Many still see making money all wrong. They make wildly inaccurate assumptions when asked these questions regarding what constitutes a winning trader:
– Do they possess a unique talent?
– A special inborn gene or divine gift?
– The innate talent of a child prodigy?
– Inside knowledge?
– Ability to predict markets?
– Degrees in finance or a MBA?
– Huge starting capital?
One answer: No.
This chapter gives several examples of different peoples method of placing their trades, and uncovers the difficulties that many people have in following a trading method. Much of the difficulties lie in the behavior pattern of avoiding punishment. A speculator may make mistake and know that he is making them, but not why. He simple calls himself names and lets it go at that.
Mistakes are always around if you want to make a fool of yourself. Mistakes are part of the human condition, and should not cause lost sleep. But being wrong – not taking the loss – that is what does the damage to the pocketbook and to the soul.
Trading Commodities rather than stocks partakes more of the nature of a commercial venture than trading in stocks does. Commodities are governed by one law in the long run, supply and demand. Fundamental information is more concrete than in Stocks, where the investor must guess about many influences.
Technical analysis, or tape reading, works exactly the same for stocks as for cotton or wheat or corn or oats. Still, the average trader from Missouri everywhere will risk half his fortune in the stock market with less reflection than he devotes to the selection of a car. Today the popular analogy is that most people spend more time planning their vacation than they spend planning for their retirement. (more…)
Consider an excerpt:
WSJ: What do you mean by emotional finance?
PROF. TUCKETT: What we try to do in emotional finance is start with the fact that the future is unknowable. The key thing about uncertainty is that it inevitably generates feelings. Because it matters to you, because your money’s on the line, so to speak, you’re bound to feel emotionally engaged.
WSJ: Some people think pros are more rational than individual investors.
PROF. TAFFLER: Although most of the fund managers we interviewed saw part of their particular competitive advantage as remaining, as they described it, unemotional or rational, in practice they were just as emotional as anyone else when they started to talk about the stocks they had invested in. There were lots of examples where they referred to them almost as if they were lovers.
If you’re entering into an emotional relationship with a stock, an asset or a company that can let you down, this leads to anxiety, which is often not consciously acknowledged. But it’s there, bubbling beneath the surface.
When to use it: Any time a market or stock has already gone up a lot.
Why it’s smart-sounding: It implies wise, prudent caution. It implies that you bought or recommended the stock a long time ago, before the easy money was made (and are therefore smart). It suggests that there might be further upside but that there might also be future downside, because the stock is “due for a correction” (another smart-sounding meaningless phrase that you can use all the time). It does not commit you to any specific recommendation or prediction. It protects you from all possible outcomes: If the stock drops, you can say “as I said…” If the stock goes up, you can say “as I said…”
Why it’s meaningless: It’s a statement of the obvious. It’s a description of what has happened, not what will happen. It requires no special insights or powers of analysis. It tells you nothing that you don’t already know. Also, it’s not true: The money that has been made was likely in no way “easy.” Buying stocks that are rising steadily is a lot “easier” than buying stocks that the market has left for dead (because everyone thinks you’re stupid to buy stocks that no one else wants to buy.)
2.I’m cautiously optimistic. (more…)
In this 38 minute interview Lars Schall, for Matterhorn Asset Management, speaks with Dr Pippa Malmgren, a US financial advisor and policy expert based in London. Dr Malmgren has been a member of the U.S. President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (a.k.a. the “Plunge Protection Team”). They address, inter alia:
If dropping “ebitda” into cocktail party conversation makes you feel like a globetrotting financier, there is something you should know. It makes you sound like a MBA twit-clone with a Hermès tie and two brain cells. A fuzzy proxy for cash flow, ebitda (for the uninitiated, earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation) is the unit that investors and analysts reflexively use to talk about profit. (And what else do they talk about? Property?) It can mislead – but shouldn’t be abandoned.
The elegance of ebitda is that it comes straight off the income statement, and very high up on it where it should be purest. Coming ahead of interest expense, it is capital structure agnostic, and takes out recurring non-cash charges, too. But relying on the income statement alone ignores critical uses of cash that appear elsewhere – capital spending, changes in working capital, deferred revenue. Free cash flow captures these, but requires turning to another page of the financial report and is hard to forecast as it depends on the timing of payments. But in telecoms where capex is massive, in retail where inventories oscillate, or in software where revenue recognition is key, ebitda misses too much. (more…)
Before the Trade
1. Do you know the name and numbers of all your counterparts, especially if your equipment breaks down?
2. When does your market close, especially on holidays?
3. Do you have all the equipment you’ll need to make the trade, including pens, computers, notebooks, order slips, in the normal course and in the event of a breakdown?
4. Did you write down your trade and check it to see for example that you didn’t enter 400 contracts instead of the four that you meant to trade?
5. Why did you get into the trade?
6. Did you do a workout?
7. Was it statistically significant taking into account multiple comparisons and lookbacks?
8. Is there a prospective relation between statistical significance and predictivity?
9. Did you consider everchanging cycles?
10. And if you deigned to do a workout the way all turf handicappers do, did you take into account the within-day variability of prices, especially how this might affect your margin and being stopped out by your broker? (more…)
I just finished reading Jason Zweig’s new book “The Devil’s Financial Dictionary” and boy is it good. If you’ve ever been overwhelmed by all the jargon used in finance and economics then this is right up your alley. Jason offers up a witty, brilliant and most importantly, useful collection of honest definitions. It’s a collection of all the things most people think about these words, but are too afraid to actually say. For instance:
ACCOUNT STATEMENT, n. A Document from a bank, brokerage, or investment firm that is designed to be incomprehensible to the CLIENTS, thereby preventing them from asking impertinent questions like “Who set my money on fire?” You might be able to recognize your balances and recent transactions on an account statement, although that will be easier if you earn a PhD in cryptography first.
EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS, n. A theory in financial economics believed only by financial economists. In theory, the market price is the best estimate at any time of what securities are worth; it immediately incorporates all the relevant information available, as rational investors dynamically update their expectations to adjust to the latest events. In practice, however, investors either ignore new information or wildly overreact to it, regardless of how relevant it is. Even so, that doesn’t make beating the market easy, because you must still outsmart tens of millions of other investors without incurring excess trading costs and taxes. As behavioral economists Meir Statman puts it, “The market may be crazy, but that doesn’t make you a psychiatrist.”
FEE, n. A tiny word with a teeny sound, which nevertheless is the single biggest determinant of success or failure for most investors.
Investors who keep fees as low as possible will, on average, earn the highest possible returns. The opposite may be true for their financial advisors, although that is still not widely understood.
