Monday, March 9, 2009

Historic Chart


I found this on my hard drive the other day, and I thought I would share it. If you go to the site mentioned on the image, you'll find an even more recent chart showing the current decline of the S&P500 P/E ratios (not yet below 10).

This chart will hopefully give you an idea of where the current market stands. There have been "double tops" before that have not signaled the end of the market, something pointed out every now and then by the doomsayers. Also, there are other times where we have dipped below the outlined consolidation levels. While the chance for a Great Depression like dive exists, I personally think we'll get some movement towards the upside as soon as P/E ratios dip below 10. According to the data I find at Shiller's website, the S&P500 P/E ratio is about 12 as of March 3, 2009. In order to get real bullish sentiment, I think we'd need to fall to ~7 or so. We could fall lower, but that level 5-8, is probably as good as it will get for buyers.

Then again, the doomsayers could be right: the United States could just burst into flames.
StumbleUpon

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Motives.

Motivations, as a friend once told me, are what you need to figure out if you want to understand people. To begin the process ask, "What does this person want?" The benefit of knowing what the other person (or group of people) want is that you can use this information to collate your own wants and desires and see if they are opposed or in congruence. The difficulty in doing this, is that many people will not state their motives up front, or, often, they do not understand or want to understand their true motives.

This can hurt you if you choose to take the person's words at face value. For instance, if someone says, "I want to make you a better person," but constantly performs actions to the contrary (e.g. beating, name calling, neglect) then taking them at their word will lead to confusion: "This person is trying to make me a better person, but I keep feeling terrible and getting worse." The symbols (words) used to convey reality conflict with reality. Obviously, this is going to end terribly for the person who continues to believe the person performing the abuse.

Perhaps even more insidious is when the abuse is not overt. Take CNBC. They state that their aim is to help the investor better understand investing and to make money. However, the views presented are often conflicting (even from the same source, day to day), and since most people cannot or do not record the shows for future reference and reflection, they forget the advice that has hurt them and end up assigning much of the guilt of poor performance to their own misunderstanding.

The base of this problem stems from the misrepresentation (whether intended or through a lack of self-understanding on the hosts) of motive: "We are here to help you invest." If this were the case, why so many ambiguous or outright incorrect statements? It is because their true motive conflicts with your motive to be a better investor through a better understanding of the business world. They are reflecting your motive back onto you. But that is not their motive.

CNBC's motive is to profit from advertising. As many know (whether or not they act upon the information) biased, skewed, exaggerated, "yellow" journalism attracts a larger audience than fact-based, "boring" analysis. People like watching arguments between people who share extreme and conflicting views. It is exciting. CNBC's motive is to provide you with this entertainment. It is how they increase their viewer base and how they increase advertising revenue.

Providing their motives to the viewer (or helping the viewer better understand him or herself), however, would hurt their bottom line. It's not in their best interest.

But it is in your best interest to look at the motives (and even the general world view) of those who you read, watch, and follow. If you take people at their word without confirming their word with action and outcome, your successes will be hit and miss.

----- In Relation to This Site ------

The above can stand on its own, but I wanted to post my own motives for maintaining this site (at least my best understanding of what my motives are). As many of you may have noticed, I no longer have advertisements on the right hand side of the site. I'll be receiving my check from Google soon and have decided not to continue placing hope in profiting from advertisement. I guess, the amount of time I dedicate to thinking about how I can get traffic up and clicking on ads is just not worth the amount of return I can get. I'm much happier dedicating my time to in depth analysis of economics and markets (and whatever else interests me! This is my site) and making money through the markets themselves using the knowledge I gain through the maintenance of this site.

Yeah, the last sentence was a little convoluted, but the main point is: I want to focus on what makes me happy. If you haven't heard, most major sources of journalism are in the red. Although I'm sure there are blogs that make enough to support a human life, I think many do it with other products (Tim Syke's alerts/videos/etc or WeeklyTA's advisor service). I may do that at some point in the future, if anyone wants to follow me throughout the day. But, at the moment, I don't have enough time to be online throughout every trading day, and I doubt enough experience to confidently direct beginners; not to mention, I am having enough success making money trading that I really don't need those extra sources of income. Eventually, I hope such sources will pale in comparison to what I make trading.

Instead, what I hope to gain from this site is a few new friends, an increased depth of knowledge about economics, trading, human psychology, and politics (or whatever floats my boat--such as terrible cliches), and a better understanding of the English language. Truth is, I enjoy to write. Always have, always will. The creative process stimulates me, keeps me alive, and provokes another activity I love: thought.

I'm sure there are other reasons I continue posting. But without ads to the right or a detailed record of my successes (while it may help some bloggers to present this information--and I do not judge them, and enjoy many of their straightforward p/l and goal charts--it tends to hurt me, puff up my sense of superiority or inferiority, and detract from my learning/trading) or a trading service, I thought some may be wondering why I am writing. Well, the above gives some idea.

I'm no CNBC. I hope I am not abusing any of you either. But, my motives, while far more complex than I can really understand (just like everyone else's), are important for you to know while reading my posts and important for you to consider. They'll change with time. And I'm definitely no selfless, savior figure: I don't intend to make you a trading or investing God.

But, then again, CNBC doesn't aim to either.
StumbleUpon

Friday, March 6, 2009

Another Poker Analogy

In online poker, all the chips on the table have been paid for, and with each subsequent pot the house takes its "rake" (i.e. a small fraction for hosting the game). Any money you make in online poker comes out of the pockets of those who you are playing against, and even if you were the best poker player on the table and looted all the stacks, you still wouldn't leave with all of the money that had been on the table. This is because of the rake fee.

The stock market is similar. All of the money you make comes from the pockets of the other participants. After each trade a commission fee takes place to cover the transaction between the two individual traders/investors (players). At the end of the day, even if you were the best trader in the world and were able to drain the participants of all their capital (impossible for many reasons, but for theoretical purposes--) you would still walk away with less money than had been put into the market (sans dividends, should the stocks have any) because of broker fees.

I guess the message I am trying to get across here is that for every winning hand or profitable trade, there will be a losing hand or a losing trade on the other side, at least when markets grow faster than the underlying companies and economy. Those who come out on top are relatively few, because they tend to obtain the "stacks" with their confidence, skills, and eventual ability to buy the pot. The others who come out on top (assuming they have a good business model and aren't wasting money on excess people/equipment) are those who bring the transactions together.

Oh, and another thing: on average, people like to think they are better than average poker players. I think the same goes for the financial world.

Thoughts?
StumbleUpon

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Surrendering to Gravity and the Unknown

Shorting is a necessary tool for any serious trader. Gravity--i.e. entropy--will always take hold, and things will eventually fall. Furthermore, things fall faster than they rise. How much more needs to be said in favor of shorting?


"Gravity" off of Thirteenth Step by A Perfect Circle.
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Fear

Fear is always the result of your beliefs about the threatening nature of the environment. What could be threatening about the market? Nothing, if you had the confidence and completely trusted yourself to act appropriately under any given set of market conditions. Essentially, what you fear is not the markets but rather your inability to do what you need to do, when you need to do it, without hesitation.

- Mark Douglas, The Disciplined Trader
StumbleUpon

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Nap

The site has been put on the back burner for the last few days, and it looks like it may have to stay there for a while. I have my final "midterm" tomorrow, but with public transportation (in Southern California) and dedicating my time to trading my friend's account, I am struggling to find time for the site. While I still try to keep a journal of my trades (riding the bus is good for that and reading), I tend to crash when I get home. Naps are the fruit of the Gods.

I really need to spend some time outside as well. With my brother or with friends. I may come back, and I hope I do (I enjoy you people); and I definitely won't stop reading your sites (whether or not it's healthy, I spend quite a bit of time reading blogs). I just don't know exactly when I can update daily again, or if it is even a good idea to utilize my time that way.

I won't hold it against you if you take me off your blog lists. Actually, if I'm not back and posting within a week, I'd recommend it. I'm tired. And I think I need a long nap.

The contest finishes up on Friday. The results are below and it looks like Charlie's goal is so far achieved =). Whoever wins, send me an email with your address and I'll get your copy of Liar's Poker sent off to you. I'll still be doing the lottery for The Losing Game if anyone is interested in it (it's probably a little too gloomy, angry, and not backed up with many facts for most of you; at least for me).

As always, check out the links to the right. Those are some high quality blogs over there.




Thank you for reading my blog. Take care,

Ryan (aka Complacent Panda)
StumbleUpon

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Panda Love



Panda cubs certainly look ugly by most standards. The same could be said of fledgling traders. But both have the potential to turn into such beautiful creatures.


Here are two, one helping the other make it up a tree, or something, perhaps to get a warm apple pie. With the help of others (or as John Lennon said, with a little help from my friends) perhaps the arduous journey can be accomplished.


But, breeders have so much difficulty with the pandas. The process of getting them to, uh-cough, mate with one another is frustrating and time consuming. Many processes are tried. For instance, the one to the left is watching pr0n.


Moral of the story: I have too much time on my hands and have begun accumulating far too many panda pictures on my hard drive.

Stay Tuned =)
StumbleUpon