Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Not that this affects me BUT
BRUSSELS (Dow Jones)--The European Union is set to approve legislation that could limit the use of naked short-selling on credit default swaps, sovereign bonds and stocks, say people familiar with the matter.
European Union lawmakers will hold a meeting on the proposal Tuesday evening. Several important details have to be worked out, including a possible opt-out. However, the rules are expected to require traders to clearly report short positions and give regulators the power to ban naked short-selling during exceptional circumstances. An option for a complete ban on naked CDS positions tied to sovereign bonds is also under discussion.
Naked short-selling is when an investor bets against a financial product without holding the underlying asset. CDS contracts allow investors to buy insurance against the default of an underlying asset, like a Greek bond.
France and Germany in particular have blamed short-selling of sovereign debt for exacerbating the euro-zone debt crisis.
In May, European Union finance ministers reached an agreement on EU-wide rules that would allow restrictions on short-selling of shares and sovereign debt. But, Germany, alongside the European Parliament, has pushed for credit default swaps to be added to the list. Agreement with Parliament is the last step in the EU's law-making process.
Germany has already banned naked short-selling of certain stocks and sovereign debt of euro-zone countries, as well as of euro-zone sovereign debt credit default swaps since 2010, the German finance ministry said.
Still, the EU proposal includes an opt-out for member states concerned that a ban could impact market liquidity. But it remains unclear how long the opt-out would operate for and the details of when it could be used. The Parliament's proposal would limit the opt-out to 12 months, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Also still under negotiation is how much power the new pan-EU securities regulator, the European Securities and Markets Authority, will have in imposing limits itself.
Since August 12, France, Belgium, Italy and Spain have banned the short-selling of certain financial stocks amid high market volatility. Greece also imposed a temporary ban on certain stocks.
Earlier this year, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe said restrictions on shorting sovereign debt via credit default swaps will push sovereign and corporate borrowing costs up, damaging the economy.
Sander Schol, director at AFME, said the move "impairs the ability for companies and pension funds to manage credit risk and will be potentially harmful in managing systemic risk."
-By Riva Froymovich, Dow Jones Newswires; +32 
2 741 1489; riva.froymovich@dowjones.com
(Matthew Dalton, Bernd Radowitz, and Mark Brown contributed to this article.)
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 18, 2011 10:00 ET (14:00 GMT)
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
While waiting for normal service to be resumed..please read this!
Please read this
"Beneath the cacophony of screaming headlines about the European debt crisis,
Occupy Wall Street and the slumping U.S. economy lays the struggles
that quantitative hedge funds have recently endured.
Hedge funds just went through their worst quarter since the 2008 crash,
and an industry source told me that quant-based funds were hit particularly
hard during the period by wild swings throughout the global markets.
The world's hedge funds lost 5.02 percent of their assets during the third-quarter,
according to Bank of America's Hedge Fund Monitor, their worst performance
since a 9.48 percent decline for Q3 of 2008. So far this year,
hedge funds have fallen by 7.8 percent through the end of the third-quarter,
according to the Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Index"
Alex Spriroglou
I have always been suspicious of equity markets and many who work in them becuase only a fool could not have made money in the very strongly defined trends we have seen in them over the last 20 yrs. So it's all the more ridiculous when the bleating and whining starts during the sharp corrections/bear phases.
The real test is the ability to make money out of a falling or sideways market often where no defined trend is apparent. A skill that many of these huge funds seem unable to perform regardless of their quantative approach.
below (written after the crash in 2008 by another author)....
"Quant shops aren’t sitting around idly. They are pressing into new realms of computational finance, applying concepts from molecular physics, mathematical linguistics, artificial intelligence and other scientific disciplines. Thales, for example, is using computer simulations to replicate human behavior to try to predict the myriad decisions that drive trading activity. Other firms are pinning their hopes on machine learning — statistical methods that allow computers to identify relationships in financial data and make predictions from them. But regardless of the approach, managers agree that quant funds have been far too focused on equities and need to find ways to apply their strategies to a broader range of asset classes"..
Well, maybe they obviously have not learnt anything form history
and also written in 2008 by someone else
Quantitative trading? The steamroller of the credit crisis flattened nickel collectors in the equity markets that hadn't realized they were in its path. Damaged collateral caused collateral damage. Some quant funds saw their "hedges" become Texas hedges as shorts rose and longs fell. So-called "market neutral" strategies were short only dispersion and got caught in a PREDICTABLE short squeeze. Market neutral is NOT risk neutral and there is no mean to revert to. Monitor for crowded trades and take the other side. Dumb VaR "logic": it hasn't happened so it NEVER will happen!
It's not rocket science. Rocket science is easy compared to financial science which is why rocket scientists often get into trouble trading. Nobel Prize "winners" have an even worse record. Need more sophisticated systems and mathematical models than they are capable of understanding. The risk management rule I use is "If it can happen then it will happen". Sadly I know of few others that use it. The trouble with standard deviation is it just measures STANDARD deviation and is therefore no use. The market is never "normal"; it oscillates from one extreme to the other. Very volatile or very steady. Chaos and complexity aren't black swans as they are omnipresent features of the markets.
VaR, cVaR, tVaR, ETL? All useless. How can measuring dispersion from the mean be useful when the mean itself is extremely unstable? Volatility is analogous to energy in that it can hide as potential energy but it is ALWAYS lurking. Unless you have the resources and expertise to model and make money from non-linear, non-rational financial phenomena yourself, wire your money over to the FEW fund managers that do. Before the long only and beta repackaging crowd lose it for you...again. "Low cost" index funds are very expensive. As are "hedge funds" that can't manage risk properly.
Curious how OFTEN these "once in a 100,000 years" storms occur and blow away anyone who hasn't battened down the hatches. Usually after just a long enough gap in time for amateurs to say volatility is "permanently" contained! The butterfly effect from US subprime mortgages has propogated to many other areas in finance. Those "securities" weren't very secure despite the "ratings". Credit ratings are even more biased than sell-side equity ratings. Ignore them and do your own analysis. Relying on someone who was paid to rate a bond "AAA" is as dangerous as a "strong buy" stock recommendation.
EVERY investment strategy is directional including the ones that market themselves as "non-directional". Interesting how some less robust and poorly stress tested models have major trouble when a NEW risk factor emerges. An investment edge means a manager WILL produce alpha in the long run but NOT necessarily every month. Some quant hedge funds have competitive advantages but most do not.
For those investors intent on redeeming from good quant hedge funds it is worth recalling that after the October 1987 crash, statistical arbitrage produced excellent returns in the following years. Statistical arbitrage has been around for a long time and has had several difficult periods like any other investment style. This overdue shake out will ultimately be a positive for good systematic hedge funds. No matter what happens I'd rather bet on alpha than beta. Before people get too hysterical about hedge funds they should remember the much larger amounts at risk in unhedged long only and soon heading for BIG losses.
"Quant fund" is as poorly defined as "hedge fund". Some quant funds have done well recently. There are not only factor models and stat arb within the quant space. Most of the better CTAs are quantitative. There is countertrend trading and volatility arbitrage among others. I am not a quant but I certainly utilise obscure mathematics and proprietary statistical measures to evaluate fund managers, develop investment models, price options PROPERLY and trading algorithms. Most viable investment strategies have an element of "quant" about them, even the so-called "discretionary" styles.
If you can't quantify your edge then you don't have one. Sorry but it is a fact. If you can't measure your risk you can't manage your risk. If you don't know whether the performance was alpha or beta then it was undoubtably from beta. You can test and evaluate quantitative trading methods rigorously but human discretionary funds rarely have a long enough track record to differentiate luck from skill. A bad period for some prominent, possibly oversized, quant hedge funds does not change the STRONG diversification case for quant strategies.
"Rare" events are NOT very rare and tend to cluster together leading to other "rare" events. Pundits seem surprised that what started in illiquid credit could affect funds as diverse as liquid equity funds, currency or energy traders. Contagion and hysteria will often impact leveraged strategies. The irrational swamps the rational yet again. Economic expectations and logical assumptions are not good for modeling such an inherently irrational and emotional process. Fundamentals are irrelevant when fear grips the markets and that in turn negatively effects the fundamentals.
The idea that "this has never happened before" is wrong. Volatility is not new. Correlation regime shifts are not new. Some "quants" use just 5 years of historical data so it is interesting that the storm hit exactly as the most volatile month this century dropped off their spreadsheets. DURING July 2002 the Dow fell 18% then rallied 12%. We've seen nothing like that, YET. Many quants have similar risk factor driven stock ranking systems so an unwinding means popular shorts go up while popular longs go down. Convergence trades only work if there are reasons they should converge. In a regime change "reasons" get overwhelmed by the shift from low volatility to high volatility. Historical relationships are just that - HISTORICAL. Beta and correlation just describe the PAST. We can learn from previous behavior but can't rely on it.
Factor models and statistical arbitrage are not black boxes anymore. More a crowded, transparent box. It used to be off the radar screen for most investors and involve relatively small amounts of money. But success has led to significant trade crowding and transparency of methods that MUST be kept proprietary. All arbs eventually get arbed out so you have to keep finding new ones. With every strategy there is a point beyond which the dangers of copycats exceed the rewards. However, just like credit hedge funds, there were losers AND winners in quantitative funds. High frequency trading is actually safer than low frequency trading and it was the "slower" systems that performed worst recently. Some smaller, more agile quant funds using different models and shorter time frames were able to arb the bigger funds.
To ANTICIPATE risks it is important to develop as much expertise and information sources as possible across products and geographies. There are other strategies and assets not YET impacted by the subprime meltdown. What started as a small part of the credit markets has spread to many other areas. Contagion is contagious and bear markets tend to RAISE correlations across risky assets. To anticipate risks you need to be aware of what is coming out of left field. Part of the problem is the silo mentality of a lot of the street; while cross-product expertise has grown the basic stance remains "I am equity, you are fixed-income, he is currencies and she is commodities" when in fact it requires competence across all asset and strategy classes. There is also a sharp divide between quals and quants when you need to know and understand both.
"Beneath the cacophony of screaming headlines about the European debt crisis,
Occupy Wall Street and the slumping U.S. economy lays the struggles
that quantitative hedge funds have recently endured.
Hedge funds just went through their worst quarter since the 2008 crash,
and an industry source told me that quant-based funds were hit particularly
hard during the period by wild swings throughout the global markets.
The world's hedge funds lost 5.02 percent of their assets during the third-quarter,
according to Bank of America's Hedge Fund Monitor, their worst performance
since a 9.48 percent decline for Q3 of 2008. So far this year,
hedge funds have fallen by 7.8 percent through the end of the third-quarter,
according to the Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Index"
Alex Spriroglou
I have always been suspicious of equity markets and many who work in them becuase only a fool could not have made money in the very strongly defined trends we have seen in them over the last 20 yrs. So it's all the more ridiculous when the bleating and whining starts during the sharp corrections/bear phases.
The real test is the ability to make money out of a falling or sideways market often where no defined trend is apparent. A skill that many of these huge funds seem unable to perform regardless of their quantative approach.
below (written after the crash in 2008 by another author)....
"Quant shops aren’t sitting around idly. They are pressing into new realms of computational finance, applying concepts from molecular physics, mathematical linguistics, artificial intelligence and other scientific disciplines. Thales, for example, is using computer simulations to replicate human behavior to try to predict the myriad decisions that drive trading activity. Other firms are pinning their hopes on machine learning — statistical methods that allow computers to identify relationships in financial data and make predictions from them. But regardless of the approach, managers agree that quant funds have been far too focused on equities and need to find ways to apply their strategies to a broader range of asset classes"..
Well, maybe they obviously have not learnt anything form history
and also written in 2008 by someone else
Quantitative trading? The steamroller of the credit crisis flattened nickel collectors in the equity markets that hadn't realized they were in its path. Damaged collateral caused collateral damage. Some quant funds saw their "hedges" become Texas hedges as shorts rose and longs fell. So-called "market neutral" strategies were short only dispersion and got caught in a PREDICTABLE short squeeze. Market neutral is NOT risk neutral and there is no mean to revert to. Monitor for crowded trades and take the other side. Dumb VaR "logic": it hasn't happened so it NEVER will happen!
It's not rocket science. Rocket science is easy compared to financial science which is why rocket scientists often get into trouble trading. Nobel Prize "winners" have an even worse record. Need more sophisticated systems and mathematical models than they are capable of understanding. The risk management rule I use is "If it can happen then it will happen". Sadly I know of few others that use it. The trouble with standard deviation is it just measures STANDARD deviation and is therefore no use. The market is never "normal"; it oscillates from one extreme to the other. Very volatile or very steady. Chaos and complexity aren't black swans as they are omnipresent features of the markets.
VaR, cVaR, tVaR, ETL? All useless. How can measuring dispersion from the mean be useful when the mean itself is extremely unstable? Volatility is analogous to energy in that it can hide as potential energy but it is ALWAYS lurking. Unless you have the resources and expertise to model and make money from non-linear, non-rational financial phenomena yourself, wire your money over to the FEW fund managers that do. Before the long only and beta repackaging crowd lose it for you...again. "Low cost" index funds are very expensive. As are "hedge funds" that can't manage risk properly.
Curious how OFTEN these "once in a 100,000 years" storms occur and blow away anyone who hasn't battened down the hatches. Usually after just a long enough gap in time for amateurs to say volatility is "permanently" contained! The butterfly effect from US subprime mortgages has propogated to many other areas in finance. Those "securities" weren't very secure despite the "ratings". Credit ratings are even more biased than sell-side equity ratings. Ignore them and do your own analysis. Relying on someone who was paid to rate a bond "AAA" is as dangerous as a "strong buy" stock recommendation.
EVERY investment strategy is directional including the ones that market themselves as "non-directional". Interesting how some less robust and poorly stress tested models have major trouble when a NEW risk factor emerges. An investment edge means a manager WILL produce alpha in the long run but NOT necessarily every month. Some quant hedge funds have competitive advantages but most do not.
For those investors intent on redeeming from good quant hedge funds it is worth recalling that after the October 1987 crash, statistical arbitrage produced excellent returns in the following years. Statistical arbitrage has been around for a long time and has had several difficult periods like any other investment style. This overdue shake out will ultimately be a positive for good systematic hedge funds. No matter what happens I'd rather bet on alpha than beta. Before people get too hysterical about hedge funds they should remember the much larger amounts at risk in unhedged long only and soon heading for BIG losses.
"Quant fund" is as poorly defined as "hedge fund". Some quant funds have done well recently. There are not only factor models and stat arb within the quant space. Most of the better CTAs are quantitative. There is countertrend trading and volatility arbitrage among others. I am not a quant but I certainly utilise obscure mathematics and proprietary statistical measures to evaluate fund managers, develop investment models, price options PROPERLY and trading algorithms. Most viable investment strategies have an element of "quant" about them, even the so-called "discretionary" styles.
If you can't quantify your edge then you don't have one. Sorry but it is a fact. If you can't measure your risk you can't manage your risk. If you don't know whether the performance was alpha or beta then it was undoubtably from beta. You can test and evaluate quantitative trading methods rigorously but human discretionary funds rarely have a long enough track record to differentiate luck from skill. A bad period for some prominent, possibly oversized, quant hedge funds does not change the STRONG diversification case for quant strategies.
"Rare" events are NOT very rare and tend to cluster together leading to other "rare" events. Pundits seem surprised that what started in illiquid credit could affect funds as diverse as liquid equity funds, currency or energy traders. Contagion and hysteria will often impact leveraged strategies. The irrational swamps the rational yet again. Economic expectations and logical assumptions are not good for modeling such an inherently irrational and emotional process. Fundamentals are irrelevant when fear grips the markets and that in turn negatively effects the fundamentals.
The idea that "this has never happened before" is wrong. Volatility is not new. Correlation regime shifts are not new. Some "quants" use just 5 years of historical data so it is interesting that the storm hit exactly as the most volatile month this century dropped off their spreadsheets. DURING July 2002 the Dow fell 18% then rallied 12%. We've seen nothing like that, YET. Many quants have similar risk factor driven stock ranking systems so an unwinding means popular shorts go up while popular longs go down. Convergence trades only work if there are reasons they should converge. In a regime change "reasons" get overwhelmed by the shift from low volatility to high volatility. Historical relationships are just that - HISTORICAL. Beta and correlation just describe the PAST. We can learn from previous behavior but can't rely on it.
Factor models and statistical arbitrage are not black boxes anymore. More a crowded, transparent box. It used to be off the radar screen for most investors and involve relatively small amounts of money. But success has led to significant trade crowding and transparency of methods that MUST be kept proprietary. All arbs eventually get arbed out so you have to keep finding new ones. With every strategy there is a point beyond which the dangers of copycats exceed the rewards. However, just like credit hedge funds, there were losers AND winners in quantitative funds. High frequency trading is actually safer than low frequency trading and it was the "slower" systems that performed worst recently. Some smaller, more agile quant funds using different models and shorter time frames were able to arb the bigger funds.
To ANTICIPATE risks it is important to develop as much expertise and information sources as possible across products and geographies. There are other strategies and assets not YET impacted by the subprime meltdown. What started as a small part of the credit markets has spread to many other areas. Contagion is contagious and bear markets tend to RAISE correlations across risky assets. To anticipate risks you need to be aware of what is coming out of left field. Part of the problem is the silo mentality of a lot of the street; while cross-product expertise has grown the basic stance remains "I am equity, you are fixed-income, he is currencies and she is commodities" when in fact it requires competence across all asset and strategy classes. There is also a sharp divide between quals and quants when you need to know and understand both.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
NO POSTING POSSIBLE
Due to an extrememly serious computer hardaware meltdown we are unable to post this week on MEDIAN & REACTION LINE TRADER or on our sister blog AGRI CHARTS or on the website PM AGRI TRADING........Normal service will be resumed as quickly as possible. (Please note- all PM AGRI subscribers will continue to receive their regular updates)
Friday, 7 October 2011
Before and after shots!
Its not the Fitch announcment i care a less about- Its the reaction lines- take a look at critical levels here.
EURUSD
OK, I am still bearish and suppose i should not have been so surprised how strong a trend this is as we have reached its objective at the 1.3500 area. Now we need to know if we are going higher? I think we might make a series of tops but price seems to be struggling above 1.35 (and so it should with the Eurozone nothing short of a shambles still). For the moment i watch and wait as ( see previous email) i expected a classic wave off the lower thick blue ML and a nice return to that line and eventual penetrations...it may still come
Thursday, 6 October 2011
EURUSD... welcome to meltdown
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
sell euro + US$ @ 1.3382..why? mkt should top at restest of 1.34 continued
I believe that what we are seeing is the death throws of the Euro as it repeatedly tries to go higher and fails each time and tests support at 1.3300 which will give way anytime. I am eventually looking for EURUSD to get to 1.2975 and then i think it would be extremely dangerous to be short. My opinion ( and i am not an economist) is that once the Eurozone finally resolve their problems the Euro will be a zuber strong currency.....The deutsche mark of it's day, and remember this market will be so oversold that there will be blood when it finally turns! as the old London stock market saying goes those who pick bottoms get dirty fingers ...so i do not intend to do this but i can bet i will get in on the first retracement of the new trend and i will see and confirm visually which line it turns on. See the reaction lines in the 60 min E signal chart that are preventing price form rising above 1.34? What will happen is an orderly descent to the thick dark blue ML then volatility and wild price moves up before going lower.
sell euro + US$ @ 1.3382..why? mkt should top at restest of 1.34
Carrying on from my late evening/midnight post( i was tired so pls excuse errors) you can see the Schiff pink UMLP at 1.3376 where we are short. 10pt stop. Looking for a RT to the blue M-line from a daily fork. I expect the € to top out here. It may well have another attempt/wave up to the pink ML but there is a reaction line form a daily fork (Agri value 76.5 AC/D) lying above price ( not visible here). Remember Schiff MLs are by far the most effective as they often have horizontal attitudes and effect price more than 45 degree angled lines especially in micro time frames such as 1min or 34 tick.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
sell euro + US$ @ 1.3382..why? mkt should top at restest of 1.34/ 1.3425.....so scale selling from here
I a building a position ( sorry have to exit blog dueto mkt)
r
22,50 hrs,,,,,but look at two convergng reaction lines. This is the 'fail' area and you have got to be joking if you think this currency pair is BID in any interbank dealing desk. Would you
(your bank) be buying euros( selling to customer) at 1.3341?
.
EurUsd final
Closed the postion for better of worse at b/e. I did not like the candles with too much stem/support undert them plus there are always more fish in the sea. The candles are a sign that all was not well and that buying support was in equilibrium with selling...you often see this and its a sign of a minor pivot/change in direction.
-EUR+-USD trade continued...cont
We have the sign that we wanted but we are still not 'out of the woods'. We now want a long bar down.The we can move stops to b/even. Keep an eye of the MACCYD and the ribbons
-EUR+-USD trade continued
Heres the restest of the reaction line. A piercing of this line would have my hands twitching to close the positon and I want to see a 'lower low' on the next one or two 5 min bars....another test of the RL would also have my trigger finger ready to close the position.
-EUR+-USD trade
We are short on the reaction line at a restest of 1.32 area which has failed. Exact entries are 1.3191 and 1.31870 and we are looking for a test down to 1.3150. The position is marginally in profit but we will keep our stops above the the first 'lower high' at 1.3204 of the new trend ( ie the coming down cycle of this wave). I expect a bar to retest the underside of the thick red reaction line so to move it to break even would be premature.The short ribbon stochastics should bounce back down off the falling B-line.
Monday, 3 October 2011
Friday, 30 September 2011
Thursday, 29 September 2011
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Comment on EUROPE: Leadership!...What leadership?
Leadership.......Mmmmm?! Perhaps something the UK knows about both from the historical perspective of its lack-of and the weakness that then follows and perhaps also the perspective of the positive effect of strong leadership.......However Europe seems hopelessly lost for strong leadership with Germany again for historical reasons reluctant to take centre stage(politically at least) and Europe is left wanting in their hour of
need.
George Papandreou ( below) - the grandson of the Prime minister 'Papandreou' who Churchill backed (at the great expense of other Eastern European countries who were to be left to the soviet sphere of influence-The "naughty" document etc) to save Greece from Soviet domination/influence after liberation (withdrawl) of German occupation forces in 1944 and the subsequent civil war /ELAS and EAM .British troops ( sizable numbers) fought in Athens in 1944 principally to prevent a communist takeover...churchill could already see Uncle Joe's intentions and sadly FDR's health was in serious decline.
This family of Papandreou's has presided over the Greek political scene for many generations and has to be the main reason of why Greece has been pulled backwards from any chance of social and financial transformation, political independence or any progress- always by one and another of the Papandreou family..........
Crude and the FTSE/DAX...top formation? continued
Reaction lines work on all time frame BUT Its not what you see -its what you do with them.
Crude and the FTSE/DAX...top formation?
Oil looks as though its struggling and the DAX and FTSE at least seem to be building a top and i am most interested in what the slow and fast stochastic ribbons and MACCY D are showing.
No trade setups -we could see Dec Dax retest 5600 on the downside. the pink dashed line in the DAX chart is a trigger line from a high TF fork that is not visible here but the TL itself has kept showing up at the major tops...It looks as though we may see a short setup later after the US opening.
No trade setups -we could see Dec Dax retest 5600 on the downside. the pink dashed line in the DAX chart is a trigger line from a high TF fork that is not visible here but the TL itself has kept showing up at the major tops...It looks as though we may see a short setup later after the US opening.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Copper and chart scaling- log or arithmetic?
One much overlooked aspect of charting(along with the dimension of 'time' itself) is the question of whether to use logarithmic or arithmetic scale charts. This is of particular interest for anyone out there using linear lines- trend/reaction/multipivot/Andrews forks etc. In this particular case we are looking at the reaction line in thick brick red in the above charts of HG Copper. left chart arith/right chart Log
The chart below is a normal or arithmetic-scale chart. Note the Y-axis values are equal distance apart. You can also see how the reaction and median lines appear much differently from the other chart. It is often necessary to keep re-drawing reaction lines (as I have do) on both artithmetic and the log charts, which can lead to some extremely impressive correlation between price and the reaction lines on a ultra low time frame like 1 min- where i choose always to enter a trade regardless of if it is a short term intra day trade or a 'keeper' ie, a position trade to be held for days/weeks. The reasonfor this is i do not have deep pockets for stops and those traders (John Crane for example) who place their stops so far away from the market you need to get on a bus to visit them I often suspect of being educators first and traders second( if at all)! As the saying goes...Those who can trade- those who can't teach.
Great care should be taken to find the true location of a median/reaction/warning etc line and the phenomenon of a line exisitng in two different chart postions and having a visible reaction in each seperate location is one secret i observe every day.
left Arithmetic- right Log
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
