stockmarkets -are we nearing the bottom or is there further to go ??

bigadaj

This thread is and should be quite interesting because it's revealing a range of views and opinions, primarily based on the background of the posters.

We have had the Chartists views, which I have been critical of, which are attractive to people with fairly rigid opinions such as people with teh physics background described.

Others have financial services or other backgrounds and recognise the risk of ascribing formulaic reasoning to investment, the interplay of psychology and economics makes this projection at best questionable.

My background is within natural science and environmental engineering and this has helped me in items of risk assessment and volatility. use of techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation is transferable and gives an idea of probability of outcome in terms of returns based on historic examples, none of which of course provides any sort of guarantee.

It's useful to get this interchange of views and opinions and we can hopefully continue with an expression of differing views which people can take or leave as they see fit.

BananaRepublic

bigadaj wrote: »

We have had the Chartists views, which I have been critical of, which are attractive to people with fairly rigid opinions such as people with teh physics background described.

I have a physics background and I am not attracted to chartism, although I can see that it is a valid viewpoint. I also doubt that people with a physics background have rigid opinions. Deciding on a particular strategy/approach does not make one rigid, nor does it mean that one despises or looks down on other approaches. There are many reasons to choose a given path. And many approaches can work.

bigadaj wrote: »

Others have financial services or other backgrounds and recognise the risk of ascribing formulaic reasoning to investment, the interplay of psychology and economics makes this projection at best questionable.

I suspect many others including those with a physics background are well aware of market sentiment, psychology, and so on.

bigadaj wrote: »

My background is within natural science and environmental engineering and this has helped me in items of risk assessment and volatility. use of techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation is transferable and gives an idea of probability of outcome in terms of returns based on historic examples, none of which of course provides any sort of guarantee.

It's useful to get this interchange of views and opinions and we can hopefully continue with an expression of differing views which people can take or leave as they see fit.

BananaRepublic

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

once again, you choose to take offence at specific terms from other people's arguments. meanwhile, when it suits you, you don't bother making an argument and resort to name-calling instead.

I am making the observation that several people are creating negative caricatures and parodies. I have argued why I think caution is required for Japan and China, and another poster has stated clearly that the market is more volatile, which is the reason why I advise caution. I dont disagree with some of the points made.

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

imagine warren were reading this. do you think he'd be taking offence?

I doubt he'd give a damn about petty squabbles.

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

to clarify: by 'real risk', i meant: risk of permanent loss of capital.

You cannot know what the 'real risks' are, you can only estimate what you think they are, hence you can only estimate the risks associated with various sectors and markets. Volatility could be taken as a measure of risk, and hence greater volatility would mean higher risk.

BananaRepublic

masonic wrote: »

Well, quite. The key is to understand the difference between criticising a person and criticising an idea or opinion. As far as I can see, the terms "naive", "unsophisticated" and "parochial" have only been used in reference to ideas, not to people.

A semantic distinction. Charactering someone's ideas as parochial, unsophisticated or naive, is in effect to dismiss that person as having those characteristics, or thinking in a manner that has those characteristics.

Thrugelmir

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Some 200 posts earlier on this thread (#131) I mentioned having just bought some Deutsche Bank shares the day earlier. Cost me €13.255 then. After the ECB announcement today they spiked up by another euro or so and my limit order sold a bunch of them for €18.45.

39% rise in 28 days is not too shabby. I have no idea what the macd or stochastics or bollinger bands say about where it's going next as I haven't tried to read the chart tealeaves.

But having recovered 85% of the purchase cost by selling only 60% of the shares, the rest can affordably sit in my pension for a few years and hopefully be worth something in the long term.

My monthly regular purchases in my SIPP went through today (youinvest do the bulk buys on the 10th each month) and this month I'd set them to Personal Assets Trust which is positioned rather more defensively than most.

If only one could pick "winners" so easily on a regular basis. Trouble is self confidence in ones own abilities is ultimately a human frailty.

bowlhead99

BananaRepublic wrote: »

A semantic distinction. Charactering someone's ideas as parochial, unsophisticated or naive, is in effect to dismiss that person as having those characteristics, or thinking in a manner that has those characteristics.

It is quite possible to characterise ideas as parochial, unsophisticated or naive. If a person chooses to hold or promote those characteristics or ideas, and the ideas are criticized, it doesn't mean that he personally is being characterised as parochial, unsophisticated or naive.

But he might feel wounded by people criticising his ideas or dismissing the ideas and feel he is personally being criticised or dismissed. So what? Nobody is forcing him to hold those ideas. If he is concerned about what others think or say, he can stop holding the ideas or stop listening to what others say.

BananaRepublic

bowlhead99 wrote: »

It is quite possible to characterise ideas as parochial, unsophisticated or naive. If a person chooses to hold or promote those characteristics or ideas, and the ideas are criticized, it doesn't mean that he personally is being characterised as parochial, unsophisticated or naive.

That sounds to me like sophistry, playing with words.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

But he might feel wounded by people criticising his ideas or dismissing the ideas and feel he is personally being criticised or dismissed. So what? Nobody is forcing him to hold those ideas. If he is concerned about what others think or say, he can stop holding the ideas or stop listening to what others say.

I certainly don't feel wounded, I don't really give a toss as it has no impact on my returns, and life, but it suggests that some here cannot accept that someone has a different approach to them, and they feel they have to engage in petty putdowns. I do not follow chartism, but I see no reason to describe adherents as rigid,. It is a valid approach, with some merits, but it is not for me. There are many approaches, which suit different temperaments and personalities. As I have said China is not for me. Why on earth do some see a need to 'destroy' my ideas.

masonic

BananaRepublic wrote: »

A semantic distinction. Charactering someone's ideas as parochial, unsophisticated or naive, is in effect to dismiss that person as having those characteristics, or thinking in a manner that has those characteristics.

Nonsense. It is merely dismissing those ideas for having those characteristics, not the person. Holding a view that is naive does not make you naive in character. It might mean that you are human. If you can't accept that some of the things you post here are going to be regarded in negative terms by others without that being any reflection on you personally, then your experience here is not going to be a pleasant one.

masonic

BananaRepublic wrote: »

...but it suggests that some here cannot accept that someone has a different approach to them, and they feel they have to engage in petty putdowns.

Someone who is being cynical might believe your feigning personal insult at any criticism of your ideas is an attempt to deflect genuine flaws in those ideas that you are unwilling or unable to defend rationally.

BananaRepublic

masonic wrote: »

Someone who is being cynical might believe your feigning personal insult at any criticism of your ideas is an attempt to deflect genuine flaws in those ideas that you are unwilling or unable to defend rationally.

Your last two posts are the equivalent of childish name calling. If you have something substantive to say, then I might comment.