My Recent Trade



Click To Enlarge

Context
This post attempts to answer the question, can the technical indicators be used to time the market?  The Elliott Wave Theory tells us what the overall fractal patterns followed by the markets look like.  The fact that it is some sort of fractal means we can verify where in the pattern we are, by looking at it in the context of the shorter time frame and the longer time frame.  We can view the indicators in that context. One dip, or one rise in the market does not a trend make.  When we see a series of higher highs and higher lows, we have an uptrend.  When we see a series of lower highs and lower lows, we have a downtrend.  That means we can't know the top until, at least, we see another lower high, and we can't know the bottom until we see another higher low.  Rather than try to explain what I mean, let's look at the trade I made at the end of July.

Going Down
First, the RSI indicator at the top of the chart peaked out at the beginning of July as evidenced by the lower high two weeks later.  So did the price candles, the MACD in the section below that and the stochastics in the section below that.  I should have bought (the inverse fund) when the price crossed the green dotted line which represents the midpoint of the Keltner Channel from above.  Instead, I waited for the price to drop below the blue line which represents the 40-day moving average (circled in orange).  By this time any conceivable uptrend had been clearly broken.  Even without any knowledge of the Elliott waves, it would be clear to most people the market was headed lower.

How Far?
At that point in time I had no target price.  I knew fair value based on the historical average annual earnings was  850.  The Point and Figure chart (also found on StockCharts.com) indicated a bottom at 1140.  The Fibonacci ratios associated with the Elliott Wave would suggest a bottom around 1190.  There is nothing in the indicators, initially,  that suggest how much down-side to expect.  On August 9 we had a big bounce, then another drop  on August 10.  I was happy with my gains at that point and exited my position.

Too Early
Had I played the downturn at the beginning of July, I would have been on the right track, but the lower high near the end of July would likely have been sufficient to cause me to start to lose money, even though the longer trend was still down.  I make it a policy to exit such a position when I start losing money.  If the trend resumes in my favour, there is nothing to say I can't take the position again, perhaps even at a better price!

Momentum
The reason I believe we can rely on these indicators is because this "toing" and "froing" in the market is caused by momentum.  The momentum is caused, not by events that happen, but by people's perception of the events that happen.  These optimistic and pessimistic moods take a while to develop and then, to run their course.  Generally, it is not the value of the indicators themselves which I rely on, but the trend in the indicators.  The indicators have since taken a positive shorter trend, but I don't trust it as long as the moving averages are inverted with the 40-day beneath the 200-day and prices lower still.

Comments?

Investing Time Horizon

The Process
The purpose of this post is to express my belief that markets go through a repeating process which results in the achievement of new highs and lows.  While this process does not exactly replicate itself, I do believe it falls within certain parameters.  Allow me to explain why this is important.  For those who think the markets act in some random fashion, what I am about to say will be of little consequence.  Such people are better served averaging into the markets over long periods of time.

The Neatness In Theory
Elisabeth Kubler-Ross popularized the notion that people experience different emotions when confronted with the fact they are about to die.  To her, it seemed there were a number of stages that people would experience, sequentially, one after the other.  While this was a convenient method for studying the process of dying, not everyone agrees those stages are so neatly ordered and labelled.  Few identify the end of one stage with the beginning of another.  Not everyone experiences every stage.  Still, I think most people, today, recognize this as a process, rather than a single event.

Pattern?
For many people to believe the markets follow some sort of pattern, requires that we identify a particular sequence of events that would indicate what was about to happen next.  Few would look to the occurrence of a combination of events, some or all of which would suggest what is to follow.  Surely, for a pattern to exist, at least one event could be identified that we could rely on as a signal of a top in the market, or as a signal of a bottom in the market.  Otherwise, how can we call it a pattern?

Asymmetry
I love to use the example of a toy that was popular when I was a child, called the Spirograph.  Using it, we can produce intricate symmetrical designs by repeating certain simple processes over, and over again.  Instead of following the exact process each time, if we introduced a slight variation of the size or shape of the inside disc, or the outside ring, as we went along, a pattern would emerge, but it would no longer be symmetrical.  In other words, it would not be the same each time.

Fractals
The most interesting thing, to me, is these variations of a theme (in the markets, and in nature), when combined, create a larger version of the smaller design.  These are known as fractals.  Breaking a fractal apart creates a smaller approximation of the larger one, not just a piece of it.  Fractals are abundant in nature: crystals, flowers, lightning and land formations, to name a few.  It is my belief that fractals represent the way things grow.  Markets are a reflection of how society grows economically, technically, and financially.

The Buying & Selling Process
If we believe the markets are an expression of the process of growth in society, and not just some random series of events, then there are a couple of important distinctions we can make.  First, successfully investing in, or trading stocks requires that we follow a process.  Buying at random, without any intention of selling, is an event. Buying with the intention of later selling at a higher price, becomes a process.  Buying at random with the intent of later selling at a higher price is purely speculation.   

Scalability
Second, an investing methodology should be scalable.  Due to the underlying nature of markets, we can use the same processes when day-trading as we can when investing for years at a time.  The difference is in how we aggregate the data.  We can look at charts of minute by minute ticks, or we can choose charts of monthly price data.  We can look at the change in fundamentals on a quarterly basis, or over periods of years.  In either case, the process remains, basically, the same.

Bottom Line
This is our edge.  In order to outperform most other participants in the markets, I am suggesting we need a process, one which is scalable to the time frame that suits our interests, and needs.  If we only want average returns, or worse, then little, or no action is required on our part.  People who don't know these things to be true will tell you it can't be done.  Don't rely on their saying so, just because they don't know how, or are unable to.

Do you know of a scalable process with which above-average stock market returns are possible?