Category Archives: Trading

Face-Off

Posted on by
Reply

Markets are about returns.

Just as many roads lead to Rome, so do multiple paths lead to returns.

The two basic approaches in this game are investing and trading. We are keeping things basic, and are not even going to talk about scalping, arbitrage etc. We are looking at paths taken by most players.

So who has got it better, the investor or the trader?

Markets have this characteristic of collapsing. Unless the investor has bought with a decent margin of safety, he or she can be sitting on a huge loss. This can lead to irritability, sleepless nights, ill-health and family problems. An investor needs to slay these demons before-hand. Allowed to grow, these demons can wreck havoc.

The nimble trader on the other hand treads lightly. Technicals alert him or her well before a collapse, and when the collapse comes, the trader is ideally already fully in cash. Such a trader has no professional reason for a sleepless night.

However, when the bulls roar, the investor’s entire portfolio adds to the roar, and very soon the investor is sitting on huge gains. The trader on the other hands builds up positions slowly, and might miss a large portion of the up-move during the staggered entry process. To be fair, the investor’s exposure (risk) has been large in comparison to the trader, and thus the reward in good times will be proportionately large too. Given a choice, I’d personally take the comfortable nights throughout the year.

Then there’s active and passive playing. Investing is a passive play. One doesn’t need to man one’s portfolio on a daily basis, and can focus on other things instead. Trading, on the other hand, is very much an active play, and needs to be attended to on a daily basis.

So, unless the investor likes action, this is a favourable scenario. Unfortunately, the majority of long-term investors mess up their long-term portfolios owing to the need for action.

Trading can lead to action overload. A bad day’s result can cause mood swings. The trader needs to be in control of emotional machinery and ready to withstand a pre-determined level of loss. Unfortunately, most traders fail badly in the emotional and stop-loss department. On the whole, I feel this particular round is won the by the investor. So, it’s 1 round each.

The last round in today’s discussion is about life-style. The bored investor can either use the spare time for constructive activities, which is a great scenario, or for useless ones, like surfing adult sites. The point I’m trying to make is that a bored investor is a prime candidate for sowing wild oats.

The sensible trader uses non-market hours to finish research for the next day and then to give the mind and body relaxation and rest. However, all the action makes most traders less sensible and more flambuoyant, and equally likely candidates for sowing wild-oats during non-market hours. I think this round is a tie.

So who’s got it better, the trader or the investor?

This is actually a trick question.

What’s the proper answer?

The answer is that YOU have got it better if you fit into the profile of a sensible trader or a balanced investor, and that YOU have got it bad if you fit into the profile of a reckless / flambuoyant trader or a bored and thus trigger-happy investor.

Both investing and trading are about YOU.

You need to see how good or bad YOU have it, and forget about the rest.

Street’s got the D-word

Posted on by
Reply

There seems to be an X-word in every avenue of life.

The Street has its own – the D-word.

It spells D-e-r-i-v-a-t-i-v-e-s.

Whatever reasons there are for a crisis to develop become secondary at the peak of the crisis, because derivatives take over. The crisis is driven to the nth level because of massive institutional leveraging in derivatives in the direction the crisis is unfolding. Recipe for disaster.

The human instinct is to maximize profit, irrespective of any consequences. When masses start shorting the stock of a company that’s already in trouble, its stock price can well go down to zero (and lead to bankruptcy), even if the company’s mistakes are not deserving of such a price / destiny.

Similarly, when masses start going long the futures of a company’s stock, the resulting stock price overshoots fair-value in a major way. Then come along some fools and buy the scrip at an extreme over-valuation. They are the ones that get hammered.

That’s the way this game has unfolded, time and again.

Does it need to be this way for you?

No.

Firstly, as a long-term investor, don’t buy into over-valuation. Make this a thumb rule. Control your animal instinct that wants a piece of the action. Leave the action to the traders. You need to buy into under-valuation. Period.

Unfortunately, most long-term investors (myself included) miss action. Then they fool around with their long-term holdings to get some, and in the process mess up their big game.

The animal instinct in the long-term investor can be channelized and thus harnessed. One way to get action is to play the D-game. Of course with rules. The benefit can be huge. Action focuses elsewhere and doesn’t mess up your big game.

So, play the D-game if you wish, but play it small.

Secondly, be aware that you’re only doing this to take care of the action-instinct. Any profits are a bonus.

Thirdly, keep the D-game cordoned off from long-term investment strategies. No mixing, even on a sub-conscious level.

Then, take stop-losses. DO NOT ignore them.

Also, when anything is disturbing you, DO NOT play the D-game. It DOES NOT matter if you are out of the D-game for months. Remember, this is your small game. What matters is your big game.

Categorically DO NOT listen to tips.

If you are down a pre-defined level within a month, press STOP for the rest of the month.

Make your own rules for yourself. To give you some kind of a guide-line, I’ve listed some of mine above.

A D-game played with proper rules can even yield bombastic profits. 95% lose the D-game. 5% win. Derivatives are a zero-sum play-out. 5% of all players cash in on the losings of the other 95%.

So, play in a manner that you belong to the winning 5%.

Financial Academia and the Street – A Comprehensive Disconnect

Posted on by
Reply

1994 AD.

My friends in the Physics Department of the University of Konstanz, Germany, were busy trying to increase the number of holes on a silicon strip.

This was nanotech research in its advanced stage.

Nanotech saw successful implementation in the real world, though the explosion is yet to come. Nevertheless, the key words here are successful implementation.

Successful implementation on the street is only possible when a research model is practical.

Financial academia time and again delivers impractical models and is then surprised when they meet with failure on the street.

Let’s take the case of the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund. Nobel laureates ran it. They did not incorporate the possibility of a sovereign debt default in their model. So sure were they of themselves, that they went on to buy billions of dollars worth of derivatives, leveraging themselves to the hilt. Their total leverage in the end stood at 250:1. The sovereign debt default by the Russian government in 1998 triggered the LTCM fund to go belly up, and with it disappeared the life-savings of thousands of trusting investors. The ripple effects of this disaster almost knocked the world’s financial system off its platform. Talk about disconnect.

Currently, we are seeing the effects of another disconnect in action.

The Euro was conceived on the basis of hundreds of PhD theses and tons of post-doctoral research. What the researchers couldn’t possibly incorporate in their models were some basic human and emotional facts.

For starters, let’s try the Greeks. They like to retire early and work lesser than their Eurozone colleagues. Their bankers are gullible and not too street-smart, and have made some really bad bets.

Italians like to take short-cuts. They like to over-price and under-cut.

Germans like to go the whole hog. They are punctual and more environment-conscious. They do not like subsidizing those who don’t work for it.

French farmers want to sell their milk for its proper price. They and the majority of their nation dislikes subsidizing others who might not deserve subsidy.

One could go on. The list is endless.

How does one incorporate such realistic “human” stuff in mathematical models?

One can’t.

Mathematics doesn’t possess the language to reflect such human and emotional factors.

So what do these theses contain, upon which the Euro has been built. Other, disconnected stuff, no realistic, street-related emotional / human factors of value.

What we’re seeing is real disconnect in action. Financial academia is way out of its depth on the European street or for that matter on any other street. It should lay off from the street so that further disasters are prevented.

Let’s hope and pray that the Euro-chapter does not meet with a harmful end.

Is the Middle-person History?

Posted on by
Reply

Motivations…

are the propellors of life.

One can’t be an expert at everything. So one hires others to do stuff for one.

Of course one has to make it worth the other person’s while.

And the person you’ve hired needs to do the best possible job for you.

This used to be the pattern in the business of money. After the turn of the century, things started going haywire.

The middle-person in the business of money used to be a long-term wealth enhancer. His or her primary motivation was the creation and appreciation of your wealth.

Now, his or her focus is on the commissions generated by maximal short-term churning of your portfolio. This is dangerous for you.

I don’t know any wealth-manager who will share your loss with you. If earlier the loss would be felt only emotionally / morally by your wealth manager, even that is gone. So now, there’s nothing that’s stopping investment advice from becoming a function of the commission offered to the wealth manager. If a product offers more commission, that’s the product being recommended.

Where does that leave you?

Frankly, I feel that one is better off without an investment advisor. The web offers enough information on any and every investment product in existence. All you need to do is invest your time.

No time, you say? Who’s money is it? Yours, right? Then you need to jolly well take out the time. Only you can do justice to the proper, balanced and judicious investment of your funds.

So come on, snap out of any laziness. One hour a day to carve out a trajectory for your hard-earned money is all that’s required. If for nothing else, do it for your kids.

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.

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.

Trigger Mechanisms in Trading

Posted on by
Reply

Trigger mechanisms can fine-tune one’s trading by leaps and bounds.

There’s the buy stop. It’s used to only get into a trade above a certain price level. Below that price level, one isn’t bullish, and doesn’t wish to enter the trade.

Then there’s the sell stop. It’s used to execute a short sale below a certain level. One is bearish below that level only; above the level one doesn’t wish to enter the trade.

A short-seller can also use the buy stop to square off a short sale going against him or her.

Similarly, a person who is long can use the sell stop to square off a buy going against him or her.

How does the trigger mechanism work? There are two components: the trigger price and the limit price. Once the trigger price is “triggered”, only then is the order activated. This triggered order is then carried out within the range defined by the limit price. If the trigger price is not reached, the order is not activated.

This gives the trader the added advantage of not having to watch the screen all the time. In fact, some traders use the trigger mechanism while punching in their orders, and do something else the rest of the day.

More importantly, the trigger mechanism allows the trader to be where the action is when the action happens.

Trigger mechanisms are how professionals do it. You can use them too, because they are available on any and every trading platform doing the rounds.

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.

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.

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.

The Most Bugging Questions

Posted on by
Reply

Where is this market going?

Should one buy xyz?

What kind of volume do you trade?

What are your predictons?

Frankly, wrong questions.

One doesn’t exactly go to watch Formula 1 to then ask how many runs someone needs to make to win, right? Similarly, all the above questions are irrelevant to a trader’s success in the markets.

It doesn’t really matter where the market is going. A successful trade can still be found.

It doesn’t matter what one buys. If one manages the trade well, ultimately and overall, one will make money.

It doesn’t matter what volume you trade, as long as you have a system and stick to it.

And, a successful trader doesn’t predict the market. To succeed in the market, one needs to ask the market where it wants to go, and then one needs to go along with it.

The critically important part about trading is to put one’s money on the line, and to feel the emotional stress in one’s system that goes along with this. One needs to do this again, and again, and again, and that’s how one learns trade management. No books can really teach this. One really needs to go out there and do it.

A Time for Things

Posted on by
Reply

You don’t normally have dinner at breakfast time, do you?

Of course not.

Similarly, you don’t buy into a State Bank of India with a 5 year horizon when 6 years of earnings growth has already been factored into the price.

There’s a time for things.

You do buy into the same State Bank of India with a 2 week horizon when it’s shooting off the table and giving clear-cut up-moves as it makes its way into no-resistance territory.

And that’s about it. You’re in it for the short-term because that’s how the environment has defined itself. It’s a trading environment, not really meant for investors, whether conservative or unconservative. Thus, you have a stop-loss mechanism in place, in case there’s a down-swing, because up-moves can go hand in hand with down-moves. Where there’s a big money to be made, there’s chances of making a big loss too.

Oh, are you asking why you can’t enter into such stocks at this time with a long-term perspective? I see. Do you fly first class? No? Why not? Because it’s expensive, right? Similarly, such stocks are expensive just now. That’s not to say they won’t rise further. What you need to understand is that when you wake up five years from now, such a stock will have peaked and could possibly be heading for its trough. So your net returns over the long-term could even be negative.

Really wanna be a successful investor? Then you need to learn to buy cheap, with a margin of safety. You need to be patient enough to wait for lucrative entry levels.

Not getting your margins of safety anywhere in the markets just now?

Ok, just trade till you get them. Then you can stop trading, and start investing. Fine?

The Difference between Investment & Speculation

Posted on by
Reply

Investment is the low to medium risk art of conserving capital and protecting it against inflation, such that in the long run, capital appreciates. Speculation is the high risk art of trying to turn a small amount of money into a large amount.

Investment banks upon the power of compounding. It is an amalgamation of human, monetary and product capital, a combination that favours appreciation in the long run, not linear, but exponential appreciation, owing to the power of compounding. The key requirements are intelligence during scrip selection, patience and tolerance to allow multi-baggers to develop and blossom, and common-sense in handling one’s portfolio. Also, one needs to weed one’s portfolio at times, to remove poisonous scrips.

Speculation banks upon the power of leverage. This construct of finance is a double-edged sword. It can compound one’s profits, but also one’s losses. The speculator tries to cut losses and let profits run. This is easier said than done, because it goes against our natural instincts.

In the end, there are both successful and unsuccessful investors and speculators.

The key to deciding what line one should pursue here is a recognition of one’s own risk profile and appetite. What gives one sleepless nights? What is one’s pain threshold? How much loss can one bear without any effect on family life?

Such questions need to be answered before embarking upon either investment or speculation.