<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Technical Market Signal Statistical Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:40:44 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137770</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137770</guid>
		<description>Thisson, 

That&#039;s cool, thanks for pointing that out.

I was trying to underline the de minimus case for &quot;Buy/Writes&quot;, many people are incredulous when they hear the readily realizable returns that are available in a field that is usually described, if at all, as tooo Risky..

that one, that you point out is a decent example of &#039;getting paid to go long&#039;..

and, as you know, shorting the underlying, or buying back the option, is &#039;the cover&#039; of the short Put position..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thisson, </p>
<p>That&#8217;s cool, thanks for pointing that out.</p>
<p>I was trying to underline the de minimus case for &#8220;Buy/Writes&#8221;, many people are incredulous when they hear the readily realizable returns that are available in a field that is usually described, if at all, as tooo Risky..</p>
<p>that one, that you point out is a decent example of &#8216;getting paid to go long&#8217;..</p>
<p>and, as you know, shorting the underlying, or buying back the option, is &#8216;the cover&#8217; of the short Put position..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thisson</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137631</link>
		<dc:creator>Thisson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:18:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137631</guid>
		<description>@Mark E. Hoffer

At current volatility rates, you can get returns of about 5% a month, depending on volatility, writing (selling) cash-covered puts.  

For example, January HIG 17.50 puts are priced at about .90.  90/1750 = 5.14%.

Obviously, this strategy entails significant downside risks.  But you knew that already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mark E. Hoffer</p>
<p>At current volatility rates, you can get returns of about 5% a month, depending on volatility, writing (selling) cash-covered puts.  </p>
<p>For example, January HIG 17.50 puts are priced at about .90.  90/1750 = 5.14%.</p>
<p>Obviously, this strategy entails significant downside risks.  But you knew that already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137607</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137607</guid>
		<description>SWMOD52,

you may care to add, the below, to your list of firms to check out:

http://www.icerocket.com/search?tab=web&amp;fr=h&amp;q=Interactive+Brokers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SWMOD52,</p>
<p>you may care to add, the below, to your list of firms to check out:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.icerocket.com/search?tab=web&amp;fr=h&amp;q=Interactive+Brokers" rel="nofollow">http://www.icerocket.com/search?tab=web&amp;fr=h&amp;q=Interactive+Brokers</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SWMOD52</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137592</link>
		<dc:creator>SWMOD52</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:07:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137592</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m interested in anyone&#039;s opinion on brokers. 

I have an ETrade account and a Vanguard account. I&#039;m in the process of moving everything to Vanguard and have started to trade with V but the commissions are 3-6 times that of Etrade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m interested in anyone&#8217;s opinion on brokers. </p>
<p>I have an ETrade account and a Vanguard account. I&#8217;m in the process of moving everything to Vanguard and have started to trade with V but the commissions are 3-6 times that of Etrade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark E Hoffer</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137571</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark E Hoffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137571</guid>
		<description>this: Steve Barry Says: January 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm 

is, truly, telling..the recent &#039;rally&#039;, from a Price perspective, does, indeed, look nice, but, from a Volume perspective, it looks like it has all the &#039;Classical&#039; hair of a &#039;Bull Trap&#039;..

with that, if someone knows something different--about &#039;strong&#039; Rallies on weak Volume, I&#039;d like to learn it..

with this: TrickStar Says: January 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm 

TrickStar, 

With traditional Buy/Writes, even in this, current, low-interest-rate, lessening Volatility, Environment, I&#039;ll, still, submit that double-digit rates of return are realizable--especially if one is Shorting Puts to initiate the Long Equity &quot;Buy&quot; portion..

with additional Leverage, as always, the dual-edge Sword comes to play..

Leverage, or no, Options, or no, it is, as BR, his ownself, rightly, points out, Tight Stops are Key..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this: Steve Barry Says: January 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm </p>
<p>is, truly, telling..the recent &#8216;rally&#8217;, from a Price perspective, does, indeed, look nice, but, from a Volume perspective, it looks like it has all the &#8216;Classical&#8217; hair of a &#8216;Bull Trap&#8217;..</p>
<p>with that, if someone knows something different&#8211;about &#8217;strong&#8217; Rallies on weak Volume, I&#8217;d like to learn it..</p>
<p>with this: TrickStar Says: January 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pm </p>
<p>TrickStar, </p>
<p>With traditional Buy/Writes, even in this, current, low-interest-rate, lessening Volatility, Environment, I&#8217;ll, still, submit that double-digit rates of return are realizable&#8211;especially if one is Shorting Puts to initiate the Long Equity &#8220;Buy&#8221; portion..</p>
<p>with additional Leverage, as always, the dual-edge Sword comes to play..</p>
<p>Leverage, or no, Options, or no, it is, as BR, his ownself, rightly, points out, Tight Stops are Key..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: constantnormal</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137568</link>
		<dc:creator>constantnormal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137568</guid>
		<description>I tend to think of timing indicators vs &quot;value&quot; indicators as being similar to the relationship between position and momentum in Heisenberg&#039;s Uncertainty Principle -- you may have excellent timing intel, but you will never have a clue about how long that trend might last.  OTOH, you can look at &quot;valuation&quot; metrics, and be able to predict that at some point things will reach certain levels of valuation, with no clue about how long it will take to come to pass.  

To fool oneself into thinking that you can predict when a trend will begin and also where it will take you to (and when) is equivalent to predicting the future -- it cannot be done.

If you&#039;re going to rely on timing, then you plan on being eager to reverse on a dime, and must have an extreme amount of faith in your timing signals.  If you&#039;re going to rely on valuation, then you must be willing to ride along through (potentially) long periods of market madness, before the markets eventually seek out your levels of valuation.  Faith is required in either circumstance, or some guidelines that take one out of the game when it becomes too chaotic.  That&#039;s what cash is made for.

Mixing the two prolly invites disaster, as there will inevitably be times (lots of times) when the methodologies conflict.

Ancient Chinese proverb: Man with two watches never knows what time it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tend to think of timing indicators vs &#8220;value&#8221; indicators as being similar to the relationship between position and momentum in Heisenberg&#8217;s Uncertainty Principle &#8212; you may have excellent timing intel, but you will never have a clue about how long that trend might last.  OTOH, you can look at &#8220;valuation&#8221; metrics, and be able to predict that at some point things will reach certain levels of valuation, with no clue about how long it will take to come to pass.  </p>
<p>To fool oneself into thinking that you can predict when a trend will begin and also where it will take you to (and when) is equivalent to predicting the future &#8212; it cannot be done.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to rely on timing, then you plan on being eager to reverse on a dime, and must have an extreme amount of faith in your timing signals.  If you&#8217;re going to rely on valuation, then you must be willing to ride along through (potentially) long periods of market madness, before the markets eventually seek out your levels of valuation.  Faith is required in either circumstance, or some guidelines that take one out of the game when it becomes too chaotic.  That&#8217;s what cash is made for.</p>
<p>Mixing the two prolly invites disaster, as there will inevitably be times (lots of times) when the methodologies conflict.</p>
<p>Ancient Chinese proverb: Man with two watches never knows what time it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: boutros</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137567</link>
		<dc:creator>boutros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137567</guid>
		<description>speaking of dead cat bounces: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/bush-family-cat.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>speaking of dead cat bounces: <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/bush-family-cat.html" rel="nofollow">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/01/bush-family-cat.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrickStar</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137559</link>
		<dc:creator>TrickStar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:39:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137559</guid>
		<description>Oh.  I went big into bonds today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh.  I went big into bonds today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TrickStar</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137558</link>
		<dc:creator>TrickStar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137558</guid>
		<description>@ Mark - I&#039;ve been chewing on advice you gave about trading options.  What kind of annualized return could I expect by employing a calculated smattering of Buy / Writes on some blue chips, for example.  Generally speaking, that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Mark &#8211; I&#8217;ve been chewing on advice you gave about trading options.  What kind of annualized return could I expect by employing a calculated smattering of Buy / Writes on some blue chips, for example.  Generally speaking, that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KC</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/technical-market-signal-distribution/comment-page-1/#comment-137556</link>
		<dc:creator>KC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=15112#comment-137556</guid>
		<description>I do believe your $120 QID will come to pass, I just don&#039;t think it&#039;ll come for a year or so.  I definitely agree with your analysis.  But I&#039;m looking at the 1929-1932 crash, where it took 36 months to fall.  To fall further now would assume that the market is rational, and is pricing in the economy.  But if the market is rational now, why did it peak 2 months before the recession began?  Now&#039;s a great time for a rally...new president, massive stimulus, consumer sentiment might even be so low that it might go up 1 or 2 months.  But if you take a look at the 1929-32 crash, there was never a period of time when stocks fell 49% in 4 months without a significant rally.  Of course things could be different if this recession turns out to be worse than that one (4 years).  But I have my doubts at this point.  I think once this is all over, you&#039;ll have your QID hit it&#039;s mark.  But I hope for my sake the rally continues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I do believe your $120 QID will come to pass, I just don&#8217;t think it&#8217;ll come for a year or so.  I definitely agree with your analysis.  But I&#8217;m looking at the 1929-1932 crash, where it took 36 months to fall.  To fall further now would assume that the market is rational, and is pricing in the economy.  But if the market is rational now, why did it peak 2 months before the recession began?  Now&#8217;s a great time for a rally&#8230;new president, massive stimulus, consumer sentiment might even be so low that it might go up 1 or 2 months.  But if you take a look at the 1929-32 crash, there was never a period of time when stocks fell 49% in 4 months without a significant rally.  Of course things could be different if this recession turns out to be worse than that one (4 years).  But I have my doubts at this point.  I think once this is all over, you&#8217;ll have your QID hit it&#8217;s mark.  But I hope for my sake the rally continues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
