Do you have a floor figure in mind? --Just curious.

2 @ 1.90

While massive, free wifi would be awesome, I'd be more worried about the fact that the government would officially control the internet. At least for a large part of the developed world. Big brother, much?

I normally don't like these, but I'll be honest, I laughed.

Holy chart overload, batman. This one took me a while to read.

One hell of a stiletto indeed. Very curious. We still have that upper resistance to deal with, though. Curious, curious. I definitely didn't expect that quick of a move back up.

1. Yes, I know that full well. But past performance informs future decisions as best as it can. I hope you know that, because we AREN'T monkeys throwing darts. Any moron that goes into investing without looking at the historical nature of it is just that, a moron. I hope you've been taught THAT much.

2. I said I would put the math up later IF I HAD TIME. That requires a significant investment of my time which I can't do right now. Pictures are quick.


You, like other greedy and then fearful investors think it's about picking tops and bottoms, which it is not. It's about catching more of the upside than you catch of the downside. Which requires a whole different set of theories, models, and ideologies which you are obviously not familiar with.


2. That's because you have no idea what actual long-term investing is about. Go invest 100% in the S&P, please. I'll be waiting for you to commit suicide the next time it crashes because of how great the risk is. The biggest part of investment management is RISK MANAGEMENT. Those managers aren't just there to earn you the greatest return over time, but to help make sure that you can still afford a bowl of oatmeal the next time the market crashes. Those managers may not earn a greater total return than the S&P, but a good manager will damn sure not lose as much as the S&P when it goes down.

Eh, options for about two years, currencies for 3-4, stocks for 5-6.

Relevant: Oh hey, this is the kind of strategy I'm talking about. Though they weren't around for the full decade, but they were here for 2008, and pay special attention to that number, as well as the annualized return for the past five years. Tactical Allocation, my friend. And a very simple one at that. They reallocate once a month.

Day trading isn't day trading if it isn't day trading, sorry to tell you.

Also, tell that to the people who now have an annual return of ~2% over the past decade because they just never paid attention to their portfolio as compared to the people that had certain targets and reallocated periodically based on analyzing their situation that are +8% or more over the past decade on an annual basis -even some of those who are long only-.

The buy-and-hold forever strategy might -sometimes- work with stocks/bonds/cash because you have inflows from dividends & interest payments that add to your total return. To think that you can be long-only on a zero-payment coupon and consistently outperform someone who actively, periodically (not constantly, mind you), positions themselves against statistically significant risk is a joke.

-> Finance/Investment major. I can throw the math up for you if I have time later. But I guarantee you that I've done more research into the subject and have more evidence behind my claims than you do.

Let's not forget that there's a difference between day trading and tactical (re)allocation once a week or so. Just because I follow the charts daily doesn't mean I react to them as a day trader would. Some could argue that some intelligence is required to realize that you should periodically re-position your savings vehicle so that it has the least likelihood of losing value and a greater likelihood of greater return.

Nice theory, but no, that line was actually drawn BEFORE the current top existed. In fact that "line" was drawn when price was still around 24.30 or something like that. the "miss a bit of the bottom one" is 90% wick that is exposed above the line. These "lines" are drawn as parallel rays, not free-floating lines so there isn't any way I could have just chosen whether or not to change the angle of one of them to fit the chart.

Furthermore, the top resistance is based off of the bottom channel, as I use a parallel ray tool to draw the bottom support, which then duplicated the bottom ray's angle and I moved that up top so as best to fit the bottom and middle resistance. This is the best fit, and it has applied perfectly. Go ahead, check my logic.

REGARDLESS, I wouldn't be worried about a five pip "breakout" anyway. That's not a breakout, that's a cocktease waste of breath. Especially since I purposely included the top channel resistance from before the current one, so you can see how there was a little breakout there that didn't matter even the slightest bit because it tanked shortly thereafter.

And, seeing as how price has adhered to my price channel, while "breaking out" of your top resistance, I'd say of the two of us that I have the more accurate markup at the moment.

You're entirely reading into it too much. Markets don't perfectly adhere to lines most of the time. They over and under-shoot. There's no reason to make sure you draw your lines from perfect top to perfect top and perfect bottom to perfect bottom, etc. Because markets just don't to that. If markets worked off of pure technicals, bitcoin itself would drop down to 0.01 and 100.00 multiple times a day. The markups are to show general trends, they are to show ideas and hive-mind mentality in markets. A difference of a few cents from where you thought support and resistance are and where price actually reversed is not significant most of the time.

What does "worry" me about my resistance level on this chart is that it looks like we might have another loose inverse (bullish) head and shoulders forming with the neck line which would significantly break out above my resistance level. Alternatively, it could be a gartley in which case it would tank down and confirm my resistance. Image:

Here you go, it's actually fared even better than I thought it had earlier. Price has so far perfectly adhered to the channel:



As you can see, we established support and resistance between 1/24/13 and 1/26/13. An ascending price channel with support and resistance was confirmed between 1/31/13 and 2/2/13, and today we tested (and so far kept) the upper channel resistance around 25.75.

I had more stuff on here earlier, but my chart got reset. Regardless, this is the point I was making.

I don't have access to my marked up chart at the moment, but even the most recent high of 25.7 was at the top of the trend channel, and it has slightly corrected since then with possibly more on the way. Based on that, I don't think there was a breakout, but the oscillator is possibly showing the increased exhaustion of moving higher at this point which worries me. I think we've got a short term correction to the bottom of the trend channel before anything else. My answer to your question is dependent on whether or not that small correction happens.

Thanks Jaron, I'm actually in Chicago. Where were you working out of?

Definitely interested in trying the site out when it goes live. Go figure, I'm busting my back to get INTO investment banking right you're leaving it. Cheers, hope launch goes well. I can't stand the interfaces on these other exchanges.

Did you just assert that counterfeiting is illegal because it creates additional inflation? Officially withdrawing my discussion from this thread. I can't help you.

Okay, I see what your saying. You've been through four banks from improperly managed risk? I'm sorry to hear about that, that's the most cases I've ever heard of for one person.

And I also see where you're coming from on the multiple lending front, my point was that the actual, physical cash, is only in one place at one time. The rest of it is all on paper, but the cash is only ever in one person's hand at a time. It's not like they take someone's $1000 and simultaneously give four people a loan for $1000. The lending occurs in steps and has infinitely more to it, as you said.

Ya dig?

Theoretically this could happen, sure, but in the real world banks that don't know what they're doing don't last very long. A bank would never go down to a reserve ratio of 20% with only one customer, moreover, their risk management team wouldn't allow multiple loans on the same funds, especially with one entity that has the ability to take all of it out. Each loan adds a degree of risk to the bank's portfolio, and in the even of an even-withdraw which becomes ever more likely over time they would, indeed, go under.

But you are assuming that we are dealing with a bank that is 100% abusing the reserve system and not paying attention to it's risk. Loans are a liability, because of their inherent default risk. Banks keep cash on-hand that don't count to the over-all reserve ratio to cover large portions of their risk similar to how an insurance company keeps a reserve amount to cover any potential short-term payouts while investing the rest.

Banking doesn't only consist of the fractional reserve, and you can't make an example of a bank ONLY using fractional reserve principles. In this case, the bank would NOT have lent out the extra funds without having additional capital to back them at a ratio determined internally. Bankers aren't stupid, they think about these scenarios.

Okay, whatever, we'll go ahead and say sure, B) is the only case because the difference is so minuscule it doesn't really matter anyway. Do me a favor, define "high risk loan" then at the same time, define adequate reserves. Because a high risk loan is really basically any loan that is lent to someone other than a corporate entity with very regular and steady income. Loans are inherently risky, especially to individuals. So are you saying that banks shouldn't provide loans whatsoever?



If you're saying that we should have a 100% unbacked system than that's just as bad, because if a bank were to be 100% extended and someone tried to withdraw $1, that bank would be insolvent. Talk about free money everywhere, then the banks would REALLY need big brother around.


You still aren't addressing the problem of deflation in an economy that never adds to the money supply because they always tax is back. Inflation isn't always a bad thing. This is a pointless prospect.


No, you half-baked moron. The people deposit real money. Think of it this way: Person A deposits $100 dollars into the bank. The mandated reserve ratio is 20%, so the bank has $80 to lend out. Person B takes out an $80 loan. The bank now only has $20 on hand to cover Person A's withdrawals, HOWEVER person A's bank account STILL SAYS HE HAS $100 TO WITHDRAW. At the SAME TIME person B used his $80 dollar loan to purchase something. Therefore, the bank has "created" $80 of theoretical "new money" because that is the overlap between what it lent out and what it still tells people they own. There is still 100$ of real money floating around, but there is now an additional $80 of theoretical money.

If all the debts in the economy were paid back, all of the theoretical money would not exist, however there would still be money in the system EQUAL TO THE PAYBACK AMOUNT OF THE LOANS PLUS THE RESERVES.

This is NOT that hard to understand.


I'm a Finance and Banking student, I think I've done plenty on the subject. See my example to the person above. Person A's $80 is not lent out "multiple times" because the bank that is not a central bank can't print dollars. The $80 leaves the bank in the form of cash in a loan, therefore it is lent once. Cash is king and cash is final. I don't understand where you think this $80 can be lent out multiple times without ever being paid back. You are wrong. Very wrong.

I wouldn't say that people taking out loans that they can't reasonably pay counts as unusual circumstance. People do it every day.