Traders: Millions by the minute. BBC i Player
Discussion
A friend of mine at work has a friend. She went and stuck £8k down on some stocks (QPP). This girl wouldn't bet £20 on a football match i'm sure.
But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
This is pretty scary..
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/plus500-...
Seems the prices are just made up and don't match real world values. When users question this they are told the prices on the platform are futures ,not todays price. They even had the FTSE out by 50points!
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/plus500-...
Seems the prices are just made up and don't match real world values. When users question this they are told the prices on the platform are futures ,not todays price. They even had the FTSE out by 50points!
g4ry13 said:
A friend of mine at work has a friend. She went and stuck £8k down on some stocks (QPP). This girl wouldn't bet £20 on a football match i'm sure.
But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
To be fair buying stocks (as opposed to spread betting) is more like buying a property to rent out than betting on a sporting event. Risky, sure, but the chance of losing your entire 'stake' is pretty slim and the chance of at least some profit relatively high.But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
Dr Jekyll said:
To be fair buying stocks (as opposed to spread betting) is more like buying a property to rent out than betting on a sporting event. Risky, sure, but the chance of losing your entire 'stake' is pretty slim and the chance of at least some profit relatively high.
Clearly if you assume that the historical 5-7% return continues then holding onto a tracker for the long term fits your description.Short term trading individual equities is far removed from that though.
If she is loath to bet £20 for fear of losing it all then putting £8k on the line is giving you a good chance of losing FAR FAR more than £20!!
t tonight and only score 2 goals then you could bet on Under 2.5 Goals which is currently 21-1.Dr Jekyll said:
g4ry13 said:
A friend of mine at work has a friend. She went and stuck £8k down on some stocks (QPP). This girl wouldn't bet £20 on a football match i'm sure.
But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
To be fair buying stocks (as opposed to spread betting) is more like buying a property to rent out than betting on a sporting event. Risky, sure, but the chance of losing your entire 'stake' is pretty slim and the chance of at least some profit relatively high.But when it comes to stocks, people see it as an investment and are very comfortable lumping around sizeable money which they can't really afford to spare on things they don't know about. It's a little bit scary.
Derek Chevalier said:
Hoofy said:
Aye. Spook them out by talking about MACD and Stochastics.
Does anyone believe that the above methods work?TA wont tell you what will happen, it will tell you what might happen, and its up to you to infer and read the indicators. That said, fundamentals will always win in the end.
Condi said:
Derek Chevalier said:
Hoofy said:
Aye. Spook them out by talking about MACD and Stochastics.
Does anyone believe that the above methods work?TA wont tell you what will happen, it will tell you what might happen, and its up to you to infer and read the indicators. That said, fundamentals will always win in the end.
Derek Chevalier said:
But surely if there were such an inefficiency this would've been swallowed up by some hedge fund using an algorithm, leaving nothing left for Joe Punter?
Undoubtedly some do trade like that, but not many. Thing is, if the MACD gives you a buy signal, on its own it might not mean much. Things like Fibonacci retacements can be more reliable, but its not a yes/no job. Derek Chevalier said:
Hoofy said:
Aye. Spook them out by talking about MACD and Stochastics.
Does anyone believe that the above methods work?That said, the vast majority of my trading, and that of my colleagues was not outright directional, but looking for relative value between different instruments, or sometimes different parts of the yield curve.
Technicals also gives people something to talk about and some sense of (generally false) certainty to cling to. Traders are supposed to have a view all the time and are supposed to know what is going on all the time. Everyone expects that of them. Technicals always give you something to say and are sufficiently imprecise that no one can say you're wrong, but they can always find some other technical indicator that points in a different direction. So now you can have what sounds like a discussion and you can both tut and agree things are difficult to predict at the moment. Lovely. And 99% meaningless.
As 335 says, they can be useful for predicting the potential size of a movement and also when it is likely to occur. Fnarr. Several years ago I worked on an asset allocation model for a long short equity fund based on neutral networks. It was fed a mixture of technical and fundamental data, and you could see that it used some of the technical measures to drive its timing. Not fibonacci gibberish, but short versus slightly longer trend measures.
As 335 says, they can be useful for predicting the potential size of a movement and also when it is likely to occur. Fnarr. Several years ago I worked on an asset allocation model for a long short equity fund based on neutral networks. It was fed a mixture of technical and fundamental data, and you could see that it used some of the technical measures to drive its timing. Not fibonacci gibberish, but short versus slightly longer trend measures.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff