Genjix + Bitcoins - Page 3

Well from here
https://intersango.com/about-us.php
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taaki
he looked pretty legit

Strangely I dont remenber him from these forums, even though I am lurking here since roughly ~2005-2006

On August 15 2012 17:44 Emi wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taaki he looked pretty legit

Amir Taaki was born 6 February 1988 in London, the eldest of three children of a Scottish-English mother and an Iranian father.

Could it be any more obvious he wrote this Wikipedia article himself?

This is not even sourced. It could not be any more f-ing obvious.

But hindsight is 20/20 even though I said it from the beginning.

On August 15 2012 13:52 Spicy wrote: As an addendum to this, don't even take advice from most trained professionals as most have different interests than their clients.

Conflicts of interest in this country are getting exposed and reformed but it has gone on rampantly and to a degree continues to do so. Unfortunately the quality of advice as well isn't where it needs to be and is the next thing under scrutiny. The problem is that uninformed investors can gain advice that sounds solid but actually is poor, wrong or not suited to their needs. Personally I've worked with people who are passing courses at uni but still can't tell you basic information about accounting, economics or securities and those same people will be out there one day giving advice to clients (imo I blame group projects where people get to coast at the expense of others but anyway).

It's kind of a hot topic atm:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/asic-tests-of-financial-advice-show-only-3pc-of-plans-are-of-good-quality/story-e6frgac6-1226252814729

On August 15 2012 15:05 Emi wrote: 1 - Yes 10+ stocks taken from an index will very strongly correlate with the index performance. I sometimes do simulations based on markets history, so if you want I could run some number for you at some point. The reason is that most actions are very strongly correlated between each other : If A goes down by 20%, B probably will etc. You'll notice that when an index goes down, most of the stock of that index goes down as well. Everything is correlated so a statistically significant subset of a index will perform generally as well. But buying tracker is fine as well. And the average is the same anyway, so there is no higher EV from either.

What you are talking about by saying when the index goes down and so stocks go down is a stocks beta (how correlated to market movements is the stock). This is the measure of market risk (that we spoke of earlier). Some stocks are highly correlated to each other like you say but also some are not. The degree of co-movement with each other can be calculated using the covariance or the correlation coefficient. Which could lead into a tirade on optimal risky portfolio theory, efficient frontiers and dominated portfolios but I won't bother. Saying "everything is correlated" is meaningless. Do you want automakers in a recession or providers of staples, both probably went down and both are probably correlated to the market the same right?

Anyway good luck randomly replicating an index to anyone who wants to try it. Let me know how great it turns out for you.

Very nice posts, as said before stop the lurking! LP needs to become more alive again. Also no offense to any French people here, but I know quite a few and your English is pretty much spot on.

As for the stock market discussions, it all sounds very interesting but I'm a complete and utter fish when it comes to finances and everything in relation to it. Would love to learn more, any idea where to start for a total beginner?

Right now I sincerely feel like this when reading through these posts:

On August 16 2012 11:52 Hoolz_1907 wrote: Very nice posts, as said before stop the lurking! LP needs to become more alive again. Also no offense to any French people here, but I know quite a few and your English is pretty much spot on. As for the stock market discussions, it all sounds very interesting but I'm a complete and utter fish when it comes to finances and everything in relation to it. Would love to learn more, any idea where to start for a total beginner? Right now I sincerely feel like this when reading through these posts:

fooled by randomness - nasim taleb

the above is not specifically about investment strategies. the book holds a ridiculous amount of important information about how to avoid bad advice and why so much of it occurs etc. this book is life changing IMO -- skip to his later book,The Black Swan, if you want a slightly less literary book, and more of an overview + drilling down of the ideas presented in the previous.)

then, you can't go wrong by starting with the intelligent investor by benjamin graham, just know that it is outdated and following it to a T is not what you should be getting from it; it serves better as a good overview of how to approach investments. I found the book boring tbh.

finally, the most accessible blog of wwww.fwallstreet.com

u can click "intro" and find his introductory articles to the general ideas of investing etc. Honestly I think fwallstreet.com substitutes quite nicely for reading the rather boring, strategically outdated, Intelligent Investor (written in 1934 I think?)

@Hoolz thx for the love buddy

Personally I have read Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, and it is interesting and easy to read but I don't think it is a investment book at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reminiscences_of_a_Stock_Operator

Basically it is a bit like "ace on the river", where the author goes on about his life and money he won etc. but there is not really any real strategic advice or anything in it. Cool story still.

Also the author is kind of a "technical analyst" and I don't really believe in TA. There is some stuff in it that kinda work but most of the TA methods sounds like superstition to me.
(Technical analysis is the theory and methods that you can predict the future of a stock by reading the chart and guessing where it will go)

TA is extremely useful if you understand market microstructure, how orders get executed, and know how to gauge market liquidity/depth. TA is more of a trading concept not an investment theory. TA is used primarily for risk management, optimizing order execution, minimizing market impact, finding liquidity when taking on large positions, gauging what positions large players may have and at what prices. TA does NOT USEFUL if you think it somehow magically predicts the future. Because of the uses I've stated, it is possible to build profitable trading systems based on TA. However, the best traders I know use their own combination of various forms of analysis drawing from fundamentals, technicals, and tape reading to maximize their edge.

The reason TA has a bad rep with certain groups is because most people teach or explain it poorly. This leads to misapplication among noobs who don't understand market microstructure and then disbelief. Another thing to note is that the more money you manage, the harder it is to make money from pure TA because most TA strategies are not scalable to the point where you'll be taking enough size to move the market significantly.

Overall, TA has become increasingly important in recent years because of the vast increase in high frequency trading volumes. The only ways the HFTs trade is using TA so even if you don't apply it in your own strategy, it's valuable to know how these players are behaving the in the marketplace.

I think in the current trading // investing metagame, the only way to become successful is to develop and perfect your own strategy that meets your personal conditions, objectives and risk tolerance. Most important thing is to define why you're making a trade and what the projected holding period is. Rely more on TA and tape reading for short term, fundamentals for long term. I recommend reading the Market Wizards book series as they provide insight into the thought processes of top managers who all found success using different strategies. This will also offer exposure to a lot of smart managers who aren't well covered by the business media.

I will also argue that pure fundamental analysis is -EV for most beginners because most of the edge in this type of analysis comes from access to more comprehensive information and proprietary research (which you wouldn't have access to). And the reason business media tries to get beginners started through fundamental analysis is that it offers EXPLANATIONS for the change in a stock price (which is what people want to hear) under the guise of fundamental reasoning when the reality is that many market movements don't have a reason other than some hedge funds deciding to accumulate or dump during that particular time period. Fundamental analysis is also grounds for sell-side investment analysts to sell research reports and publicly upgrade or downgrade their rating of a stock to achieve their own objectives.

Very interesting and you really know your stuff as well as most of the comments that were posted

I would not really call HFT stragies ran by quant funds "TA" as I think most of the most sucessfull relies on some sort of hidden fundamental assumption.

For example, a lot of strategies like pair trading and stats arbitrage variants are basically "buy when the stock goes down compared to some indice".

You might call that TA, and yes I agree it fit the definition "a strategy relying on the tape & graph", but it is also kinda fundamental; stock that performed worst than the rest of correlated stock are expected to have lower fundamental ratios and to have their higher ratio when they are at their lowest.

But I agree that TA is not really bullshit, It is just that I have been to so many "traders conferences" where some bullshit teacher from "easy money university" explain that if the mobile average cross the tape then it is a very strong buy signal and it goes up almost always etc etc. Of course I went home and did some simulations and nothing is nowhere near as that.

Like you can achieve 90%+ predictability with signals. Edge are much lowers. A 55% or something edge is huge
Kinda like in poker

And even though you can have hidden information etc. I have always felt like the market is a fish. I don't know, being investing since like 10y and it seems like to me the market is always tilting and overreacting. I think that's why I am a graham & Buffet fan in the first place.

I mean come one, even the average day variation (+2% / -2%) is obvious proof that the market is not at all efficient in my opinion. You cant believe that something is truly worth 2% less or more within a single day ?

Some business does 19% net revenue instead of 20% as expected and booyah the stock enjoy a -30% in the 4 next day.
Sure -1% than expected mean the business is worth 30% less, am I right ?

There are several reason for that I think, I wont list them all but yeah, I truly believe there are lot of inefficiency, and both TA and fundamentals can catch those.

If there would not there would not be so many quant funds raking huge profits btw.

But contrary to you, I actually think it is harder to win via TA because if there is a simple analytic method it can be simply programmed into a trading bot, whereas it is harder to implement an automated fundamental method.

In my case I have my very own and weird on some points methods of fundamental picking and it must be quite unique even thought it is not that complex. I don't think it is that great, just that it can pick stock that are unfairly beaten by the market. Those low 6 per / 10% dividend / 50% lower than P/B that have been unfairly gang banged by the market, I pick them up

In a crisis, there is just plenty opportunity for good value stocks.

On scale 1-10 how good investment is Facebook after maybe 1 month when the price is prob. aroung 15$
Was arguing with my friend and you are a invester I would like your opinion on this hehe

investing and trading is difficult. anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Emi come on man, you make it sound like the market is super easy to beat and everyone else in the market is a "fish" ("I have always felt like the market is a fish".

Edit: And people shouldn't get hung up on investing in shares like it's the only option, there are other asset classes that may better suit your individual needs.

Yeah sorry Funcktion but thats just my personnal feeling lol. Can't help it. I am probably biased because of the positive vaiance ^^ Anyway mb I am wrong but playing the market has always worked good for me

I am not saying everyone & managers are bad. Fund have others problems that I don't have, for example in a crisis when I am "OMG everything is so cheap buy buy buy" theirs clients are ass scared by the context so they all want to withdraw, ending in the funds having to liquidate position at very bad price.

So basically even if you are the god of pricing and stuff when the TV says the end of the financial world is coming if half your clients are gonna come to you to move out funds you are fucked up

And conversely, when everything feels good and thus stocks price are skyrocketing everyone wants to buy so you end up with more monies at bad time.

The other edge we have is that when we make a trade we don't move the price at all. They thus have to get a bigger edge than we amateurs do.
As well, I have even invested in smallcaps companies for which I am a 0.1% percent shareholders lol. (edit : according to wikipedia thats actually nanocaps compagnies "Nano-cap": Below $50 million)
A big fund can not spend times studying these companies and investing in them because the profits will not even be worthwhile their time

As well lets not forget thats playing poker everybody gets hurt by rake so there will always be like 80% looser.

In the markets, if you dont make a lot of move (dont pay lot of rake), everybody gain dividends over and over and over so playing long term investment is not a 0 sum game, it is a positive one. In a theoretical world, everybody could be a winner, because of the endless dividends.

Of course in the practical real world most investment amateurs are huge donks that keeps making huge move so they often end up broke

On August 17 2012 13:22 doriipoker wrote: On scale 1-10 how good investment is Facebook after maybe 1 month when the price is prob. aroung 15$ Was arguing with my friend and you are a invester I would like your opinion on this hehe

I am really bad at pricing good & growth compagnies because thats not my speciality.
Thats like asking a NL player to rate your 7 stud play

However when it was at 30 the P/E was so fucking high (100+) that it felt almost scamy to me. Now it is a little bit more reasonable, but still with P/E 60 if the pricing is "fair" you have to believe that somehow within the 5-10 years the net revenue of facebook are gonna be multiplied by 6 or so (because a P/E ~10 is somewhere near average for growlthess companies).

That seems a lot especially as everybody in the world and their kids use facebook nowdays. So they cant really have 6 times more users, or in poor countries.

So well I dont know, maybe 4 ? As I said I am really bad at pricing top companies as I don't have much knowledge of the equivalent ones

Compared to a similar top growth company BAIDU (the china google) i am buying BAIDU 100% of the time. BAIDU has similar fucking skyhigh growth and revenue but the P/E is much more reasonnable (around 27)

(Edit : just verified and the P/E is not 27 but 40 don't know where i got that number, so all my reasoning on why baidu is better is kinda wrong)

http://fr.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BIDU

Actually I would probably buy a little bit of BIDU

Again, not a financial adviser, my comments are only my opinion etc etc :D