3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2741701
Can someone explain this academic paper to me?
Can someone explain this academic paper to me?
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
From just reading the abstract, they show that using leveraged funds in conjunction with trend following via moving averages would have improved all around performance significantly. A quick examination of one such approach in Portfolio Visualizer with live funds supports this. Holding SSO, a 2x leveraged S&P 500 fund, when it was above its 10 month moving average (roughly equivalent to a 210 day moving average) and holding cash otherwise since May of 2007 (earliest available data in PV) would have led to the performance below. Using a bond fund like VUSTX, a long-term Treasuries fund, would have improved the annualized returns significantly even over this, boosting the annualized returns to 22% while not affecting the maximum drawdown at all.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100
But unfortunately, you cannot buy the past. The future could turn out in such a way that this strategy would have grossly underperformed. I am not recommending this strategy or any other market timing strategy. YMMV.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100
But unfortunately, you cannot buy the past. The future could turn out in such a way that this strategy would have grossly underperformed. I am not recommending this strategy or any other market timing strategy. YMMV.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
It's interesting. The idea is that 200DMA lets you get out before craziness (basically 1929 is a non-issue if you cash out early), and lever it up 3x during good times.
For the retirees though, they need to figure out their tax situation as presumably they'd have to cash out everything whenever the S&P breaches 200DMA.
For the retirees though, they need to figure out their tax situation as presumably they'd have to cash out everything whenever the S&P breaches 200DMA.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Turned out we can fine-tune the params exactly: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:10 am From just reading the abstract, they show that using leveraged funds in conjunction with trend following via moving averages would have improved all around performance significantly. A quick examination of one such approach in Portfolio Visualizer with live funds supports this. Holding SSO, a 2x leveraged S&P 500 fund, when it was above its 10 month moving average (roughly equivalent to a 210 day moving average) and holding cash otherwise since May of 2007 (earliest available data in PV) would have led to the performance below. Using a bond fund like VUSTX, a long-term Treasuries fund, would have improved the annualized returns significantly even over this, boosting the annualized returns to 22% while not affecting the maximum drawdown at all.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100
But unfortunately, you cannot buy the past. The future could turn out in such a way that this strategy would have grossly underperformed. I am not recommending this strategy or any other market timing strategy. YMMV.
Still looks decent to me. I also like that the MaxDD is only -38% despite using 2x during 2008.
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Try with ULPIX and UOPIX for longer backtests into 1998Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 amTurned out we can fine-tune the params exactly: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:10 am From just reading the abstract, they show that using leveraged funds in conjunction with trend following via moving averages would have improved all around performance significantly. A quick examination of one such approach in Portfolio Visualizer with live funds supports this. Holding SSO, a 2x leveraged S&P 500 fund, when it was above its 10 month moving average (roughly equivalent to a 210 day moving average) and holding cash otherwise since May of 2007 (earliest available data in PV) would have led to the performance below. Using a bond fund like VUSTX, a long-term Treasuries fund, would have improved the annualized returns significantly even over this, boosting the annualized returns to 22% while not affecting the maximum drawdown at all.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100
But unfortunately, you cannot buy the past. The future could turn out in such a way that this strategy would have grossly underperformed. I am not recommending this strategy or any other market timing strategy. YMMV.
Still looks decent to me. I also like that the MaxDD is only -38% despite using 2x during 2008.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Thanks, they still look decent to me. Bailing on 200DMA makes it relatively safe, at the expense of missing some of the recovery.Hydromod wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:35 amTry with ULPIX and UOPIX for longer backtests into 1998Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:24 amTurned out we can fine-tune the params exactly: https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:10 am From just reading the abstract, they show that using leveraged funds in conjunction with trend following via moving averages would have improved all around performance significantly. A quick examination of one such approach in Portfolio Visualizer with live funds supports this. Holding SSO, a 2x leveraged S&P 500 fund, when it was above its 10 month moving average (roughly equivalent to a 210 day moving average) and holding cash otherwise since May of 2007 (earliest available data in PV) would have led to the performance below. Using a bond fund like VUSTX, a long-term Treasuries fund, would have improved the annualized returns significantly even over this, boosting the annualized returns to 22% while not affecting the maximum drawdown at all.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/tes ... ion1_1=100
But unfortunately, you cannot buy the past. The future could turn out in such a way that this strategy would have grossly underperformed. I am not recommending this strategy or any other market timing strategy. YMMV.
Still looks decent to me. I also like that the MaxDD is only -38% despite using 2x during 2008.
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
This paper was discussed several times here on the forum.
Here are a few. TLDR, it looks good in backtest since it gets out of dire situation like 1929/2008 and etc, 200 day SMA avoids some of the whiplash but not all, future is unknowable and more importantly, many momentum funds are running 10month/200day SMA so your trades may happen during the most volatile period of trading and price entry/exit is distorted. Have fun exploring.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=297591
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=358265
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=344121
Here are a few. TLDR, it looks good in backtest since it gets out of dire situation like 1929/2008 and etc, 200 day SMA avoids some of the whiplash but not all, future is unknowable and more importantly, many momentum funds are running 10month/200day SMA so your trades may happen during the most volatile period of trading and price entry/exit is distorted. Have fun exploring.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=297591
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=358265
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=344121
- firebirdparts
- Posts: 4414
- Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Southern Appalachia
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
I trust everybody looking at that graph will actually see it. A problem you get into in real time is that those long years of underperformance are going to feel long. I don’t know if a person would or should be sold enough to hang on and catch the good trades along with the bad.
If you don’t see the long years of underperformance, then let’s hope you wouldn’t notice them in real time either.
If you don’t see the long years of underperformance, then let’s hope you wouldn’t notice them in real time either.
This time is the same
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Isn't this also true of anyone holding fixed income while stocks are soaring?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:03 pm I trust everybody looking at that graph will actually see it. A problem you get into in real time is that those long years of underperformance are going to feel long. I don’t know if a person would or should be sold enough to hang on and catch the good trades along with the bad.
If you don’t see the long years of underperformance, then let’s hope you wouldn’t notice them in real time either.
The Sensible Steward
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Even in a taxable account, a leveraged ETF strategy can be effectively zeroed out with no tax implications via options. But this strategy is far simpler in a tax-advantaged account.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 10:12 am For the retirees though, they need to figure out their tax situation as presumably they'd have to cash out everything whenever the S&P breaches 200DMA.
The Sensible Steward
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Some people even claim that such a strategy is easier to stick than "buy and hold".willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:06 pmIsn't this also true of anyone holding fixed income while stocks are soaring?firebirdparts wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:03 pm I trust everybody looking at that graph will actually see it. A problem you get into in real time is that those long years of underperformance are going to feel long. I don’t know if a person would or should be sold enough to hang on and catch the good trades along with the bad.
If you don’t see the long years of underperformance, then let’s hope you wouldn’t notice them in real time either.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
It comes down to whether you believe this sentence or not:
It is true that the 200-DMA strategy is helped by a drop right before the 1987 Black Monday. The question is, does our market really drop by 10%+ "at anytime"? The history seems to indicate no.A day like Black Monday could happen at anytime and if there wasn't a choppy market leading up to it you will miss it with moving averages.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
According to Wikipedia, there have only been four days when the S&P 500 dropped by 10% or more in a single day. Two were in October of 1929, one was Black Monday in 1987, and the other was March 16th of 2020.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:46 pmIt comes down to whether you believe this sentence or not:It is true that the 200-DMA strategy is helped by a drop right before the 1987 Black Monday. The question is, does our market really drop by 10%+ "at anytime"? The history seems to indicate no.A day like Black Monday could happen at anytime and if there wasn't a choppy market leading up to it you will miss it with moving averages.
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Right, 10% was kind of arbitrary by me but those big drops were often preceded by smaller drops leading up to them. March 16th, 2020 was no exception, the market was already choppy since Jan / Feb 2020.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:52 pmAccording to Wikipedia, there have only been four days when the S&P 500 dropped by 10% or more in a single day. Two were in October of 1929, one was Black Monday in 1987, and the other was March 16th of 2020.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:46 pmIt comes down to whether you believe this sentence or not:It is true that the 200-DMA strategy is helped by a drop right before the 1987 Black Monday. The question is, does our market really drop by 10%+ "at anytime"? The history seems to indicate no.A day like Black Monday could happen at anytime and if there wasn't a choppy market leading up to it you will miss it with moving averages.
This is why I don't buy the reddit guy's notion that "a day like Black Monday could happen at anytime."
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
I agree. Volatility clustering has been and seems to continue to be very much alive and well.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:57 pmRight, 10% was kind of arbitrary by me but those big drops were often preceded by smaller drops leading up to them. March 16th, 2020 was no exception, the market was already choppy since Jan / Feb 2020.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:52 pmAccording to Wikipedia, there have only been four days when the S&P 500 dropped by 10% or more in a single day. Two were in October of 1929, one was Black Monday in 1987, and the other was March 16th of 2020.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:46 pmIt comes down to whether you believe this sentence or not:It is true that the 200-DMA strategy is helped by a drop right before the 1987 Black Monday. The question is, does our market really drop by 10%+ "at anytime"? The history seems to indicate no.A day like Black Monday could happen at anytime and if there wasn't a choppy market leading up to it you will miss it with moving averages.
This is why I don't buy the reddit guy's notion that "a day like Black Monday could happen at anytime."
The Sensible Steward
-
- Posts: 16054
- Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:41 pm
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Tbh this might be an interesting "funny money" trade though. I guess one issue is that this can generate STCG at any moment, because once SPX breaches 200d MA then you have to get out.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:59 pm I agree. Volatility clustering has been and seems to continue to be very much alive and well.
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
It's timing with leverage. Is that something you're interested in? It's only less risk while volatility stays low and the overall direction is one way. Super awesome for some along the way. Super sucky for those who get the timing wrong.
Ask yourself this: if everyone is using the same measure to determine timing, how long do you think that measure will hold true? You can't know. When it fails, it will fail big. And the "but, but, but..." won't do crap all for you.
You cannot rely on any particular metric to guarantee you anything or provide you with a "guardrail". Guardrails fail, either intrinsically or at high enough velocities. People still careen to their deaths.
It's risky. There is no "less risk"; there is only fooling yourself into believing that's the case.
Diversify. Prepare for all things to the fullest extent possible that makes sense for your particular situation. And maintain. If one thing comes to pass, you were prepared a bit. That doesn't mean shift everything to contend with that thing. Leave it alone. The other bits are still there to contend with the other things that may still come to pass. You can't guess the timing of anything. You just can't. Don't try. All possible futures, all the time. Figure it out, and then leave it alone. At least until you get to a point where a possible future you disregarded as irrelevant to your past situation actually matters now (i.e. inflation to low vs. high net worth).
Ask yourself this: if everyone is using the same measure to determine timing, how long do you think that measure will hold true? You can't know. When it fails, it will fail big. And the "but, but, but..." won't do crap all for you.
You cannot rely on any particular metric to guarantee you anything or provide you with a "guardrail". Guardrails fail, either intrinsically or at high enough velocities. People still careen to their deaths.
It's risky. There is no "less risk"; there is only fooling yourself into believing that's the case.
Diversify. Prepare for all things to the fullest extent possible that makes sense for your particular situation. And maintain. If one thing comes to pass, you were prepared a bit. That doesn't mean shift everything to contend with that thing. Leave it alone. The other bits are still there to contend with the other things that may still come to pass. You can't guess the timing of anything. You just can't. Don't try. All possible futures, all the time. Figure it out, and then leave it alone. At least until you get to a point where a possible future you disregarded as irrelevant to your past situation actually matters now (i.e. inflation to low vs. high net worth).
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Preferably, this would be done in a tax-advantaged account. But options can be used to effectively zero one's stock exposure in a taxable account without generating any capital gains.Marseille07 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:24 pmTbh this might be an interesting "funny money" trade though. I guess one issue is that this can generate STCG at any moment, because once SPX breaches 200d MA then you have to get out.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:59 pm I agree. Volatility clustering has been and seems to continue to be very much alive and well.
The Sensible Steward
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
The more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
But in reality, not even close to everyone is using the same measure, and a large swath of the market isn't timing anything at all.
The Sensible Steward
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52216
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
The article was literally written by a person selling a newsletter. I'll avoid posting the link. The website claims that it is
The problem with this stuff is that financial history is episodic. It doesn't take a great deal of overfitting to come up with something that steers around the known past hazards. And if we're steeped in financial history we already know where those hazards are, even before start inventing and backtesting strategies, and unconsciously influence the strategies we invent.
And even after that, the elephant in the room is always "please give us an accurate count of the number of strategies you backtested before you came up with one you are showing us."
In 1963, it was genuinely creepy whenever it was pointed out that for a hundred and forty years, every president elected in a year ending in zero had died in office.* By 1984, Only eight out of thirty-five presidents had died in office. The probability of seven consecutive terminal-zero-year elections having presidents dying in office would appear to be (8/35)⁷ = 0.00326% or less than 1 in 30,000. That would appear to be highly statistically significant. The creepiness didn't wear off until Ronald Reagan survived his second term.
The only way you can have a 1/30,000 chance be meaningless is if the community of people looking for patterns in data is unconsciously testing and rejecting hundreds of thousands of hypotheses.
(Remember the one about candidates with double letters in their name always beating candidates without?)
I think the reason why it is so common to see "innovative" mutual funds, preceded by mouthwatering backtests, produce emphatically disappointing results, is that once the mutual fund is launched, you now see the public, visible results of committing to a single strategy. It's no longer possible to adjust the strategy and show only the results of the improved strategy.
*I don't know when it started being called "the curse of Tippecanoe." It was not called that during the sixties.
If you gave a million monkeys a million spreadsheets and put them to work for a million years, they would eventually come up with a backtest even better than that one.The Only Investment Strategy Report You'll Need
Developed from award-winning market research, The Lead-Lag Report gives you powerful market insights to improve your long-term investment strategy. This report combines detailed risk analysis with tactical investment opportunities and delivers those insights directly to you every day. Most importantly, you’ll be able to capitalize on market trends before most investors are even aware of them.
The problem with this stuff is that financial history is episodic. It doesn't take a great deal of overfitting to come up with something that steers around the known past hazards. And if we're steeped in financial history we already know where those hazards are, even before start inventing and backtesting strategies, and unconsciously influence the strategies we invent.
And even after that, the elephant in the room is always "please give us an accurate count of the number of strategies you backtested before you came up with one you are showing us."
In 1963, it was genuinely creepy whenever it was pointed out that for a hundred and forty years, every president elected in a year ending in zero had died in office.* By 1984, Only eight out of thirty-five presidents had died in office. The probability of seven consecutive terminal-zero-year elections having presidents dying in office would appear to be (8/35)⁷ = 0.00326% or less than 1 in 30,000. That would appear to be highly statistically significant. The creepiness didn't wear off until Ronald Reagan survived his second term.
The only way you can have a 1/30,000 chance be meaningless is if the community of people looking for patterns in data is unconsciously testing and rejecting hundreds of thousands of hypotheses.
(Remember the one about candidates with double letters in their name always beating candidates without?)
I think the reason why it is so common to see "innovative" mutual funds, preceded by mouthwatering backtests, produce emphatically disappointing results, is that once the mutual fund is launched, you now see the public, visible results of committing to a single strategy. It's no longer possible to adjust the strategy and show only the results of the improved strategy.
*I don't know when it started being called "the curse of Tippecanoe." It was not called that during the sixties.
Last edited by nisiprius on Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Not necessarily. If the 200 MA line is crossed, if everyone goes to sell at the same time, your trade may not make it through until the market has already dropped another 5%-10%-15% in a day (because everyone is selling).willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
The smart investor would sell right before the 200 MA line is crossed, so not to get caught up in that mess. But guess how many people are going to have that idea? A LOT.
And that's how "systems" stop working once every one knows about the system.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Yes. Until someone else figures out how to exploit that. And then it goes boom.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
There are no guarantees. There are lulls, where we believe they may exist. And then the eventual storm. Any observance of order to chaos is only temporary. That's just how it goes.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
A strategy that counts on a certain event to occur or not occur is a strategy based upon a guess. That is even more true when you're counting on the aggregate behavior of a large number of people.
If crowd surge is not rational, it should never occur, and nobody would die from it at a concert. The "rats abandoning ship" behavior can occur at any time -- markets are not an exception.
If crowd surge is not rational, it should never occur, and nobody would die from it at a concert. The "rats abandoning ship" behavior can occur at any time -- markets are not an exception.
“Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” ― Bruce Lee
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
It takes guts, ignorance, or both for someone to try to catch the proverbial falling knife. It often ends up bloody.Beensabu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 pmYes. Until someone else figures out how to exploit that. And then it goes boom.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
Maybe someone has figured out to how exploit the inverse of something like the 200 DMA. But if they have, they're seem to be keeping mum about it.
Of course, and that applies to all investment strategies.
The Sensible Steward
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
I'm curious how many times that has actually happened. In the last 30+ years, my guess is very close to zero.HomerJ wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:26 pmNot necessarily. If the 200 MA line is crossed, if everyone goes to sell at the same time, your trade may not make it through until the market has already dropped another 5%-10%-15% in a day (because everyone is selling).willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
The Sensible Steward
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Oh, I didn't say that there are too many people using it now... I'm saying that more and more people using it may not necessarily be good. At some point, it might tip over.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:15 pmI'm curious how many times that has actually happened. In the last 30+ years, my guess is very close to zero.HomerJ wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:26 pmNot necessarily. If the 200 MA line is crossed, if everyone goes to sell at the same time, your trade may not make it through until the market has already dropped another 5%-10%-15% in a day (because everyone is selling).willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
"The best tools available to us are shovels, not scalpels. Don't get carried away." - vanBogle59
Re: 3x the S&P CAGR with less risk?
Why do they have to catch the knife? Why can't they just drop it before everyone else? If the move is big enough (or there are enough big ones at around the same time), that's all it takes. Homer J already said. It could be a bunch of people deciding to drop early, or just a few big ones. Just one huge "that's it, I'm out" drop before everyone else thought it was going to happen. And then the wave is on you, and you just have to hold your breath and hope what you think is up is actually up, because if it's down, you won't know until you hit your head.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:13 pmIt takes guts, ignorance, or both for someone to try to catch the proverbial falling knife. It often ends up bloody.Beensabu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 pmYes. Until someone else figures out how to exploit that. And then it goes boom.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:19 pmThe more people that use a given measure, the better it should work. If many are selling at the same time, that would push the price the lower, and vice versa.
Maybe someone has figured out to how exploit the inverse of something like the 200 DMA. But if they have, they're seem to be keeping mum about it.
Of course, and that applies to all investment strategies.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin