thanks, but what is the IBOX?
How much money has come out of the market in the example in this post?:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91353117
$0.50 or $500,000?
If you say $500,000, you're equating "money in the market" with capitalization. If you say $0.50, you're equating it with dollar value of shares sold. Clearly they're not the same as this extreme example demonstrates, and yet it's feasible. If you're equating what I call an "asset" with "money," you're using the word "money" in a different sense, and it is used that way, but that is not the same sense of "money" as implied by "money on the sidelines" which is clearly cash or cash equivalents such as money market funds. Yes, net worth is measured in cash money, but that doesn't mean it is money, at least not in the meaning of "money" as "cash."
But the money is not there. It's in the guy's account who sold you the shares. You're holding an ASSET in the form of shares. When you sell that asset, you receive money and give up the asset. I still think it's a degradation of the language to say there's money in the market. There isn't, it's sitting in accounts. If shares were the same as money, we wouldn't bother trading would we?
Having thought this through further, I think I know what the source of the paradox is. We use the term "money" very loosely in general. When you say you have "a lot of money tied up in your house" you don't, you spent your money, somebody else has your money, you have a lot of "house tied up in your house." The word "money" is very often used as a misnomer for "asset."
Perhaps, as a euphemism for having exchanged your money for shares, but you don't really have "money in the market" and it's clearly a misnomer. If you bought shares, you have shares in the market. The guy that sold to you has your money.
Why? I believe my logic is sound. Where is my thinking flawed? Every trade is a double ended transaction. Cash moves from one entity's account to another's. It doesn't go into or out of the market. Does anybody else reading this thread agree with me? Why or why not?
$85B per month created by the Fed is artificial demand, or demand borrowed from the future, or inflation, whatever you want to call it. Without it, selling pressure would overcome buying pressure and share prices would fall. If prices stay the same, they're really going down in true value because of inflation. It's a mirage to pretend that prices aren't falling. They are falling, but it's hidden by inflation. There's no free lunch, and at some point, we're all going to pay for a very expensive lunch.
Q1: Was the millions of dollars that we were told was on the sidelines "in the market"?
A: No, there's no such thing as "in the market."
Q2: What happens when millions of dollars are "put to work?"
A: The same number of millions from the seller of stock are "put out of work" for no net change of "money at work."
Q3: When this cash comes off the sidelines and is used to purchase equities does the price of equities rise?
A: There are no "sidelines," just people's or entities' accounts. The price of equities doesn't rise necessarily. If the sellers are dumping harder than the buyers are buying, price will fall.
Q4: Does price rise with demand?
A: Only if supply is less than demand.
Q5: Is this cash coming off the sidelines going into the market?
A: See Q3 and Q1.
Q6: When millions of dollars in cash that is the result of selling equities is put into Money Market Funds, is it no longer invested in equities?
A: For that entity that sold the equities, it is no longer invested in equities. For the entity that bought, it is. Somebody had to sell the MMFs to supply them for the entity to be able to buy the MMFs, and somebody had to buy the equities that were sold. There is no net change of money in equities.
Q7: When this occurs is it proper and reasonable to say that this millions of dollars has been taken out of the equities market. After all it is no longer invested in equities.
A: Only for the entity that sold. An equal number of millions of dollars took its place. The market had no net change.
Q8: Does massive selling of equities by investors result in lower prices for equities?
A: Only if a massive buying of equities isn't available to offset it. If it isn't available, yes.
Q9: What causes the price of a stock to fluctuate?
A: Imbalances of supply vs. demand by market participants. Those not participating still experience the same fluctuations in their shares' market value without any money changing hands. The price of every share in a company is determined solely by the latest transaction.
Money flows are a measure of change of market capitalization, not "money in the market." It indicates buying and selling pressure which changes the price of the stock and as a result market capitalization. When a company buys its own stock, it's converting cash to shares, while the seller is doing the opposite. The cash moves from the company to the former private seller.
If the share price doesn't move on this transaction, did money "come into or out of" the market?
The following is an assumption: "The value of stock increases based on earning potential" that I don't believe can be known to be true. It is the basis of fundamental analysis, but human perception and resulting actions in the market are an undeniable part of setting a stock's value. The price of a stock is a function of the enthusiasm of buyers vs. sellers. In general, if demand outstrips supply, price will rise, and vice versa.
When the market maker sells something to buy your shares, who buys his shares and where does the money come from? When newly created money is used to purchase equities, someone sells them, so an equal amount "comes out of the market" if that's how you want to describe it. I agree market capitalization creates the appearance of "more money in the market," but I don't agree that it's money in the market. The main reason being is that market capitalization is a direct result of prices set at the margin, i.e., at the last trade price of the equities actually being traded but it includes those that I and everybody else hold in that company, regardless of whether I'm participating or not by buying or selling my shares.
So how did money "come out of the market" when I didn't do anything? One share could be put up for sale at half the closing price of yesterday in a million dollar company with one million shares, and today with your definition, only $0.50 has changed hands, and yet $500,000 has "come out of the market" or "come off the market capitalization." Is this not a paradox?
This is almost like the "is there a God?" argument where one guy says: "someone must have created us," and the other guy says "Who created God?" The "God" answer doesn't advance the argument, it just pushes it down the line a step. I did a little research on the "money in the market" myth and there a few people that agree with me, and many that argue the same way you did. I think one could argue it's the blind men and the elephant, they're all looking at the same thing, just describing the way they interpret it.
But regardless of what the seller did (paid bills or whatever with his redeemed money) The buyer had to "put money in" if you call it that (which I believe is a misnomer) so there's no change. Money simply doesn't go into or out of the market, with one exception, and that's when new stock is created and sold. Every transaction after that is dead even with a buyer and seller moving money between cash accounts. Nothing "goes into" or "comes out of" the market, and I'm at a loss as to why that myth is perpetuated.
How does money "leave the market" if when one person sells, another entity must buy, so the money "in the market" is constant? The money moves from one account to another, not in and out of the market?
Hi Poker, has mchjc got religion and accepted that a iv can't overlap a i in this post:?
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=29019190
He mentions iv not going below the LITS (line in the sand) of the peak of i, so it seems so. I hope it's the case because he's pretty good and it's the only serious error that I've caught him with applying Elliott.
Advances on low volume mean there are few shares on offer. I would say it's bullish until it isn't because if the sellers decide to show up, they would likely overwhelm the few buyers that are bringing it up.
He just posted his alternate count which once again has iv overlapping i.
iv overlaps i. No matter how hard I tried to explain that to him, he doesn't seem to accept that it's a deal breaker for that count.
Hi Poker, I would appreciate a second opinion on this count if you have a moment. I'd say it's invalid because a of iv overlaps i in wave 3, but the author insists it's the endpoint of iv that can't overlap, while the body of the wave can. Thanks.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=28646437
Link is broken.
Yes.
Triple MACD divergence is rather ominous.
Because the trend is up; therefore it can't reverse to the upside.
Google, or better yet, scroogle, "facebook privacy" and read the history of how they change their privacy policies without notice to their users. They actually undo settings that the user sets to protect his privacy without notice. It's all a giant surveillance and marketing device. Google isn't much better for that matter. Their "privacy" policy would be better described as a "publicacy" policy.
Facebook is an ever changing unknowable violation of privacy at the whim of its owners.