A Data Science Central Community
The stock market is much more random than what most investors think. Indeed, it looks almost like a random walk: even if it has been going down 7 days in a row, the probability that it will go dow tomorrow is still 50%: random walks are memory-less processes. The chart below illustrates a simulated, perfectly random / unpredictable stock market.
Mathematics explains patterns.
Fundamentals explain systems.
Reply from Dr. Alan Miller on LinkedIn:
Lyapunov exponents in this system are probably positive , where the time constant are getting shorter and shorter the instability will get getting and greater. Chaotic behavior and mode competition is something I would expect to see more often especially with automated trading. There comes a point when all these systems oscillate between each other as competing hedge fund super computers try and out manipulate each other...
Its not really random it just looks that way in the linear world. If someone has the time use Wigner Voltera time series reconstruction and you would probably be able to recover he chaotic dynamics underneath the noise. Its all non linear, dont waste your time on linear analysis if you want to understand it, your variances will be too high to make sense of it all.
is your analysis for stock only, or do you include derivatives (options) ?
Wouldn't it make sense that the future price behavior of stocks and options would be mathematically tied in some kind of relationship - given Black/Scholes, et. al.
Therefore, whatever analysis would apply to stocks would also apply to options.
Also, obviously, as our times become more and more turbulent (or not), the economy and consequentially the markets will reflect that turbulence (or lack thereof).
You propose an interesting "take" on understanding the markets by understanding the "big" players (and their computers) actions underlying that market.
It is reassuring that microeconomic theory would seem to be alive and well.
The only people who can really exploit the patterns are the traders who move the markets. For most others, the mental preparation, constant attention to the markets, loss due to bid-ask spread, and other factors turns what looks good on paper into a losing proposition. One moderate loss, even short term can eliminate all your small wins. The chart patterns always appear better than they actually turn out to be. Think fundamentals, economic conditions, good quality index funds, and long term.
In terms of short term strategies, what makes this strategy any different from the 100's of other hindsight strategies that are developed day in and day out?
Saying you can't exploit the actions of "the traders who move the market" is like saying, if you live in a jungle, you can't exploit the actions of the elephants.
You can let the elephants clear a path through the forest for you. Simply follow their lead (and don't get trampled in the process).
You definitely need to be quick on your feet and alert but, then again, that is a general requirement in life (not just stock trading).
If you are trading using "chart patterns", you are already a loser. I learned over two/2 decades ago that two/2 dimensional charting is 60s or, at the latest, 70s technology. I do assume when you are saying charting you aren't interpreting charts (visually) in n-dimensional space?
It is also the case that - if you are looking for some perfect mathematical "trick" to make money in the market (with), then you are missing the fundamental boat. The overall market and the forces driving the whole market are always bigger than any individual (or even group of individuals) IN THE LONG RUN.
Scumbags, like Soros, may be able to create short term (temporary) dislocations in a market. However, eventually, the markets will recover and resume their "fundamental" behavior (good or bad).
James - you said it yourself:
"The overall market and the forces driving the whole market are always bigger than any individual (or even group of individuals) IN THE LONG RUN"
"Long runs" can be applied to active trading as well. All strategies look good on paper, even when backtested and forward tested. The reality is totally different. Eventually if you do it long enough, the market will grind you out, i.e the more trades you do, the less your return will be (study). Also, you are correct in saying we are not using 70's technology. There are too many things stacked against the average trader nowadays; i.e institutional algorithms developed by the brightest and best, trading bots, and split second execution time which is NEVER available to most traders. That in itself is a big advantage since the institutional algorithms can look back and tailor their strategies to what other traders are doing.
At least in Blackjack, the rules are static. With the markets the rules always seem to change. The incremental gains possible vs. buy and hold, or portfolio management strategies would just seem to require incredible amounts of capital to make it worth it to beat the market, and at least for me, not worth it at all.
Many other options available, mostly thru ETF's which allow for various combinations of risk/return and for changing outlooks.
Not trying to bust your bubble but you are wrong on a number of points (commonly held myths).
First, if reality is "totally different" from your strategies, then you have the wrong strategies. Strategies should REFLECT reality. Dah.
Second, "there are too many things stacked against the average trader" is probably true because the "average" trader is an unknowing, inexperienced, amateur who ought to play craps in Vegas (and not the lottery, which is usually what they do instead). You don't (or shouldn't) judge whether success is possible at something by "appealing" to what the "average" anybody can or can't do. Of course, I am assuming you are not just ABOVE AVERAGE. You are exceptional. Right.
Third, frankly, it was my experience as an independent consultant that, generally, institutions (and those working for them) were by definition mediocre - even their best and brightest. Most truly talented people can't tolerate the frustration of working for an institution. I know I was constantly frustrated by the bureaucratic bullshit that passes for corporations (as institutions). Of course, however bad (retarded) the private sector is, government in all it's forms is infinitely worse - even, their best and brightest who are often either ignored, passed over (for lack of seniority), or actually penalized (you can't fire government workers, generally). That damn civil service is like tenure in the academic community.
Fourth, I agree reality definitely isn't static. It is in that dynamic atmosphere that the individual "small" trader has a chance. Larger organizations can't react as fast as smaller ones and smaller ones can't react as fast as the individual. You apparently don't like change because you don't understand the PROCESS which underlies the SYSTEMS which are changing. I generally do (at least enough to make money routinely and safely in the stock market).
Fifth, portfolio management is one of those bullshit concepts that have been sold by the large institutions to the "masses".
By definition, why would anyone want to "balance" one's "portfolio" with a bunch of sub-optimal stocks IF YOU COULD TELL A "GOOD" STOCK FROM A "NOT SO GOOD" ONE. Again, I can tell the difference. I could give you a bunch of examples (trades I have made). One will suffice.
When Obama's Fed forced Suntrust to take "bailout" money when they didn't need it, Suntrust went thru a period where they were limited as to what they could do AND had to pay a bunch of fees they otherwise would not have had to pay. Their tangible book value was around $30 per share and they were selling as low as $8 per share. ANY MORON ought to be able to figure out that, unless Suntrust was going out of business - and they weren't, eventually their traded price would recover to at least the $30 per share. The key question was WHEN. WHEN I found out that Suntrust was finally going to get out of the TARP program (free at last, free at last, thank God they were free at last) AND had a good idea when (roughly), I started buying their stock AS IT STARTED CLIMBING OUT OF THE BASEMENT. i would buy it. It would go up (the expected amount). I would sell it. It went down. Then I would buy it again and repeat the process.
On the other hand, after trading it for a couple of times, my wife saw me making money on (and talking about Suntrust). She asked me if I thought it was not just a trading opportunity but also a longer term buy. I told her I thought the stock would go to AT LEAST $25 per share. She bought Suntrust around $12 per share and held it (unfortunately too long - after it got to $30). Her hold wasn't a terrible mistake but the growth rate of Suntrust since hitting $30 per share is not nearly as good as when it went from $8 to $30 per share.
I could repeat this story 100 times with other companies.
Finally, the "small" investor has an inherent advantage over the one who is managing a large pile of money. It's based on the concept of liquidity. You can't make a profit unless and until you can sell that stock that you bought for more money than you paid for it.
When large institutions get into and out of the market, the market "feels" the money coming in and going out. When I (with my little pile of cash by their standards) do the same, nobody even knows I did anything. Also, if one put $10 million into some small companies (that would make a better trade than most of the bigger companies), the $10 million would buy up all of the company's available stock. It called capitalization. As a "piss ant" investor, I have a whole lot more companies that I can put ALL OF MY MONEY INTO (to get a really cheap price) and, when I want to get rid of the stock, I can dump my whole position (in this piss ant company) and there will be plenty of buyers that I can sell my whole $10,000 or $100,000 position to. LIQUIDITY RULES.
You clearly should stay out of the "trading" market. YOU will surely lose all your money because you clearly don't understand what's going on (and how to make money routinely and reliably). I been doing it (on and off) since the 70s on a routine basis. So much for your theories. Then again, I'm sure you don't have a degree in accounting, economics, political science, applied mathematics, business/IT/accounting work experience, and decades of first paper trading then money trading as I got older (and richer).
Well typed! Yes, there is alot of investment marketing bullshit about "you can't invest! but give it to use and we can invest it." Just listen to American Greed to hear the BS and how sociopaths use these tricks to convince you to give up your money to them!
Charles Biederman's markets studies center completely around liquidity and money supply and demand.
I have been doing it from the 80's as does James, however, we have all digressed from the original point of the post, "the market is very difficult to model and predict from a mathematical point of view." The market has a dynamic which can be summarized as "it doesn't matter until it matters!" whic makes it very difficult to model the different focus points. . .
James - All of the examples that you find always involve publicity concerning the 1% high and low tails where people make an incredible amount of money, or lose an incredible amount (usually at the hands of institutions). I am more interested in the 99% of what people do, which also includes people with the advanced degrees and experience that you mention.
So much for anecdotal stories. There are numerous repeated studies which demonstrate my points.
Please look at Terry Odean's page, especially "Trading can be Hazardous to your Wealth"
I can sent you many more papers which support this, if you would like.
Feel free to contribute any empirical evidence you have which supports YOUR points. I'm willing to listen. Mostly I've seen 'advice' regarding personality traits, and discipline methodologies. Nothing hard-core.
I think actual empirical evidence is pretty hard to come by which supports active trading.
Since I don't know anything about your "background", I don't know where to start - except to say, the Suntrust example listed is TYPICAL of a trade(s) that I will do to make money.
OF COURSE, simply looking at tangible book value (or even a complete set of fundamental company based parameters is only a small (but important) part of my analysis BEFORE I start trading a company.
I would agree wholeheartedly with Terry's aphorism - trading (not only) can be hazardous to your (financial) health, but, for the average "smuck" who sees trading as a casual exercise that can be successfully done by untrained morons it is almost certainly a fatal (financial) disease.
Unfortunately, a lot of the "CRAP" pitched by the large financial houses about how to manage your money is also "pitched" in academic institutions. They then teach that stuff as if it were gospel.
That is not to say that portfolio management (and related issues) don't deserve some comment any more than the concept of "financial planning".
However, as to financial planning, the best financial plan is to have enough money so that your earnings off that money exceed your current (and projected future) cash flow requirements. Anything less and you are screwed (out of money).
That's why I always laugh when these financial guys try to convince some poor "smuck" who never saved enough money that they can bring peace and happiness to them in their declining years. Most likely these "smucks" will end up dying for lack of medical care and be reduced to eating donated dog food (or on the public dole - assuming the US government and economy haven't yet collapsed and breached their unfunded promises to the citizens). The financial failure (or breach of the promises made by politicians to get votes) of the welfare system in the US is a lot more likely THAN NOT.
A complete explanation of my stock trading systems (process) would actually require a book sized document just to describe it in technical terms. Many of the technical terms themselves would also have to be "explained" to the average non-technical reader. Also, I have discovered that many of my qualitative principles (in what I call my Pyramid of Principles because of it's hierarchical structure) are actually more important (from a process point of view) than any specific technical test or measure.
Philosophically, that shouldn't come as a surprise. You can't quantify what you can't describe. Another way of saying it is - you can have two/2 of something unless and until you have conceptually created (and often named) one of something.
If just plain old counting is subordinate to the process of human perception and language/expression (qualitative factors), then obviously that same argument would apply to the whole field of analysis (logic and epistemology) and mathematics as being subordinate to "qualitative" factors (of which counting is only one).