Category Archives: Market Psychology

Zoning in on the Zone

Posted on by
Reply

What’s your favourite sport?

Baseball?

Ok, let’s say we were watching Babe Ruth hitting a home run. I know, I’ve got this habit of running up and down the axis of time. A little annoying, but please bear with it.

To hit home runs like a Babe Ruth, or for that matter to paddle sweep like Sachin Tendulkar, or to serve an ace like Roger Federer, a player needs to be in the Zone.

So what is this “Zone”?

Imagine a space where you are one with your environment. From within this space, your heightened senses are able to engulf any stimulus and respond appropriately to it as if on auto-pilot. Your reactions to your situation are “ideal”. If a ball is thrown at you, your nervous system motors your bat with perfect angle and speed to respond to the ball in a winning fashion. It’s as if your system is one with the trajectory of the ball and is anticipating its angle and speed. Such a mind-body space is called the Zone.

The Zone is multi-dimensional in nature. Beyond length, breadth and height, the Zone spans the dimension of potential. The Zone is capable of whizzing your mind-body continuum up and down the axis of time in a flash to select the best possible response to any and every given stimulus.

So how does one get into this Zone? If it were that easy, each one of us would be a Babe Ruth, or a Sachin Tendulkar, or a Roger Federer or for that matter a Warren Buffett. Obviously, getting into the Zone is privileged.

Practice helps. Immense practice. Of course talent has to be there. But what is talent? Nothing but the expression of latent potential accumulated by the mind-body continuum at an earlier point in its existence. And when the mind-body continuum accumulates potential, it has to work very hard for it. Nothing comes for free.

And is someone who has entered the Zone able to stay in it forever? Nope. Entering the Zone takes a build-up. Then in a flash one is in till external circumstances disturb one’s focus, which is when one is out of the Zone.

So what’s this got to do with the markets?

Well, try trading the markets from inside the Zone and you’ll see.

Enemies of the State

Posted on by
Reply

What’s with me?

Why am I coming up with titles of songs or movies as headings for my blogposts?

Well, I need to grab your attention. It’s the age of minute attention-spans. I need to catch whatever window I have to make u interested in reading this stuff.

If investing is your territory, then hurry (which spoils the curry) is the enemy of your state. Innately, you will feel an urge to get into a winning investment. If you can overcome this urge, you’ll have come a long way. You’ll actually make proper investments, at pivotal points on the price versus time axis.

If trading is your territory, the enemy of your state is to be found within too. Here, it’s the lack of willingness to get out of a losing trade. If you can train yourself to cut a losing trade after a stop is hit, again you’ll have come a long way, and your account will reflect good trading profits soon enough.

Slowly, it’s becoming clear that trading and investing are two ends of a spectrum, mirror images with opposite domain rules.

Please don’t mix trading with investing, or vice-versa, or you’ll ruin whatever you are doing.

I’m not saying don’t do both. It’s a free world. Do both. Fine. But confined within separate portfolios please, both physically and in the mind. And slowly, one after the other, till you can handle both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.

Or do you think that you can build Rome in one day?

Investing in the Times of Pseudo-Mathematics

Posted on by
Reply

First, there was Mathematics.

Slowly, Physics started expressing itself in the language of Mathematics with great success. Chemistry and Biology followed suit.

The subject of Economics was feeling left out. Its proponents wanted the world to start recognizing their line of study as a natural science. So they started expressing their research results in the language of Mathematics too.

Thousands of research papers later, it was pointed out that what mathematical Economics was describing was an ideal world without any anomalies factored in.

The high priests of Economics reacted by churning out a barrage of research papers which factored in all kinds of anomalies in an effort to describe the real world.

Where there’s money, there’s emotion. The average human being is emotionally coupled to money.

Either Economics didn’t bother to factor in the anomaly called emotion, or it couldn’t find the corresponding matrix in which it could fit human emotions like greed and fear.

And Economics started getting it wrong in the real world, big time. The Long-Term Capital Management Fund (run by Economics Nobel laureates as per their pansy and sedantry office-table cum computer-programmed understanding of finance) collapsed in 1998, with billions of investor dollars evaporating and the world’s financial system coming to a grinding halt but just about managing to keep its head above water. It was a close brush with comprehensive disaster.

The human being forgets.

The last leg of the surge in dotcoms in 1999 and the first quarter of 2000 did just that. It made people forget their investing follies.

What people did remember though was the high of the surge. Investors wanted that feeling again. They wanted to make a killing again. Greed never dies.

And Economics rose to the occasion. This time it was not only pseudo, but it had gotten dirty. Its proponents were not researchers anymore, they were investment bankers, who had hired researchers to develop investment products based on complex pseudo-mathematical models that would lure the public.

Enter CDOs.

For just a few percentage points more of interest payout, investors worldwide were willing to buy this toxic debt with no underlying and a shady payout source. People got fooled by the marketing, with ratings agencies joining the bandwagon of crookedness and giving a AAA rating to the poisonous products in question.

All along, the Fed (with the blessing of the White House) had been encouraging citizens to “tap their home equity”, i.e. to take loans against their homes and then to invest the funds in the market. (The Fed creates bubbles, that’s what its real job is). And the Fed, the White House, the leading investment banks, the ratings agencies and the toxic researchers were all joint at the hip, a very powerful conglomerate creating financial weather.

So, from 2003 to 2007, there was liquidity in the world’s financial system, and a lot of good money was invested in CDOs. Nobody really understood these products properly, except for the researchers who came up with them. Common sense would have said that something with no base or underlying will eventually collapse as the load on top increases. And there was no dearth of load, because the same investment banks that sold the CDOs to the public were busy shorting those very CDOs (!!!!!), with Goldman Sachs taking the lead. So a collapse is exactly what happened.

This time around, the now pseudo and very, very dirty economics (almost)finished off the world’s financial system as it stood. It was revived from death through frantic financial-mathematical jugglery and a non-stop note-printing-press, with the Fed looking desperately to bury the damage by creating the next bubble which would lure good money from new investors in other parts of the world which were less affected for whatever reason.

That’s where we stand now. Certain portions of the world’s finance system are still on the respirator. Portions are off it, and are trying to act as if nothing happened, shamelessly getting back to their old tricks again.

I get calls reguarly from Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, StanChart and other investment banks. The only reason why Goldman hasn’t called is probably because my networth is below their cold-call limit. Anyways, it doesn’t matter who let the dogs out. Point is, they are out. And they are trying to sell you swaps, structures, forwards, principal protected products, what-have-yous, you name it. I remain polite, but tell them in no uncertain terms to lay off.

As a thumb rule, I don’t invest in products I don’t understand.

As another thumb rule, I don’t even invest in products which I might eventually understand after making the required effort.

As the mother of all thumb rules, I only invest in products that I understand effortlessly.

That’s the learning I got in the 2000s, and I’m happy to share it with you.

Uncharted Territory : The Tough get Going

Posted on by
Reply

These are unprecedented times.

I mean, you’ve got 10-Sigma events occuring at a frequency that’s nobody’s business.

It’s time for the tough to get going.

All other investors are gonna get slaughtered.

So what makes one a tough investor, someone who can take hits and still remain standing?

Firstly, there’s holding power. If you don’t possess holding power, don’t enter the markets.

Then there’s patience. A rare commodity.

Discipline. Play to a strategy. Pick a strategy that’s in sync with your risk profile.

That brings us to the most important point. Know yourself. Know your risk profile. Your strengths and weaknesses. Invest accordingly. This one might take a while.

With time comes the power to pinpoint buying opportunities. Just as the exit strategy is crucial for the trader, the entry point is all-important for the investor.

Wins give confidence to double up on one’s position size.

Sight of one’s goal keeps one away from noise and a dangerous thing called tips.

An otherwise balanced life keeps one occupied elsewhere so that one’s not tempted to try other stunts in the market.

You can complete this list. It’s really not rocket-science.

It’s time for the tough to get going.

Time after Time

Posted on by
Reply

I know, I know, the title of this blogpost is also a hit-song by Cyndi Lauper from the ’80s. As a kid and entering my teens, a rainbow-coloured Cyndi made an impression.

So, as fragile Miss Lauper with her multi-coloured hair was crooning the song to the top of the pops, the world was coming to terms with the aftermaths of the Iran hostage crisis, the Falklands war etc. etc.

Cyndi didn’t know it at the time, but the track “Time after Time” would go on to become a huge, huge hit, appearing in the sound-tracks of many movies and basically becoming an all-time song.

World makets recovered to the dotcom boom of the 90s. Investors were making the mistake of greed, again, time after time. Scrips with no earnings were selling for hundreds of times the book-value.

Bubbles burst. That’s what bubbles do. In the ensuing mayhem and the fear that engulfed investors, the share prices of capital-gains generating zero-debt companies with regularly increasing dividends and impeccable managements fell drastically too. That’s what fear does, time after time.

As time passes, investors forget their old mistakes. A horde of newbies joins the fray, ready to make the same mistakes of human nature, again, time after time.

Cyndi’s was a love song. It had nothing to do with finance cycles.

It’s title is so compelling though. And, of course, I just love the song.

Pieces of the Pie

Posted on by
Reply

When profits are made, everybody involved wants a piece of the pie.

That’s ok, human nature.

And what’s wrong in distributing profits proportional to efforts?

Well, it’s not an ideal world. In today’s real world, investment banks have started billing clients for research and have used the money for prostitution and other recreation instead (see the docufilm “Inside Job”).

Your private equity executive will travel business or first class. He or she will stay in the executive suite. Hmmm, borderline, but still bearable if the fund generates an above market-average profit for you.

What’s unbearable is the high-roller life exhibited by disgraced Lehman ex CEO Fuld for example. You know, as in fool the public, eat their pie, and pull out personal funds before the ship sinks with an overload of public stake. Inexcusable behaviour. Deserving of extremely deterring punishment.

If a listed company regularly raises its dividend and generates steady capital gains for its share-holders, I frankly couldn’t care less if the CEO zips around in a company jet, pitches his tent in the presidential suite and orders in from the most expensive restaurant in town.

On the other hand, I do take serious exception to above behaviour on company expense if the company dishes out a meagre dividend and generates no capital gains. If I’m invested in such a company by mistake, with above CEO behaviour, I’d seriously look to exit at the next opportunity. If I see the CEO downsizing on lifestyle and if I still believe in the prospects of the company, I might still stay invested, but first I want to see some humility in the CEO’s living habits.

An exit is an ultimate thumbs-down a long-term investor can give to a loser CEO and his listed company. If a business is not generating profits and the management is living it up, such a business deserves the boot from its investors.

Learning to Sit

Posted on by
Reply

One of the first things a baby learns is to sit.

And sitting is probably the last thing that an investor learns. Some investors never learn to sit. Their long-term returns are disastrous.

Wanna make a killing? All right, first learn to sit.

To be able to sit, one needs to create proper conditions. One needs to take “jumpiness”, or volatility, out of the equation. This is done by buying with a margin of safety.

Having bought with a margin of safety, market blow-ups affect your bottom-line lesser. You can sit thru them.

And that’s all you need to do, to allow a multi-bagger to unfold.

Wish you lucrative investing!

Noose Just Tightened

Posted on by
Reply

Petrol’s up 5 bucks.

This is gonna pinch the public.

Are we now clear on the fact that a beast is on the loose? And the fact that this beast has been active to hyper-active since World War I ?

This beast is called inflation. The number 1 infectious disease that inflicts modern financial society.

We are going to have to live with inflation. Period.

What is required is long-term policy-making that will minimize the affliction. That’s not happening.

Modern financial policy seeks to avoid an existence where inflation becomes hyper. That would be when food on the table costs more that a cart-load of cash. See Argentina during its currency collapse, or Germany after the first World War.

Let’s assume that human-kind is not capable of making better policies, ones that minimize (let alone eradicate) the disease. Where does that leave us?

What do we do with our money, that’s being eaten away at 8 to 9%, year upon year?

Avenues like fixed deposits pay out lesser after tax than what inflation eats away. The 100 year return in Gold has been 1% per annum compunded, after tax. Only two investment avenues have yielded more after tax than what inflation has consumed over the very long term. These are 1). Property, and 2). Equity.

The writing on the wall becomes clear. To immunize one’s money against the disease, one needs to be invested in one or both these avenues over the long-term. Both avenues come with pitfalls, where one can lose much more than what inflation eats away.

So, one first learns how to deal with the pitfalls, and perhaps one can specialize in either of these avenues, since it is not easy to focus on both.

Then, after having learnt the ropes, one can slowly start salting one’s money away.

A Fall to Remember

Posted on by
Reply

Ok, these are big drops in the values of commodities. Especially Silver.

Actually, I’m liking it.

No, I am not short Silver, or short Oil, or short Gold.

As far as commodities go, I don’t trade in them, I invest in them.

And as Silver falls big time, I am buying shares of Silver mining companies. Small amounts, nothing big. One needs to tread carefully. Because one doesn’t know when prices will stabilize.

Prices were way too high earlier to go ahead with these purchases. But, as Silver falls, one starts getting a margin of safety in Silver mining companies. I feel this has just started happening. Which is not to say that Silver won’t fall more.

Which is when I’ll buy more.

This is long-term investing. Here, the ideology is the complete opposite of trading.

Where are u going, Mrs. Market?

Posted on by
Reply

Mrs. Market follows no one’s rules.

She’s got a mind of her own.

We need to understand that.

She likes attention. We need to keep asking her where she’s going.

The wrong thing is to ask each other where she’s going. Why not ask the source?

So how does one ask her?

By putting one’s money on the line and getting into a trade.

You’ll get your answer all right.

She’ll tell you where she’s going. If it’s a winning trade, she’s going where you think she’s going.

If it’s a losing trade, she’s got other plans.

And you’ve got your job cut out: i.e. to get out of the losing trade and to move in her direction.

You must be Joking, Mr. Nath!

Posted on by
1

Ok, so there are aliens, so what?

I mean, is that so hard to believe? Which law says that Earth is the centre of activity in this universe?

Look around you. The horizon is full of scams. An honest management is most difficult to find. Honesty and integrity have become alien virtues. Scarce, don’t bump into them in normal life, and you might read an odd story about them in the papers.

So where does this leave you as an investor?

In a dishonest world, one needs to think in a warped manner to make money. You know, “two steps away from the norm” kinda thinking. So if the norm is to buy on a dip, in Kalyuga one waits to buy on a mega-dip. And these have started occuring more often than they used to. 10-Sigma or Black Swan events happen every now and then.

The thing I like about scams is that eventually, they explode. The one scam that is exposed (against the 20 that go unexposed) is enough to hit mass psychology. The common investor starts selling everything, even stuff that’s not affected by the scam. The market as a whole falls, sometimes cracking big.

Since we’re mostly down to buying scam-artist run corporations as investors, above-mentioned crack is the time to buy them, i.e. when they are hit badly. That’s when you are getting good value for your money. That’s when you are getting your margin of safety.

So, wait for the explosion. Buy in its aftermath. The interim period between explosions is to be used to pinpoint what you want to buy with a margin of safety, whenever that margin of safety abounds.

It is entirely within the realm of possibilities to live at peace with aliens. And it is equally possible for an investor to learn to live honestly but lucratively in a world full of corporate criminals.

Managing Loss & Coming Back to Zero – 2 Star Qualities of a Successful Trader

Posted on by
1

Heads or tails?

Theoretically, it’s a 50:50 chance.

And over a large number of coin flips, it works out to be 50:50.

On the other hand, over a relatively smaller number of coin flips, one can have many heads (or for that matter tails) in a row. Let’s say you flip a coin ten times. Chances are, you might get heads eight times in a row. I mean, it actually happens.

For a market participant without any edge, a given trade is like a coin-flip. It can go either way. So, eight losses in a row can happen. Losing trade after losing trade can come, longer than one can remain solvent. This needs to be understood.

Therefore, the need arises to cut losses when they are very small.

Also, one needs to understand, that the next trade has nothing to do with the last trade. The outcome of a new trade is fully independent of the past. There is no rule saying that the 8th trade after 7 losses has to be a winning trade.

The successful trader comes back to zero after each closed trade. He or she let’s go of any baggage from the last trade, and starts a fresh one with new and full focus. There are no expectations from the new position. If it doesn’t work, the loss will be cut very small, and the savvy trader will bring his or her mind back to zero-point, and then will initiate a fresh position.

It’s really not rocket-science.

Anatomy of a Ponzi Scheme

Posted on by
Reply

Charles Ponzi came up with the brilliant idea of paying early investors dividends from the investment money put in by later investors.

It’s as simple as that, and it’s called a Ponzi scheme.

After the first few dividends, promoter disappears, having lured many investors into a fake scheme with no underlying business.

Latest famous example of a Ponzi schemer – Bernie Maddoff.

Or, if you’ve not seen Damages – Season III, that’s about a Ponzi scheme too.

So what lures the common investor into a Ponzi scheme?

Simple. It’s called greed.

What triggers the greed?

The Ponzi schemer concocts a scheme that promises a rather too lucrative return. This return does not look unrealistic, so the average investor’s alarm signals don’t go off. Nevertheless, it’s more than high enough to make the average investor’s mouth water.

And what’s normally promised is a quick return, mind you. The average investor buys smoothly into the idea of doubling his or her money fast.

Then there’s lots of advertisment. Billboards everywhere. The Ponzi schemer wants to hit the public with ads about the tremendous returns.

The sales-people who sell the scheme are glib-talkers. They are smart, wear expensive stuff, basically exuding sophistication. They want to rub it in that they’ve made it big in life.

A Ponzi scheme’s documentation generally cracks under close scrutiny. I mean, when something is being sold to you without any underlying business, all you have to do is your dose of due diligence. Just pick up the phone and start asking questions.

What works for the Ponzi schemer is human nature. The first investors (who get paid dividends from newbie investor money) start talking. Actually, they start bragging. The human being likes to show off. And, the human being hates missing the boat, even if the boatman is a disciple of Charles Ponzi.

The Dark Side of Private Equity

Posted on by
6

Greed is the investor’s nemesis.

I’ve been guilty of greed at times.

Luck has been on my side, and I’ve been saved from losing money. I’d like to tell you about it.

In my experiences with private equity over the last four years, the one thing that stood out was the pitch of each scheme proposed. The average pitch just sucked one in by describing a world that would appear utopic to somebody in a balanced frame of mind. When greed sets in, balance and common sense go out the window. One gets taken in by the pitch, and without doing any due diligence, one is willing to bet the farm.

The private equity teams of today have a tool up their sleeve that creates pressure on the investor, and leaves little time for due diligence. It’s called the time-window. Most schemes are proposed to the investor with a very short time-window. Either the investor is in within the window, or he or she can sit out. Lesson learnt: if one’s due diligence is taking longer than the time-window, then the scheme can go out the window rather than putting one’s hard-earned money on the line.

One of the worst starts a newbie investor can make is a good one. This happened to me as a newbie private equity investor. I got involved with the Milestone group in the middle of the financial crisis, and I invested in their REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts). These people were honest, and the investments have yielded steady quarterly dividends since, apart from the property appreciation. I started thinking private equity was the holy grail, and that all forthcoming institutions and schemes would be like Milestone.

Big mistake. When Edelweiss knocked on my door with an 8 year lock-in real-estate scheme, I was lapping it up. One thing kept going around in my mind – the 8 year cycle they were trying to make me believe in. Wasn’t convincing, but I wanted the profits they were promising. Before signing on, it occured to me to do at least some due diligence. I insisted on a conference call with the management. During the concall, I became aware of one wrongful disclosure. The pitch had spoken of a large sum of money from overseas, already invested in the scheme. In the concall, it became apparent that these funds were tentative and had not arrived yet.

A wrongful disclosure is a big alarm bell for me. I have programmed myself in such a way that when I come across wrongful disclosure during due diligence, I axe the investment. Luckily, the mind was not totally taken in, and I stuck to this rule.

Then came Unitech. Second generation real-estate magnate. Big money. Big leverage. In a joint venture with CIG, Unitech was redeveloping the slums of Mumbai, we were told in the pitch. Each slum-dweller would be relocated with ample compensation, we were told. The scheme had a multi-page disclaimer protecting the promoters against anything and everything. Alone that should have been an alarm bell. Of course I wasn’t thinking straight when I signed the documents.

In the next few months this scheme got a few investors interested, but its corpus wasn’t enough for the first leg of investments planned. Then, Adarsh exploded. I’m talking about the Adarsh real-estate scam. CIG / Unitech could not find a single new investor for their scheme. Everyone was scared of real-estate. Then there was another explosion: the 2G scam. Sanjay Chandra, CEO of Unitech, was one of the prime accused. What would happen to my money? Was it gone?

I got together with my bankers, and for more than a month, we steam-rolled the CIG / Unitech office in Delhi with emails and phone-calls, asking for the money to be returned with interest, since the scheme had not gotten off the ground. Luck was on our side, and after a thorough documentation process from their end, I received my entire amount with interest, one day before Sanjay Chandra was sent to jail.

Moral of the story: double your due diligence when you feel greed setting in. Don’t get taken in by fancy pitches. Don’t get pressurized into time-windows. Tackle the dark-side of private equity with a clear mind and full focus.

This one’s for You, Jesse!

Posted on by
Reply

Jesse Livermore – market legend.

Not with us anymore. Killed himself in a bout of depression.

Jesse’s life will be remembered. He was a pioneer, establishing the basic rules of trading for modern mankind. In the process he won many fortunes, and lost back a big part of what he won because of the hit and trial process he had to go through, to establish a basic trading map for mankind.

His was a colourful life. Pioneers, however, cannot be judged by the average person. An average human being doesn’t have the powers to comprehend the conditions under which a pioneer functions.

There were times when Jesse would swing a leveraged line worth several million dollars, and this is the first quarter of the 20th century we are talking about. He established the need and the rules for a stop-loss by losing money big time. He also won big, very big.

Jesse was the king of shorting. In the mega-crash of 1929, his unswerving short line won him a 100 million dollars. In 1907, JP Morgan (the man, not the investment firm) personally requested him to square off his shorts asap, or the US financial industry would go bankrupt. Jesse loved America, and the American way of life. He squared off his shorts.

Jesse had an eye for big market moves. He would watch a stock and get into its nervous system. Then, he would preempt its big move and would make a killing. He observed that stocks fulcrum around pivotal points, shooting up or down many notches from there within a short span of time. Making use of this insight was not enough for Jesse. He shared his knowledge with the world, so that others could benefit.

Then, another very lucrative trading insight – buying above highs – comes from Jesse. People are making serious money today in Gold and Silver for example, using this very knowledge. Others have used this strategy to their advantage by latching on to the runs of Cisco Systems, Walmart, Wipro etc. in the past. Above a high, there is no resistance, coz there is no presence of old buyers wanting to sell. Jesse was the first to recognize this.

In the early part of life, JL was impulsive. He would lose everything he made by not sticking to his own principle of stops, for example. Later, as he matured, he developed the principle of letting a winning trade run. His way of putting it was that the biggest money in the markets was made by sitting.

In his later years, Jesse started treating cash as king. When the opportunities would come, JL’s line with the bank was as deep as the pockets of Fort Knox.

I’ve shared four principles with you which Jesse Livermore actively used in his trading. These principles are priceless. I admire Jesse Livermore, and wish that he hadn’t fallen to the disease of depression.

Thanks so much, Jesse.

Is Silver in a Bubble?

Posted on by
Reply

When the chauffeur or even the doorman has an opinion, the underlying asset-class is in a bubble.

That’s my definition of a bubble.

And that’s not the case for Silver yet.

A bubble is something psychological. The mind gets twisted into believing that one’s found the holy grail. And then one can’t get enough of it.

Bill Bonner predicted in the year 2000, that Silver and Gold would be the trades of then commencing decade. What a prediction! He went on to say that in the last stages of its run, Gold would rise at the rate of 100$ an hour. You can proportionate that for Silver. That’s how a real bubble behaves. Just go back to first quarter of 2000 and observe the financial behaviour of dotcoms.

This is not a bubble yet. We are nowhere near bubble behaviour. The common households have not started selling off their household Silver. The man on the streets is not obsessed with Silver as of now. (I still look at common-man behaviour, even for Silver, because in a bubble, one forgets affordability. Apart from that, Silver can be bought by the gram).

So, where does one go from here?

Simple.

The trader keeps trading with the flow and an appropriate, risk-profile-tuned stop. For heavens sake, he or she needs to be long.

And the investor keeps buying small stakes on dips.

Nothing fancy or complicated. A simple, common-sense strategy is all that’s required.

Outperformers know how to Focus

Posted on by
Reply

Want to outperform the markets?

Then learn to focus.

Outstanding returns are the domain of focus investors.

If one is not a focus investor, then one is a diversified investor.

Diversification is not a negative trait.

It gives an average result. Over time, one’s performance matches the market average.

There’s nothing wrong in getting an average result.

It’s just that if you want something extra, here’s what you need to do.

You need to identify one or max two baskets.

And then you need to watch these baskets.

Just why is Embracing Risk so difficult?

Posted on by
1

Sir Issac Newton : mathematics and physics genius.

Let’s cast a glance at his market record.

Bought 20,000 Pounds worth of shares in the South Sea Co. around the year 1720, when the scrip was at its peak. Company went bust.

After having bought into this company at a ridiculous valuation, Sir Issac chose to sit on his investment rather than embrace a small loss in the first leg of the decline. The loss became bigger and bigger, till all was lost.

In our society today, parents push their kids to emulate Newton as far as brain-power goes. Newton has been a classic winner in the eyes of society. Kids are taught to win from the beginning. Losing is taboo.

When a straight A candidate enters the market, he or she gets a rude shock. Here is a world where losing is bread and butter. The straight A candidate is likely to get hammered.

A winner in the markets knows how to lose. He or she loses many times. But loses small. Then come the wins. They are not booked small. They are allowed to run.

This concept goes against our basic programming. When we show a small profit, we want to book it and run. It is an ingrained reflex.

When we are losing, we wait to catch up and start winning instead of embracing the small loss and moving on. Also a natural reflex.

Thus, embracing risk is a very difficult thing to learn.

If one can’t do it after many losses, one should leave the markets alone.

The Willingness to Embrace Risk

Posted on by
2

Any given market-play can only prove successful if one particular state of mind exists.

I’m talking about one’s willingness to embrace risk.

I mean, one can define risk all one wants, and one can understand it to the nth level.

But is one willing to embrace it?

The answer to this question is the singular deciding factor between a losing market player and a winning market player.

And what does embracing market risk mean?

Setting a stop is a physical act. One can do it mindlessly, without the actual willingness to accept a loss when it occurs.

Embracing risk means the attunement of every cell in the body towards accepting a loss when it occurs.

Accepting the loss and then moving on to the next market-play.
No psychological entanglements, no what-if scenarios, no why’s, no energy drainage due to mourning. Just sheer acceptance of loss. Period.

That’s the state of mind required.

Then, over time, as the sample-size grows, one starts winning.

That’s because one only plays the market with an edge.

The Meaning of Risk

Posted on by
2

Market play revolves around one central factor.

It’s called risk.

Whether we want to deal with risk or not is up to us.

If we do not want to deal with risk, we should not participate in any market. Period. Let inflation eat our money away in the bank.

Don’t like that option?

Then deal with risk.

In my opinion, there are two ways of understanding risk.

One way is practical, and simple to understand and implement. I like this particular way.

The other way is complicated and mathematical. This method utilizes software to perform mathematical operations using calculus, and expresses risk in terms of greek alphabets. The software spits out an abstract expression of risk, which is then implemented in the trading strategy. I don’t like this method. It’s just a personal choice.

So let me just talk about the practical method of understanding risk.

For me, risk is the money that one can potentially lose in a trade at any given point of time, expressed in percentage terms of one’s total portfolio value.  Period.

Once the underlying risk has been clearly defined and understood, the management of this risk is implemented through a stop-loss which is outlined after considering total portfolio-size and after eye-balling relevant chart-patterns at hand.

This strategy makes risk something tangible, something one can deal with, in Rupee or Dollar terms. It makes market-play a matter of addition and subtraction. It’s practical, simple to understand and easy to implement.

Then, this understanding of risk needs to be coupled with a market-edge to constitute a complete market strategy.

Same story. An edge can be simple. Or complicated. Choice is yours.