Crapper John Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 Lovin the discussion between N.Ron and Dozer regarding Hurst. Please read the book Dozer; I too would appreciate your take. BTW I think Hurst attributed 23% to cyclic motion. 75% to fundamentals and 2% to random events. These random events are the discontinuities which I believe Dozer was referring to earlier and as a Hurst practioner one must remain alert. As to whether Hurst principals need to revisted. I'm not sure. The cyclic picture is obviously clearer with the larger cap stocks, but the moves are smaller per time. This was as true in 1969 as it is today. An important part of Hurst application is proper issue selection. One needs a stock showing fairly consistent cyclic movement and high volatility to maximize profit realization thru timing. I too have explored the isolation of component sinusoidal cycles but have found Hurst's basic methods using centered moving averages to suffice given the practicalities of actual trading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 I like the 1900-1969 versus 1970-2003 comparison specifically because I intuitively perceive such a stark contrast. I also do not believe they compare at all; the use of a proper control, whatever that may entail, is probably not possible. It would be interesting to see, first off, if market price action has not changed at all, in spite of my subjective feelings of living on Matrix Central Prison Planet -- which includes total manipulation, almost choreography, of the markets. To the extent things have changed, it would be fun to study what is different, and at least take WAGs at what the changes relate to in the real world, i.e. derivitive exotica, 3:00 a.m. fucuture jams, 3:30 p.m. Stick Saves, breast enhancement surgery financed by massive amounts of credit, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summoner Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Maxxi couple of comments on your two picks BONZ ....I use their products regularly...would not consider investing in the co based on what I know TUTR...came up on my stock screen ...low float with high institutional sponsorship....can you say next years SNDK, JCOM, OVTI...of course would have been nice if I could of accumulated alot more before it popped up on this radar...lol trade safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozer Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 I like the 1900-1969 versus 1970-2003 comparison specifically because I intuitively perceive such a stark contrast. I also do not believe they compare at all; the use of a proper control, whatever that may entail, is probably not possible. It would be interesting to see, first off, if market price action has not changed at all, in spite of my subjective feelings of living on Matrix Central Prison Planet -- which includes total manipulation, almost choreography, of the markets. To the extent things have changed, it would be fun to study what is different, and at least take WAGs at what the changes relate to in the real world, i.e. derivitive exotica, 3:00 a.m. fucuture jams, 3:30 p.m. Stick Saves, breast enhancement surgery financed by massive amounts of credit, etc. gawd...of course. you were saying it'd be good comparison BECAUSE of the differences. sorry n-ron...i'm just not thinking clearly this weekend. too many days in a row with 5 hrs sleep, plus driving 2,500 miles in three looongg days I guess. also, thanks VERY much for the great precis on Hurst. That clarifies things greatly; and I now remember reading much the same thing somewhere on stool in past days. I'll try to retain it better this time... tanks also to CJ. yes, agreed, i'm not so sure that hurst's -principles- would want revisiting....i was only suggesting the possibility that perhaps some underlying assumptions might need modification....i.e. the % of noise usually present might've grown, etc.. for example, CJ mentioned that hurst ascribed 75% of movement to fundamentals; yet the common conclusion among us here seems to be that funny's have almost -zero- influence today. hmmm....occurs to me that "matrix" is very likely the substitute for the 75% of movement previously caused by funnymentals, eh? in which case, one ought to be able to derive what triggers the interventions; what level/event/etc. exactly, I mean. i've often thought there was a 'periodicity' to their meddlings....and in fact, n-ron you alluded to it just now with your "....3;30pm stick saves..."; i.e. that there was a common timing to it. Which we all humorously call out each day in IDS as the time approaches. But perhaps there are components of other (longer?) frequencies to the meddling as well. wish I had time to do correlation studies all day... n-ron, pearl harbor....zero effect? really?? wow....well, as stated so often today already....i need ta read the damn book! hee hee... again, my surprise must be due to missing some of the context. surely pearl harbor made more than a 0-2% difference -that week-....just as 9/11 did in its week/month. i'll assume for now that hurst meant it had no effect on the =multi-year= market trends/cycles. finally, CJ's point is well taken....what level of resolution is really needed for practical trading? obviously, the CMA's do the job. don't mind me...i'm an inveterate optimizer...i can't help myself ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crapper John Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Posted this one Thursday night as a potential long. Noted that one of the directors has been buying large quants in July, Aug, and Sept. Thot if it broke the 50 dma it would proceed to the upper trendline. As you can see it did not break out. Went down on small volume. Picture remains unclear. Note the bullhorn and the diamond top. The pattern favors a 20% decline, but an upside breakout occurs 25% of the time per BullCowSki. A breakdown out of the diamond and the bullhorn would confirm a bearish outcome. However, I'm assuming a 16 day half cycle and looking for a retest of the upper diamond trendline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozer Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 depends; tanks! 'course, none of it was nearly as useful, and easy to understand, as mr. market meter! which i see is telling us "more up", eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crapper John Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Dozer, Good point about funnymentals not mattering. Instead of calling the 75% of price movement due to fundamentals it may be more appropriate to attribute it to asset inflation. Regardless, this component is linear, y=mx+b, or close enough. The frustrating thing for me is finding the right issue with some cyclicality. This insesant trend is not MY friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summoner Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Of course its early but S$P 5 pts below fair value...trade safe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 tanks also to CJ. yes, agreed, i'm not so sure that hurst's -principles- would want revisiting....i was only suggesting the possibility that perhaps some underlying assumptions might need modification....i.e. the % of noise usually present might've grown, etc.. for example, CJ mentioned that hurst ascribed 75% of movement to fundamentals; yet the common conclusion among us here seems to be that funny's have almost -zero- influence today. hmmm....occurs to me that "matrix" is very likely the substitute for the 75% of movement previously caused by funnymentals, eh? in which case, one ought to be able to derive what triggers the interventions; what level/event/etc. exactly, I mean. i've often thought there was a 'periodicity' to their meddlings....and in fact, n-ron you alluded to it just now with your "....3;30pm stick saves..."; i.e. that there was a common timing to it. Which we all humorously call out each day in IDS as the time approaches. But perhaps there are components of other (longer?) frequencies to the meddling as well. wish I had time to do correlation studies all day... n-ron, pearl harbor....zero effect? really?? wow....well, as stated so often today already....i need ta read the damn book! hee hee... again, my surprise must be due to missing some of the context. surely pearl harbor made more than a 0-2% difference -that week-....just as 9/11 did in its week/month. i'll assume for now that hurst meant it had no effect on the =multi-year= market trends/cycles. I like your thought on the increased matrix presence as showing up in the 75% trend (fundamentals) component. As we all know and monitor here, the actual jamming, etc. is closely correlated with massive bullhorning. The bullhorning provides the participants with the "fundamentals" that the plutocracy wants, and then the concurrent jamming gives immediate market action to reinforce in the minds of the participants that the new "fundamentals" are "real." This would show up as the trend component moving as the matrix wants it to move, and we all know what that is. Further, since this would be more a matter of hijacking the fundamentals, or more strictly the perceptions thereof, rather than changing the balance of market dynamics, the proportions Hurst found 30+ years ago may turn out to be unchanged. Of course, matrix manipulation of fundamental perception is not perfect. The more dishonest the bullhorning, the more massive the collapse when the lie is found out. This may account for some of the increase in chaos, which does seem vastly greater now compared with what is seen in charts circa 1970. However, if this results from sudden changes in perceived fundamentals happening much more frequently, the 2% random noise amount that Hurst found may not necessarily have increased. Rather, some sort of measure that homes in on the persistence of the linear trend component will be much more volatile, and somehow flakier, than it was in 1970. I know you earlier noted that systems, as they increase in size, unavoidably become more chaotic. It would be interesting how much the increased apparent chaos is actually increased systemic chaos versus a result of more sophisticated and increased levels of lying and scamming ... or whether the increased lying and scamming is simply the way increased chaos is playing itself out. The general (non company or economic fundamental) news component seems, at first glance, unchanged between then and now, remaining at 0. I base this on a simple glance of a long term Dow chart. Neither the Pearl Harbor nor the World Trade Center attacks seem to have disrupted the combined fundamental/cyclical motion already in progress at the respective time, and this appears true even regarding the short term cycles, at least at first glance. It would be interesting to really investigate our speculations. If only any of us can make the time for it .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Dozer, Good point about funnymentals not mattering. Instead of calling the 75% of price movement due to fundamentals it may be more appropriate to attribute it to asset inflation. Regardless, this component is linear, y=mx+b, or close enough. The frustrating thing for me is finding the right issue with some cyclicality. This insesant trend is not MY friend. Asset Inflation is a very good way of looking at it, because it gives a nexus between the math and the intent of the Matrix Operators. The funny thing is just how hard they have to work to attain the desired asset inflation, the incessant bullhorn/jam cycle, turning ever faster and faster. This cannot go on forever; it never does. It's like a mechanical system running where it does not belong. I wonder, if shortly before it snaps, harmful vibrations will show in the shorter cycles, much as high frequency vibrations might get amplified before a bridge collapses or an engine blows. Another interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depends Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 depends; ?tanks! ? 'course, none of it was nearly as useful, and easy to understand, as mr. market meter! ? which i see is telling us "more up", eh? mrmarket meter can only tell us where we've been, but it has been rather uncanny about future action. My humble attempt at 'simpler is better'. If tomorrow is sideways or up then 'more up' may be in the cards, but the buy confirmation is not complete yet. I'm holding stinky shorts and a few W pattern longs. If it says up after tomorrow I will likely tight stop my shorts. We need to figure out how to hook up an oscilloscope to the S&P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dozer Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 We need to figure out how to hook up anoscilloscope to the S&P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardrech Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 gruff and n-ron, excellent posts....tanks. Putnam update: now add Iowa to the list too... Pension funds in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Rhode Island fired Putnam Investments on Friday, joining a growing exodus of customers abandoning the embattled fund company. They joined Massachusetts, New York and Vermont pension officials, as well as some universities, who are taking their business away from Putnam following accusations by regulators that four of its fund managers engaged in personal short-term investing at clients' expense. In just two days, public pension funds have announced plans to pull at least $4.4 billion out of the company, which lists $272 billion in assets under management. New England Pension Consultants, a firm that advises 190 pension plans with $150 billion in assets, has recommended clients get out of Putnam international stock funds. It's been a devastating year at Putnam: underperforming funds, then scandal, and now a struggle to retain customers with the company's future potentially on the line. State and federal filings Tuesday accused the country's No. 5 mutual fund company of turning a blind eye to market timing trades, or moving quickly in and out of funds. The practice is not illegal but regulators say it hurt other investors and should have been disclosed. Financial experts say dropping Putnam funds may be unwise; other fund companies could soon be ensnared in the scandal, and if Putnam is forced to sell securities it could deflate their price, denying the sellers fair market value. But the latest developments highlight a potential nightmare scenario for the Boston-based fund company: customers pull their money, prompting fund values to fall, prompting more customers to leave. "It does raise the prospect people could become frightened and panic and start liquidating Putnam mutual funds," said Michael Ryan, a Westerly, R.I., financial planner who said he is generally advising clients to stay in Putnam funds, at least until it becomes clear if other fund companies engaged in similar practices. "If it got to large enough numbers, it could force Putnam to start liquidating their holdings, which could have an adverse effect on the value." Customers had already pulled $8.8 billion from Putnam accounts this year through September, the worst figure among the top 25 mutual funds, according to Financial Research Corp. Shares of Putnam's parent company, Marsh & McLennan, fell $1.75, or nearly 4 percent, to close at $42.75 in trading Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. Fund companies keep cushions of cash and lines of credit so they can redeem money to customers without selling assets. But eventually, if enough of Putnam's 12 million customers redeem shares, the company could have to dip into assets, said Edward O'Neal, a finance expert at Wake Forest University's Babcock Graduate School of Management. Putnam is big enough that a sell-off could deplete the value of some of the underlying assets, particularly small-cap stocks. That would affect anyone who owns those stocks, but Putnam funds would be hit disproportionately. "I am not aware of any previous case where a mutual fund family was facing the level of redemptions it appears Putnam is facing," O'Neal said. more.... from: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/apb...310&slug=Putnam RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT THE STAGE compared to a person sitting at the bar of a very crowded combination nightclub- casino- dance parlor--when of a sudden he spots what appears to be a puff of cigar smoke coming from behind the stage--a lo-life amoralist constantlly slumming, despite his mother's admonitions, he has a high degree of intelligence and thus can correlate the smoke puffs and smoketrails with what was to be the major act that night-- the Molotovs, a third tier Rock group that usually started their act with grips throwing fire wicked bottles of kerosene into the audience which,according to the act's itinerary, are immediately extinguished by a group of strategically placed tattod men with fire extinguisahers. Only this evening noone noticed the prematurity of what was to be an innocent and safe evening of pyrotechnics Recognizing the crowded distance to the only exit in the place, and knowing that hurling his body through the crowd would induce the very stampede he didnt want to be a part of--His adams apple begins to choke him, and he slowly begins to walk as if he had a broomstick up his ass;both for reasons of impending incontinence as well as disguising his growing panic, which suppression would enable him to snake through the crowd before they got wind of the imminent conflagration- [The above is where we are at now}we are heading towards-------- A moment or two later, as he is about a quarter of the way from salvation, the smoke engulfs the drugged and already inebriated joyous mob---and the first shout of FIRE,!!!! fire dont panic!!!! dont panic dont panic-- you son of a bitch dontpanic get outamy way you bastards i want out--gET ME THE F OUTAHERE I leave the following to your own imagination; a descriptiion of the promenade to the exit and all the gaily festooned sequelae a grand night for singingly yours beardrech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Seems a shame to chase off smart traders, Piles being the latest (there have been others), because they go long. First I want to thank Dozer and Enron Shrubard, and everyone, for their magnificent posts this weekend. Tremendously thoughtful. Great reading! Second I want to respond to the attached quote. People leave the board because they choose to, not because they were chased off. The ones I respect are those who remain to continue the debate. I like Piles, I laughed with him. I never censured him for his aggressiveness. In either direction. Nor did I see much of that from other stoolies. Sure there was debate. Sure people got aggravated. That's the way the world is. He decided he didn't like it here anmore. So he left. That's his choice, and his right. People who quit, quit because they don't want to be here any more, for whatever reason. I respect that. The people I respect the most are those who are still here right now, continuing the discourse, even though it is painful at times. Don't blame them for the actions of those who quit. Is there anything wrong with quitting? Hell no. I have quit many things in life. We all have. The time comes when we know it's time to go because the situation no longer feels right for us. But here again is this idea that somehow other people are responsible for our actions. It's complete nonsense. I'm not going to accept responsibility for the actions of others, nor will I allow other stoolies to be blamed for decisions that other people make for themselves, without calling attention to the fact that placing such blame is illogical and false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardrech Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 Machinehead: No comment from you today on the explosion in energy futures, and the possible rally off a bottom for the OSX stocks. CRB was down a hair, but I think a continuation of the energy futures strength combined with new strength in gold and silver next week would be enough to blow the CRB highs out like butter..... wndy; some foodstuffs were down slightly today...soybeans and maybe others....so perhaps that was the bulk of the slight decline in CRB today. like you, I see it exploding to the upside very soon...driven by energy and metals. hAS ANYBODY READ THE AURBACK essay:Commodities:An Inverse Correlate asset or a Symptom of the Credit Bubble-- I think that any stoolie positioned in com's should take a peek at this essay lest you find yourself jumping out of the proverbial barbecue grill Some commentary would be deeply apprecited by all,I'm sure. beardrech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.