Bitcoin Forum
November 14, 2019, 06:02:49 AM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 [276] 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 617540 times)
s29
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 67
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 10:58:45 AM
 #5501

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/interest-rates/public-v-private-interest-rates-sovereign-debt-crisis/

Quote
Public v Private Interest Rates & Sovereign Debt Crisis
Blog/Interest Rates
Posted Jun 13, 2019 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Martin I have a question for the blog. There has been forecasts for a sovereign debt crisis but recently you have discussed how various governments may manipulate govt bond interest rates down as has happened in Europe and Japan. If Europe and Japan are anything to go by then this could go on for some time. If govts are successful in this, does this mean that there may not be a sovereign debt crisis?

ANSWER: The Sovereign Debt Crisis involves crossing the line where the private sector no longer trusts government debt. We have begun to cross that line in Europe and Japan where the central banks are buying the debt in bulk. There have even been German auctions of bonds where there was no bid.

Yes, the central banks can artificially keep government interest rates low, but that is only possible when they are the buyers.

We are already experiencing rising interest rates in the peripheral governments where their central banks do not engage in QE — namely emerging markets. We will witness private rates rise for that is a free market. However, from the government side of the table, the Sovereign Debt Crisis is among the developed countries engaging in QE that has unfolded as there is NO BID. They can artificially keep rates low ONLY because the central banks buy the debt. Nobody in the private sector would buy 10 years paper at 1% to 3% when they need 8% to break even in pension funds.

Also, pay attention to the state/provincial debt where they do not have the ability to buy their own nonsense. The manipulation of rates will be at the federal level, not in the state/provincial and municipal levels of government.

So, pay attention to the bifurcation in rates that is unfolding between PUBLIC v PRIVATE.

Again a post how Armstrong simply backtracks his bond crisis calls, which he's been calling for years Roll Eyes Which is funny, because central banks are doing this for a decade now. Armstrong finally wakes up, just after German bunds and several other countries are making new all time bond yield lows. Great timing, Marty, really in front of the curve! Undecided
1573711369
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573711369

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573711369
Reply with quote  #2

1573711369
Report to moderator
1573711369
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573711369

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1573711369
Reply with quote  #2

1573711369
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin Forum is turning 10 years old! Join the community in sharing and exploring the notable posts made over the years.
DanB1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 62
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 11:38:32 AM
 #5502

Yes, I saw that post as well.

"We are already experiencing rising interest rates in the peripheral governments where their central banks do not engage in QE — namely emerging markets."

This morning I checked yields across the curve of many countries. The only country where I can see the yields really increasing is Pakistan. Does anyone disagree?

But I do believe he has a point in the thesis that money will move from public to private. As soon as 1 country (Turkey for instance) gets in trouble, it will all happen very fast.
Although I think money will not flow directly from public to private. Most of it will move in to German, Dutch, Swiss, US bonds probably.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 02:27:25 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:06:08 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5503

Timing

As many noted, Socrates timing is terrible.

We would expect some guidance from this system. Simply by inspecting the chart visually, one can see that Brazil, still a darling, is starting to decline. This is is in line with recent economic news. A potential trade, with low risk, high reward. Still a one-dimensional observation, a dummy can see it by looking at a single chart, not knowing anything about dependencies between markets, complex relationships.

Check out your Socrates system what it has to say about it, what it has to offer. I guess it is still in full bullish mode. The critical thing is that you have to buy Brazil extra before you can even look at it. Check out what options it gives you to trade this market NOW.

Please discuss.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
s29
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 67
Merit: 1


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 05:05:48 PM
Last edit: June 16, 2019, 11:01:43 AM by s29
 #5504

Yes, I saw that post as well.

"We are already experiencing rising interest rates in the peripheral governments where their central banks do not engage in QE — namely emerging markets."

This morning I checked yields across the curve of many countries. The only country where I can see the yields really increasing is Pakistan. Does anyone disagree?

But I do believe he has a point in the thesis that money will move from public to private. As soon as 1 country (Turkey for instance) gets in trouble, it will all happen very fast.
Although I think money will not flow directly from public to private. Most of it will move in to German, Dutch, Swiss, US bonds probably.

Oh I agree with that, why would private investors be excited about investing in AAA-bonds, if they yield nothing? Then equities with dividends and more potential upside are way more attractive (longer term). Although you don't have to be a rock scientist to see that, I do agree with Armstrong on that. I think 36-40.000 on the Dow is doable in several years.

But if he called many times year after year for higher interest rates (specifically also on US and German bonds) then Armstrong was just simply wrong, especially since he likes to brag about how many central banks he advised. He should have known that. A lot of people and institutions probably followed his advice in the last years "to get out of bonds", while turns out now, nobody should have been in a hurry to exactly do that.

I don't follow the EM bond market; but a lot of these countries always get into trouble sooner or later. Not really a rocket scientist prediction.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
 #5505

I hate to say this but there is flaw in judging the system by going through the blog. MA does of course know the weakness of the system. Before he posts a message on the blog, he will make a definite statement only in case where he has cherry-picked a case that he is most confident about. And still he fails. But we don't have this luxury. Those trades are so rare that it meets the criteria that rosousa has explained in detail with his risk / reward calculation in an earlier post that is worth reading. In simple terms, the system does not let you cherry-pick like that because there is no cherry-picker in it. And if you could in fact cherry-pick somehow, then you would only get three trades in a year.

I fell for this as well. Years ago, I bought the gold reports and recorded the statistics of the reversals in the gold reports. It was amazing. Why did it work so well then? Because it was a year's worth of steady declines. Then the market turned and MA missed the bounce, still writing bearish messages. For me, this was devastating. After the fact, months later he bragged about the system being right again because it had sent a long term quarterly bullish reversal superimposed with a shorter time quarterly bearish reversal. This is a real model case.
....
I never heard about that 993 bullish at the time when it was needed. Note that this is a bullish reversal that is generated well below market price. The number 993 is likely just made up. It is NOT a reversal in a sense that is generated prior for you to examine. And I bought the report which comes in installments with videos and so on, covering a year (not ending at end of year but going well into that period where we should have received that signal) and it was not available. So what are these superposition events then? They come after the fact! They are fraudulent. The system discovers that it is wrong and voila, it has an automatic excuse. Months later? Give me a break! Like the weekly superposition events. They come out on Monday when the system discovers that the price has crossed the threshold that marks the failure of the elected reversal. They should be called REVISION signals because superposition is something else. Superposition is when a resulting signal is composed of multiple signal components at the same time, simultaneously, to form a more complex signal. Not a corrective signal is added at a later time. So it is all misleading left, right and center and incompetence is everywhere.

Yes, I remember that very clearly.  And I found that when he is wrong, he just stops temporarily blogging about it.  And then much later, he will do exactly as what you have described, claiming success when you canNOT verify that he actually did.  And then he will pick up where he left off, and continues as everything went swell (even through the gap).

And then you will be like, WTF, did I just miss anything that he said???

Well, the thing was just that Armstrong/Socrates FAILED, and then Armstrong has a problem of recognizing and admitting his own failures.

But for his followers, the result is always horrendous.  Because the market turned already, and your trades are in disaster mode.

So when the market is trending, it's fine.  But it IS when the market TURNS, that traders make a killing of their money, but you will NOT get the correct timing from Armstrong/Socrates.

Notice that he is not talking about his year-end bearish close on bitcoin.  Only when post-event, when he is sure that he is right, he will pick up the thread again.


I didn't know that was how Armstrong made up 993 reversal, as I wasn't watching that closely as you did.

AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 14, 2019, 07:31:21 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:06:29 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5506

....
So when the market is trending, it's fine.  But it IS when the market TURNS, that traders make a killing of their money, but you will NOT get the correct timing from Armstrong/Socrates.
....

That sums it up nicely. So what is the reason for this technically?

1) The timing signals, provided by the forecast arrays are simply rubbish. They are a terrible patch work using a dubious ensemble method. The result is subject to human interpretation, and there is not much to say about this - they just don't work.

2) Imagine the reversals are generated by slicing the time going backwards from the generating extreme to the previous opposite extreme into time slots. There might be some kind of projection involved which is needed for reversal values that the market has not yet visited, but nothing fancy.The reversal values are somewhere near where the price line crosses the four vertical boundary lines of these time slots. In some cases, depending on the shape of the price curve going backwards to the previous extreme, there are multiple reversals with same or near same values, which are then the double, triple reversals. The reversals are near previous / projected resistance and support values naturally because that is where the price movement is flatter, and where the vertical time lines cross the price line more easily  / more often. These reversals work, if the trend is clear price wise going back into the direction of the previous extreme or some kind of projection. They are elected one after the other, just like following your nose. If however, the market does NOT move in this simple fashion, such as now, in some kind of consolidation period, then the reversals are elected in a chaotic fashion. You buy the high and sell the low. That is because the reversals are near resistance and support, and you are getting whip-lashed in the trend channel between them. It is this situation where we need the ambiguous human interpretation of the forecast arrays to provide excuses for the failures. Here, recently MA produces user feedback about them trading AGAINST the failing reversals, praising them for doing so in his public blog. See https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/trading-against-the-reversals/. Also, in such movements, failing weekly reversals are effectively degraded to daily reversals or any time period by providing another excuse as described here: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/. This really destroys any confidence in the reversals because it is a complete mess, just for the purpose of perfect deniability.

3) The Socrates system does not have any means to detect whether the market is in a mode where the reversal system works or not (trending or turning as you say). Therefore, over time, using this system, a trading account will be depleted, basically because markets are moving sideways longer than they are declining / rising as nicely as the reversal system wants them to. Or, when the market is turning and there are no signals indicating the turn.

Quote
I didn't know that was how Armstrong made up 993 reversal, as I wasn't watching that closely as you did.

When I say it was made up, I mean to say that the computer makes it up. These immediate revision reversals, for the purpose of publishing only, need to have a number that is far enough away from the close to be guaranteed to be elected. The number is therefore meaningless. That is why I am saying they are made up, because once the system decides one is needed to correct the failure, then there should not be an option that it is NOT elected, so its price is always far enough away from the close, but it does not have any physical meaning. In this case, there was nothing at 993 that could be interpreted price wise. At the time, I really scratched my head about this number, believe me. The reason why I am criticizing these reversals is because in MA's own scheme, they are something else not reversals. They are effectively borrowed from the future, created in hindsight. If they were reversals like the other regular ones, then they would be available simultaneously with the opposite reversals that failed earlier.

The reason I go into such detail is because knowledge is asymmetric and unfair, and MA has a clear advantage by completely controlling the information on his public and private blogs where no user feedback is allowed except what is censored / manufactured by MA. The user on the other side, simply does not usually have the resources that I have applied to this mess. So I am sharing my knowledge here as others do as well, and I will repeat this information whenever appropriate to level the playing field a little.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 03:05:25 AM
 #5507

Any public trading records available on Armstrong? He apparently did OK trading metals some years back for DB which he likes to show on his blog http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2014/01/DeustcheBank-Fund.pdf but that's pretty much the only thing he's posted as far as trading record. Nothing else, and it is probably because the others don't look so nice.

There is another private blog out about gold and a rally. I'm sure his sub 1000 gold crash will pan out someday...

Armstrong claims to have said in front of a large gathering at some kind of conference in the 80's that he said the market would crash in days due to a large gap in the Reversals which was Black Monday- a long shot, but anyone have it on tape? Or a record he traded it? I don't think Armstrong has any record or else he would have shown it by now.
Kiwibird
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 03:24:49 AM
 #5508

Any public trading records available on Armstrong? He apparently did OK trading metals some years back for DB which he likes to show on his blog http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2014/01/DeustcheBank-Fund.pdf but that's pretty much the only thing he's posted as far as trading record. Nothing else, and it is probably because the others don't look so nice.

There is another private blog out about gold and a rally. I'm sure his sub 1000 gold crash will pan out someday...

Armstrong claims to have said in front of a large gathering at some kind of conference in the 80's that he said the market would crash in days due to a large gap in the Reversals which was Black Monday- a long shot, but anyone have it on tape? Or a record he traded it? I don't think Armstrong has any record or else he would have shown it by now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLCkRxrfo10
at 22 mins
Michael Campbell says Armstrong called him directly that day to tell him the high in the Nikkei was in (Dec 89). 
Do you trust his word?
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 01:34:21 PM
 #5509

Any public trading records available on Armstrong? He apparently did OK trading metals some years back for DB which he likes to show on his blog http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2014/01/DeustcheBank-Fund.pdf but that's pretty much the only thing he's posted as far as trading record. Nothing else, and it is probably because the others don't look so nice.

There is another private blog out about gold and a rally. I'm sure his sub 1000 gold crash will pan out someday...

Armstrong claims to have said in front of a large gathering at some kind of conference in the 80's that he said the market would crash in days due to a large gap in the Reversals which was Black Monday- a long shot, but anyone have it on tape? Or a record he traded it? I don't think Armstrong has any record or else he would have shown it by now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLCkRxrfo10
at 22 mins
Michael Campbell says Armstrong called him directly that day to tell him the high in the Nikkei was in (Dec 89). 
Do you trust his word?

I do not know who he is, so no. Either way, any proof of Armstrong in favor of his trading ability would be easily attainable if it exists. Also, the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim as is standard. The opposite is accepting any and all claims then trying to defend them.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 10:33:54 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:06:41 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5510

Value of this Blog Space, Transparency

Regarding Martin Armstrong, I feel very grateful for the existence of this bitcointalk blog space, how it helps  discover the truth.

We need both more transparency and privacy. The person who perhaps understands this best with his philosophy is Julian Assange. I donated the money I saved from no longer subscribing to Socrates to Assange's defense fund.

I recommend to look at portrait photos of both persons Julian Assange and Martin Armstrong, compare and let this sink in. Regarding Julian Assange, I can say, what a wonderful person.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 15, 2019, 11:15:52 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:06:55 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5511

Economic Advice by Martin Armstrong

MA so thoroughly discredits himself in many blog posts, only a complete idiot would take any of his advice.

Take for example his ideas on food security:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/local-food-a-good-idea-economic-freedom/

Local Food a Good Idea for Economic Freedom
Posted Feb 5, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Sorry for the typo, this is a good idea for those who want to look at having a back-up for the future. But this idea should also be taken seriously in places that need to import food. The number one reason politicians have stated that Greece should remain in the euro is that they have to import their food. This would eliminate the majority of that problem. I strongly recommend Greeks look at this technology. It can also provide economic freedom from the EU.


https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/the-way-of-the-future-2/
The Way of the Future
Posted Feb 5, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
One of the more vital technological advancements has been developed. They can grow all the necessary food without farmland from inside a warehouse that is completely free from genetic tinkering or chemical whatever.
This technology and has been doing a bang-up job around the world. It would probably not be a bad idea to set one up in a basement for the years ahead. This is the way of the future  — fresh food coming from your basement.


So here we go. Expand your basement to the size of a few acres and grow wheat, rice and potatoes.

Just as a footnote, even unrefined crude oil is more expensive than grain by weight, and there will not be an economic replacement on a significant scale for open air agriculture powered by the sun to produce the food that humans need. Ever.

Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
PennyWiseUK
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 10:59:33 AM
 #5512

Hello everybody, greetings from UK.

I’ve lurked this board for some time but I have been LOVING this board for the last few weeks.

Thanks so much to all posters, particularly those sharing brave admissions, diligent research results, and WEC experiences.

I am NOT a trader and have no wish to be; it simply doesn’t interest me. I do invest, and I like to buy the dips, in unit trusts (mutual funds) that focus on UK and overseas equities with active management, although my US equity exposure is mostly via passive (index) funds.

I was put on to MA by a stockbroker friend around 2012/2013 and was very attracted to MA writings. I’ve always felt that with enough information you can determine pattern/s which you can use to your advantage. I was attracted enough to purchase metals reports in 2015.

My interest in MA has grown steadily and I echo all the points raised in on this board, including my own impression that the Reversals seem to stand up. My particular issue is that MA has talked about being there for the little guy but if seasoned traders like you guys are struggling, the little guy has no hope. When a little guy gets a post onto the blog, MA does not directly answer the question.

I think the new Socrates system has one tier too many, the earlier system (before the monthly subscription) had two levels and that seemed to work and I was interested in the basic investor service at $150 per year. I accept he cannot be giving out free info that people have paid for but let’s say a clear low in the Dow has taken place, why not say ‘this would appear to be a good buying point‘.  The pros/traders can trade such a low from the Reversals, the investors could get a prompt from the private blog, and then perhaps a little later on the public blog publish the info. Everybody gets a piece of the pie, and it might attract people to subscribe. The new system makes only the Pro version worthwhile and that looks strictly for traders only.

To be fair to MA I have made some money from the public blog and helped my confidence in investing. MA used to write a lot about USD/YEN (I think before he tried again with Socrates) so after laying out money for the metals reports (and deciding to leave Gold until it goes under $1,000 per oz) I went long USD/YEN using an ETF and I made back the fee I paid for the reports (about £200), which as a non-trader was a great result. Using his general advice that markets are headed up I have been braver to invest and have benefited. I accept we have been in a QE fuelled bull run since March 2009 and I could have got the same ‘advice’ elsewhere but MA was giving long-term new-highs equity forecasts and they have been correct, as has his general call that GBP will fall against USD so I probably have more exposure to US equities than I otherwise would and that works great for a £GBP investor.

As a non-trader investor what intrigues me was his statement a little while ago that he might license Socrates to a fund management group. It is hard to be objective about his calls if the manner of investment differs between individuals and the risk/reward consideration is often overlooked, but an openly marketed registered fund would surely put to rest any argument about the validity of Socrates as it would be judged against its peers for all to see. I don’t mean it has to beat all its peers over every time frame but if it could provide regular positive returns with low risk (high Sharpe Ratio/high Information Ratio etc) then that would attract a lot of money and fulfil his stated commitment to the little guy. Smiley
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 12:38:11 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:07:08 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5513

...
As a non-trader investor what intrigues me was his statement a little while ago that he might license Socrates to a fund management group. It is hard to be objective about his calls if the manner of investment differs between individuals and the risk/reward consideration is often overlooked, but an openly marketed registered fund would surely put to rest any argument about the validity of Socrates as it would be judged against its peers for all to see. I don’t mean it has to beat all its peers over every time frame but if it could provide regular positive returns with low risk (high Sharpe Ratio/high Information Ratio etc) then that would attract a lot of money and fulfil his stated commitment to the little guy. Smiley

That is propaganda or wishful thinking. It is not going to happen for multiple reasons. First MA was in jail for so many years for financial missteps where he lost large amounts of other people's money. No way that a fund management group would want to get anywhere near his services. The second reason is that if it was realistic, then MA would do it himself and make big money. As MA admits numerous times, everybody acts in his own interests. The third reason is that big money cannot invest following signals emitted by the Socrates system. Their acquisitions have to be made over long periods of time using hidden orders. They usually have to buy when the market is declining. Socrates does not emit buy signals on lows or declines. If, for example they would buy at the election of a Bullish Reversal, it would be devastating because they would  drive the price up with their large orders too much to be profitable. Different dynamics.

MA survives in this niche area where he makes money from selling services to retail investors with limited experience, the reports, and conferences. His dream is to create a business detached from his personality like Socrates. Once he retires, the system will collapse. There is no business model. Armstrong cannot grow. That is because any computer based trading system defeats itself naturally as soon as a significant number of people start trading based on it. Especially a system like Socrates which is single dimensional and cannot adapt because it is not using AI at all. You can say that you have been successful because you followed the wider trend which is fine. But that is what I call single observation based statistics. In contrast, I have taken hundreds of predictions made by Socrates and found that it is not better than tossing a coin. Surely a large scale manager will come to the same conclusions that I did, further complicating the situation. No way.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12240520


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 05:46:38 PM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:07:24 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5514

Socrates Investor Level Track Record

Just an example, a very mild one.

1) I am choosing monthly buy and sell signals. These are less frequent than weekly signals, so the risk is reduced compared with weekly signals. The Investor Level report has both weekly and monthly signals.

2) I am choosing a an ETF, "GLD Miners" GDX, which should be easier to manage for Socrates because it is correlated with Gold, which is where Armstrong should have significant experience, and where I found generally better performance than with stocks.

The signal I am tracking is at the end of the report:

We have generated a (buy|sell) signal so some caution is required.

I buy when the first buy signal appears, and I reverse my position when the signal reverses to a sell signal.

Between 2016-06-07 and 2019-06-14, Socrates made 7 such reversals between buy and sell. The trades result in a loss of 35% of the initial capital. Only one trade was a gain. This proves that the trade signals that Socrates emits are on average buy the high, sell the low.

It is fair to say that this software is a piece of rubbish, and tossing a coin actually gives a better result.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
bikefront
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 428
Merit: 21


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 09:27:05 PM
 #5515

Socrates Investor Level Track Record

Just an example, a very mild one.

1) I am choosing monthly buy and sell signals. These are less frequent than weekly signals, so the risk is reduced compared with weekly signals. The Investor Level report has both weekly and monthly signals.

2) I am choosing a an ETF, "GLD Miners" GDX, which should be easier to manage for Socrates because it is correlated with Gold, which is where Armstrong should have significant experience, and where I found generally better performance than with stocks.

The signal I am tracking is at the end of the report:

We have generated a (buy|sell) signal so some caution is required.

I buy when the first buy signal appears, and I reverse my position when the signal reverses to a sell signal.

Between 2016-06-07 and 2019-06-14, Socrates made 7 such reversals between buy and sell. The trades result in a loss of 35% of the initial capital. Only one trade was a gain. This proves that the trade signals that Socrates emits are on average buy the high, sell the low.

It is fair to say that this software is a piece of rubbish, and tossing a coin actually gives a better result.

As an inverse signal, that's actually fairly impressive. Approaching Jim Cramer levels. From the link you gave:
'In an interview Wednesday, Armstrong dismissed the suggestion of theft, as he did almost two decades ago. "It's just total nonsense," he said. "I do conferences. I am not living off of friggin' coins."' I'm surprised he didn't say trades markets for a living using Socrates.
olegrey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 16, 2019, 09:45:10 PM
Last edit: June 16, 2019, 09:59:35 PM by olegrey
 #5516

Interesting that on the same day of my post where I covered this relativity MA answers a user question https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/ which clearly shows that Weekly Reversals are not valid standalone, but subject to the human interpretation of both weekly and daily forecast arrays which may negate the Reversal to mean the opposite or limit the validity to one day only. This in addition to the 1% rule and the not so rare superposition event. This reduces the confidence with what they can be traded to zero. I am just considering what seems to be the consensus in this group that the forecast arrays are much too ambiguous to be considered reliable. Here it is set in stone that they are strictly part of the Reversal system.

Here is the critical question to answer:

This is a computer based system, right? Using AI and so forth? Bullshit.

Someone please tell me that a computer cannot figure out these conditions and come up with a clear answer that the poor user has to find by navigating this maze? Give me a break! This is disgusting. Only people who want to be deceived, want to be lied to will believe this. Either MA does not know how to write computer programs, or he knows it is not possible and keeps beating around the bush. I said it before. The more time you try learning this stuff, the more time you spend losing money. The result is the same that his system does not work.

In other words, the forecast arrays will mostly not agree with the Reversals. So when the Reversals are good and you trade them, then you ignore the forecast arrays, fine. If you however take them seriously, then you do not trade and lose an opportunity. On the other hand, if the Reversals are bad, then it is your fault if you ignored the forecast arrays. Pick your poison.

What was the timeframe you used to determine if the daily/weekly/monthly elected reversal was a failure?

Very simple. For daily I compared the next day close with the current day close. For weekly I compared the next week end close with the elected end of week close. For monthly I applied one month. If the 1% rule applied, and / or if there was a superposition event, then I assumed a trade in the opposite direction. This would normally give more favorable results. I know that this could be negated by Armstrong's instructions that I wrote about in my previous post, but there is no way to do this in a systematic fashion - it is chaos. I actually aborted weekly reversal trades, according to Armstrong rules - chaos. This effectively converts weekly reversals into daily reversals so to speak, defeating their purpose. Result? Sharply reduced profits / losses. It is more like not trading, losing opportunities. So I decided to stick with a simple reproducible scheme which is a kind of an average, the most objective way from my perspective. Otherwise it cannot be systematic. Last not least, new reversals are elected on a weekly cycle every week, so one has to keep in step with that. That is perhaps the strongest argument for trading them like that. Same for daily. New reversals are elected every day, often in opposite directions. So I cannot evaluate them for longer than their respective period. I have accumulated a very large number of reversals over the years, and I have to say that volume is really necessary for this evaluation. For example, there are weeks where the stock market rallies and Socrates elects bullish reversals. If it is lucky, then there are a number of good reversals this week because a large number of symbols that were available to me are correlated with the stock market, perhaps even Crude Oil, making this a good week. Then the next week it is the opposite, all bad. I found that the monthly reversals are just as terrible as the daily ones. The biggest problem is that with a number of symbols to choose from, Socrates will not tell you which one to trade. MA and his staff always cherry pick the successful recent ones after the fact and say: See, what an amazing system. Nobody talks about the other 50% - the bad signals and trades.

Socrates should provide historical dumps of past elected reversals so everybody can assess past performance like I did. Honestly, doing this is a full time job. Other financial services keep a record of good and bad trades, such as etfguide.com. Not doing this is dishonest. If other manual services can provide this, an automated system like Socrates can provide it with much less effort. There is really no excuse.


I think I see a problem with your methodology.  If you refer to page 28 of the model and methodology on armstrong's blog you will see that,

"The election of a reversal normally indicated that the expected high or low that should
unfold could take place in as short a time span as 1 to 3 units of time (i.e. daily, weekly,
monthly, or quarterly). Therefore, a low may develop the very next day following the
election of a Daily Bearish Reversal or within the next few days. The same is true for all
price activity levels."

https://d33wjekvz3zs1a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ModelsMethodologies.SecondEdition.pdf

Therefore your study only allowed for 1/3 of the time needed to fully test the reversals.  Honestly a 50% success rate in 1/3 of the time allotted is pretty good.  Would you be willing to share your data, hopefully in excel or google sheets format, so that we can fully get the bottom of these reversals?  I'd be willing to input the next two time units when I get the time.

Also how were you able to collect all the reversals for your study?  Did you get them from a premium subscription or from the private blog?  I ask because I want to be sure they came from a legitimate source to add legitimacy to this thorough study.  Thank you  
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 2


View Profile
June 17, 2019, 12:07:06 AM
Last edit: July 02, 2019, 07:07:43 AM by AnonymousCoder
 #5517

...
Therefore your study only allowed for 1/3 of the time needed to fully test the reversals.  Honestly a 50% success rate in 1/3 of the time allotted is pretty good.  Would you be willing to share your data, hopefully in excel or google sheets format, so that we can fully get the bottom of these reversals?  I'd be willing to input the next two time units when I get the time.

Also how were you able to collect all the reversals for your study?  Did you get them from a premium subscription or from the private blog?  I ask because I want to be sure they came from a legitimate source to add legitimacy to this thorough study.  Thank you 

The reversals I got from the two highest subscription levels not the blog. Still the collection of that many reversals is a very labor intensive process as you can imagine. You are correct that my methodology has a problem because I used a fixed time window for trading them. As I pointed out earlier, according to a recent Armstrong article, a weekly reversal may need to be traded between only a single day and 3 weeks. When you read this article https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/, and https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/trading-against-the-reversals/, and you acknowledge that the interpretation of forecast arrays is a subjective process, where you may need to even trade against them, and you know how unreliable the forecast arrays are, then you understand what the ambiguity is that I am talking about.

Every trickster or con man with a ponzi scheme has some kind of trick to confuse you and this is the trick - where the trading of reversals is so ambiguous that there are literally hundreds of ways to trade them. This is the back door for him to be always right in hindsight. There is no way to methodically test them using this ambiguity. If we do not understand that and if we try to follow this ambiguity then we are idiots by spending an infinite amount of energy to prove or disprove his system. In other words, the system is extremely limited, I would say not a computer system but manual because it does not say for how long to trade a reversal.

I have a choice between a) where because of this endless ambiguity, the system is not a tradeable system or b) I draw a line in the sand and measure success by trading it exactly for a single time period (which is what I did). In fact I think a) AND b) so I reject the system as a whole as a scam, and do the test based on b) only for demonstration purposes. Otherwise, if you read all my posts, I have thoroughly discredited the system - there is not much I can add.

In other words, there is no exact method to test an ambiguous system. Ambiguous is kind of the opposite of exact so how is that possible?

You ask me to share the data. Perhaps at some future point. But by doing so, I would play into Armstrong's hands where he can effectively attack just a few reversals and make them look right in hindsight and start an endless discussion, thereby forcing me to spend even more energy on this rubbish. I prefer to point out the flaws in the system such as ambiguity and deception, and the fact that it does not provide historical data. Let's ask customer support to provide that historical data on a daily basis. Like other services do. That would be the correct way to handle this.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud

trulycoined
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 17, 2019, 12:16:13 AM
 #5518

Another "office being built story" from 2013 - only this time, MA wasn't lying...

Lazy Sunday evening so was trawling through some old MA blog posts (2013) and found another oddity. At the time, he seemed to be obsessed with the privacy concerns of Windows 8 and how he was "moving" his technical operations and blog to Switzerland, plus migrating his systems to LUNUX. That seemed to be a recurring theme through the first half of 2013.

Jan 2019 2013
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/international-advisory-board/

MA explains he is setting up an "International Advisory Board" to counter the hugely corrupt politicians of the world. I've been reading his blog since 2016 and have heard no mention of this "Board" in that time.

MA explains the "International Think Tank operation under construction in Switzerland", with a photo of the new office, which has the file name:

new-office-2.jpg


In May of that same year, another article that speaks of the "International Advisory Board", posting the same image again, which is presumably the new office building that is under construction:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/inflation-is-inevitable-but-its-the-interest-rates-we-better-watch/

With the virtual office "fib" in St Pete, it would be interesting to verify if this "Board" even exists in that office building. I did a reverse image search of said building but could not find anything. Searching something more obvious on G Image Search: "switzerland office buildings" and I eventually came across a building that looked like a match, albeit from a very different angle. It was the same building.

It is called Kirk Hus and building work was indeed completed in 2013, and that uncovered MA's operations. The thing is, unless it was MA's awkward wording, the office is leased. It was not being built solely for MA:
https://www.german-architects.com/ca/philip-loskant-architekt-eth-sia-zurich/project/burohaus-neufeld-kirk-hus

Turns out he set up Princeton Economics Research Institute AG in 2012, and then liquidated the business in 2016:
https://www.easymonitoring.ch/fr/registre-du-commerce/princeton-economics-research-institute-ag-1110325
https://business-monitor.ch/de/companies/573195-princeton-economics-research-institute-ag-in-liquidation

That is why he never mentioned it again after 2016. It had around $1m in capital at the time.

The MD - a hedge fund manager - has since set up a startup called MeetInvest:
https://meetinvest.com/

So turns out he didn't end up changing the world, but I cannot knock him for trying.

p.s. this "international advisory board" appears to only have three people sitting on it. Not sure if that qualifies as a "board".
trulycoined
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 5


View Profile
June 17, 2019, 12:34:47 AM
 #5519

Also from 2013 blog posts, so interesting to analyse forecast accuracy. The major call of 2015.75 is further revealed to be dubious, with yet more ambiguity over what was supposed to happen, from his blog posts to media interviews a few years later.

Back in 2013, MA explained that the rising dollar will turn "the US economy into recession from 2015.75", while EU trade would decline:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/back-to-the-future/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/unemployment-the-lowest-since-2008/

Alas that never happened, while EU trade was flat and began increasing into 2017.

Another 2013 forecast was that "we are indeed in a bull market for volatility and when everything turns again with 2015.75 on the ECM, the volatility will be twice as high as what we experienced between 2007-2009" for the EUR/USD and JPY/USD:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/real-estate-beats-gold-as-1-investment-euro-yen-recap/

EUR after 2015.75 was practically flat for years on end, while JPY spiked into 2016 and then remained quite flat. The volatility was nothing like 2007-2009, which was incredibly choppy.

I suppose MA can argue it away where - like Japan - intervention to prevent the inevitable merely extends the cycle. He, or Socrates more specifically, is therefore never wrong even though if the machine really did know everything to the day, should it not also factor in the predictable human behaviour of fire fighting an inevitable fate, and so call the actual date?

And with stocks, he also called AAPL completely wrong, explaining the share buy-back in 2013 was the time to sell:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/stock-buy-backs-bad-idea/

That was in fact the best opportunity to buy since the financial crisis of 2008 and had you, you'd be up at least 3x by now. Why didn't Socrates recognise this "pattern" and give a clear BUY signal?

olegrey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 83
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 17, 2019, 02:09:45 AM
Last edit: June 17, 2019, 02:44:56 AM by olegrey
 #5520

...
Therefore your study only allowed for 1/3 of the time needed to fully test the reversals.  Honestly a 50% success rate in 1/3 of the time allotted is pretty good.  Would you be willing to share your data, hopefully in excel or google sheets format, so that we can fully get the bottom of these reversals?  I'd be willing to input the next two time units when I get the time.

Also how were you able to collect all the reversals for your study?  Did you get them from a premium subscription or from the private blog?  I ask because I want to be sure they came from a legitimate source to add legitimacy to this thorough study.  Thank you  

The reversals I got from the two highest subscription levels not the blog. Still the collection of that many reversals is a very labor intensive process as you can imagine. You are correct that my methodology has a problem because I used a fixed time window for trading them. As I pointed out earlier, according to a recent Armstrong article, a weekly reversal may need to be traded between only a single day and 3 weeks. When you read this article https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/reversals-timing/, and https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/training-tools/trading-against-the-reversals/, and you acknowledge that the interpretation of forecast arrays is a subjective process, where you may need to even trade against them, and you know how unreliable the forecast arrays are, then you understand what the ambiguity is that I am talking about.

Every trickster or con man with a ponzi scheme has some kind of trick to confuse you and this is the trick - where the trading of reversals is so ambiguous that there are literally hundreds of ways to trade them. This is the back door for him to be always right in hindsight. There is no way to methodically test them using this ambiguity. If we do not understand that and if we try to follow this ambiguity then we are idiots by spending an infinite amount of energy to prove or disprove his system. In other words, the system is extremely limited, I would say not a computer system but manual because it does not say for how long to trade a reversal.

I have a choice between a) where because of this endless ambiguity, the system is not a tradeable system or b) I draw a line in the sand and measure success by trading it exactly for a single time period (which is what I did). In fact I think a) AND b) so I reject the system as a whole as a scam, and do the test based on b) only for demonstration purposes. Otherwise, if you read all my posts, I have thoroughly discredited the system - there is not much I can add.

In other words, there is no exact method to test an ambiguous system. Ambiguous is kind of the opposite of exact so how is that possible?

You ask me to share the data. Perhaps at some future point. But by doing so, I would play into Armstrong's hands where he can effectively attack just a few reversals and make them look right in hindsight and start an endless discussion, thereby forcing me to spend even more energy on this rubbish. I prefer to point out the flaws in the system such as ambiguity and deception, and the fact that it does not provide historical data. Let's ask customer support to provide that historical data on a daily basis. Like other services do. That would be the correct way to handle this.


I am not saying your methodology is wrong because it uses a fix timeframe window.  I am saying that it is wrong because your window is too small.  You need to increase the timeframe to 3 time units (days, weeks, months, etc).  As I said, I am willing to do this I just need your initial data.  I believe that you are very close to an answer about the legitimacy of the reversals, you just had the timeframe too short.  I am willing to do all the work, you won't have to spend any more energy on proving or disproving the system.  I am sending you my email in a private message so that the data won't be public

Your settings won't allow a private message from newbies.  Please change this setting so you can receive my private message with my email
Pages: « 1 ... 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 [276] 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!