|
Post by novie08 on Jun 6, 2016 20:26:54 GMT -5
$GCQ16 – August Gold (Last:1247.40) Posted June 6, 2016, 7:27 pm EST Decisive leap past p would make goldI’m skeptical toward Gold’s leap on Friday, since it was triggered by payroll news that will not much affect the Fed’s determination to tighten ‘soon’. The hawkish story they’ve painstakingly put in play will remain the same regardless of the fact that a piece of meaningless employment news caused a knee-jerk reaction in markets most affected by the dollar’s ups and downs. However, because gold’s rally is bullishly impulsive on the hourly and daily charts, I’ll continue to weight the technical evidence more heavily than mere logic or reason. In practice, that means turning bullish as all get-out if the August contract leaps above the 1257.35 midpoint Hidden Pivot shown, or better yet exceeds it on a closing basis on Tuesday. That would put the 1274.00 target in play, as well the prospect of a complete recovery from May’s nasty selloff. www.rickackerman.com/There's a nice chart; don't know why it wouldn't post but you can see it on the link.
|
|
|
Post by jacksrbtr on Jun 7, 2016 5:43:07 GMT -5
$GCQ16 – August Gold (Last:1247.40) Posted June 6, 2016, 7:27 pm EST Decisive leap past p would make goldI’m skeptical toward Gold’s leap on Friday, since it was triggered by payroll news that will not much affect the Fed’s determination to tighten ‘soon’. The hawkish story they’ve painstakingly put in play will remain the same regardless of the fact that a piece of meaningless employment news caused a knee-jerk reaction in markets most affected by the dollar’s ups and downs. However, because gold’s rally is bullishly impulsive on the hourly and daily charts, I’ll continue to weight the technical evidence more heavily than mere logic or reason. In practice, that means turning bullish as all get-out if the August contract leaps above the 1257.35 midpoint Hidden Pivot shown, or better yet exceeds it on a closing basis on Tuesday. That would put the 1274.00 target in play, as well the prospect of a complete recovery from May’s nasty selloff. www.rickackerman.com/There's a nice chart; don't know why it wouldn't post but you can see it on the link. Thx Novi. What's his "p" mean I looked at the chart can't tell what that means.
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Jun 7, 2016 8:33:23 GMT -5
p=pivot
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Jun 9, 2016 21:07:18 GMT -5
$SIN16 – July Silver (Last:17.145) Posted June 7, 2016, 7:32 pm EST Decisive silver push pastJuly Silver’s weekly chart shows why bulls should be optimistic. Notice how the A-B ‘booster stage’ of a possible bull market exceeded three prior peaks (see inset), two of them ‘external’, before buyers took a breather. This offers strong evidence that the sell-off from early May’s high near $18 is merely corrective and extremely unlikely to wipe out 2016’s gains. A theoretical ‘buy’ signal would trip at 16.638, and although we can use camouflage to get long there with relatively little risk, my hunch is that Comex Silver is not yet ready for a big leg up to match April’s. In the meantime, we shouldn’t fear a further pullback to as low as 15.000, since that could set up a very opportune ‘counterintuitive’ trade that could allow us to back up the truck with entry risk tightly controlled. ______ UPDATE (June 8, 10:49 a.m. EDT): Please note that 16.638 is not to be construed as a go-ahead signal unless you are looking to ‘camouflage’ your way aboard today. The hourly chart rules at the moment (A=14.960 on 4/6), and I’d like to see a two-day close above p=17.380 to be persuaded the rally is for real. The ‘D’ target associated with that number is 18.930. _______ UPDATE (8:15 p.m.): This is the most encouraging rally we’ve seen in a while, but we should still require the futures to take out the 17.380 midpoint Hidden Pivot noted above before we uncork the bubbly. I’ve refreshed the chart to show the rally pattern controlling the move. The way the futures are acting Wednesday night after barely correcting, it may not be long before we can confidently infer the 18.930 target will be reached. www.rickackerman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Decisive-silver-push-past.jpg
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Aug 21, 2016 21:17:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Aug 21, 2016 21:40:31 GMT -5
im short the S&P hope he's right
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Aug 22, 2016 8:23:29 GMT -5
He's pretty accurate clint. His bond call has been in opposition to the mainstream and absolutely correct.
|
|
|
Post by clinton on Aug 22, 2016 8:36:30 GMT -5
He's pretty accurate clint. His bond call has been in opposition to the mainstream and absolutely correct. Im holding TZA, SPXU and SDS not messin with shorting tech, they had the only good earnings this Q
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Aug 26, 2016 8:21:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Sept 6, 2016 8:09:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 6, 2016 8:32:57 GMT -5
This could work, unless market slowly grinds higher, then fairly expensive with the .57 debit. Not sure if he meant .57 per contract debit or net position debit. I haven't looked at the actual premiums.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 6, 2016 8:57:54 GMT -5
I'm sure per contract debit.
I haven't found one of these that really works, to tell the truth, but maybe this one does
|
|
|
Post by huh on Sept 6, 2016 9:05:04 GMT -5
I've been thinking a lot about this lately ( thanks Walnut ) I have no idea what you would call this, but here's the set-up I've been watching in some names, and it seems to work well because of the decay. It's basically the same set-up as the MSFT options trade I suggested before: Forget the indices. Volatility is too low and, let's face it, indices are designed to nearly always go up because of the weightings and their adjustments. Instead, use a high profile name that's basically become viewed as a slow growth, dividend payer (tech?). Look to about 3 months out - buy an out of the money put at a strike that corresponds to the last major support on it's weekly chart and has high interest. Against that, sell a near out of the money call that also has high demand, usually an even number psych resistance. What you're looking for here, and what's critical, is a name that will yield you a high credit on the initial transaction, like MSFT did. Then, when the market pulls back even a little, you can buyback the upside calls you sold, but at a lower cost, and sell the puts you purchased, hopefully for more, but that's not too important so long as it's close to your purchase price. There's a very good chance that you'll end up with an additional credit on reversing this trade. What this is doing in effect is taking advantage of the decay brought on by this extremely slow rise in the markets, and works because there seems to be much more premium in the calls than the puts (which I'm sure has nothing to do with a near eight year extended rally deflating premium in the puts). And this is why finding a large spread for a credit on the initial set-up is very important. If the name tanks, you're set-up perfectly. If the name rises instead, simply use stops that don't exceed your initial credit.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Sept 6, 2016 9:15:57 GMT -5
If you go back and look at that MSFT options trade above, and you still held this, you'd still be well within the money (a net of +.32 cents each). That plus the initial credit of .79 isn't a bad trade at all.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Sept 6, 2016 9:47:05 GMT -5
I've been thinking a lot about this lately ( thanks Walnut ) I have no idea what you would call this, but here's the set-up I've been watching in some names, and it seems to work well because of the decay. It's basically the same set-up as the MSFT options trade I suggested before: Forget the indices. Volatility is too low and, let's face it, indices are designed to nearly always go up because of the weightings and their adjustments. Instead, use a high profile name that's basically become viewed as a slow growth, dividend payer (tech?). Look to about 3 months out - buy an out of the money put at a strike that corresponds to the last major support on it's weekly chart and has high interest. Against that, sell a near out of the money call that also has high demand, usually an even number psych resistance. What you're looking for here, and what's critical, is a name that will yield you a high credit on the initial transaction, like MSFT did. Then, when the market pulls back even a little, you can buyback the upside calls you sold, but at a lower cost, and sell the puts you purchased, hopefully for more, but that's not too important so long as it's close to your purchase price. There's a very good chance that you'll end up with an additional credit on reversing this trade. What this is doing in effect is taking advantage of the decay brought on by this extremely slow rise in the markets, and works because there seems to be much more premium in the calls than the puts (which I'm sure has nothing to do with a near eight year extended rally deflating premium in the puts). And this is why finding a large spread for a credit on the initial set-up is very important. If the name tanks, you're set-up perfectly. If the name rises instead, simply use stops that don't exceed your initial credit. Well, if the options are priced correctly (and they nearly always are), you will see that you have constructed a synthetic short position in the stock. By your selection of the strike prices, you place some risk-adjusted bias on it. Check the net delta to see what your net bias is at that moment. If the strikes are the same, it will be a perfect short. Put-call parity keeps it exact. Plot it against the actual stock chart for the same time period and see if I'm right. Good to see you are catching the bug, thinking up schemes like that makes me think you are well on your way. Soon you will be thinking of nothing but strategies like that one.
|
|
|
Post by novie08 on Dec 12, 2016 21:08:35 GMT -5
|
|