My stop loss got filled at what turned out to be the low of the day, till now (18.29CET). It meant a loss of 38 points per futures contract.
But better to take a loss and be back tomorrow than take a 200 point loss overnight, in the morning. Just need to make sure I lock in enough 50 plus point days to cancel the ones like today.
This strategy is wrong:
I bought during a sharp fall.
I sold the rebound-test.
I should be:
Selling into weakness.
Doubling up in the rebound-test.
Because if I would be going against the intuition traders, that want to catch the falling knife (like I did on both occassions below), I would be able to build positions, hold them overnight, increase them. With the tactic employed below the chances are large that you try to catch the knife which instead cuts you and keeps falling….
I’ve been fortunate three times in the past 10 days, that I at least had the good sense to get out on the rebounds. But if there had been no rebound, the position might still be open. — For that reason I put in stop loss orders when putting on a trade in more than 50% of my trades. If my stop gets triggered I step away for 24 hours at least.
I came across the yearly fund report of a very large Swiss Asset Manager today. It’s a cross over between a hedge fund and a value investor. And it works brilliantly.
I thought I’d share the portfolio with you, as it is a great example of a diversified, dividend generating portfolio.
Great call on the short Zurich… ^
And of special interest to me; their futures trading: (they do a CHF 100m worth of underlying each way a year in SMI)
And also the trading:
For investors in equities like Compagnie Financière Tradition (SIX: CFT) the following graphs illustrate one of the problems facing the interdealer brokers: Falling Volume, Structural Changes in the Market
The SNB today discussed the reasons for this falling volume in the primary interbank market:
1. Internalising Flows
2. Banks are providing liquidity over alternative plattforms
3. Smaller banks are now often clients of the mega banks
The reasons above were cited by Fritz Zurbrügg of the SNB, June 19th 2014.
In a recent article which appeared in the FAZ today, Wolfang Eder (CEO) listed a number of reasons his employer Voestalpine was investing EUR 50 million in an auto components manufacturing plant (Georgia) and a whopping EUR 550 million in a steel plant (Texas) in the US and not in Austria.
1. The Economics Minister sent a very personalised letter to CEO Eder offering help should he require any assistance whatsover. He’d never received any such letter from EU countries.
2. Energy costs: Costs for natural gas are much cheaper, thanks to fracking, than they are in Europe where environmental issues have priority, or are more expensive to handle.
3. Wage costs: Due to social welfare and benefits costs they are 30% higher in Europe than in the US.
4. Land cost: Land is 20x more expensive in certain EU countries than in the mentioned US regions.
5. Regulatory cost: Environmental and climate policies of the EU are constantly changing and becoming increasingly burdensome for manufacturers. For example with tough CO2 emmission targets.
These are some of the most important reasons why the question of location was made in favor of the US over the EU and Austria in particular.
Some good analysis regarding austerity and the impact it has on GDP growth I read just now on Marketwatch by Brett Arends..
Part 1 I found interesting
One critique of Reinhart-Rogoff is that it doesn’t give enough weight to the case of New Zealand right after World War II. Apparently, New Zealand had high debts, yet grew very quickly in the late 1940s. Yet what does this prove? New Zealand was basically a giant farm floating in the Pacific, far away from all the fighting of the war. After 1945, everyone needed food and wool. Europe, Japan, and other places, struggling to get back on their feet after six devastating years of war, didn’t have much. New Zealand’s exports soared, and its economy boomed. What on earth does that tell us about debt levels and growth? What possible relevance does that have to our situation today?
Part 2 I found most interesting
Economies with government debt over 90% grew by just 2.2% a year on average, considerably more slowly than those with lower levels of debt. Economies with medium-size debts, between 30% and 90% of GDP, grew by just over 3% a year, on average. Those with low levels of debt, below 30% of GDP, boomed by more than 4%, they found. In other words, according to Herndon, Ash and Pollin, high-debt economies (over 90% of GDP) grew at barely half the speed of low-debt economies (below 30%). So the Reinhart-Rogoff argument still has a lot of teeth.
Brett Arends for MarketWatch and also on Twitter @BrettArends
Recently I’ve been preparing for the CIIA Exam (that’s the Certified International Investment Analyst) and found that video tutorials posted on youtube can be a nice audio-visual help. If you don’t visit all lectures or need another take the following links I’ll post should prove helpful, as they allow you to take it all in at the most convient time for your learning and biological rythm:
This one’s about the VARIANCE, STANDARD DEVIATION, MEAN CALCULATION.
This one’s about the STANDARD DEVIATION, EMPIRICAL RULE, 68-95-99.7, NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
I’ll post more as I progress through the material…
I’m always interested in hearing feedback with regard to any CIIA topics ranging from Economics to Equity to Portfolio Theory etc…
Surprisingly massive no votes on the Agenda item regarding the remunerations for 2012 at the Geberit AGM today. You’d think that managers would act on such a strong sign of displeasure on behalf of such a massive proportion of the shareholders.
Consultative vote on the remuneration system and the remunerations for 2012
Valid votes Absolute majority Yes votes No votes Abstentions Votes not submitted
22’257’674 11’128’838 11’626’493 10’631’181 705’760 5’368