brownsfan019

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5UhcbI4jecU Tax on Trades Should Be Part of Rescue Plan, Some Democrats Say By Laura Litvan Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- A group of House Democrats is proposing to make Wall Street companies and investors pay more of the cost of any financial rescue plan through a new tax. In a letter sent late yesterday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 16 Democrats asked her to ensure any rescue legislation include a ``transaction tax'' on all U.S. stock trades and on other types of trades, such as credit default swaps, options and futures. They are proposing the tax would be at a rate of one quarter of one percent on all trades. ``The same Wall Street speculators and investors who are principally responsible for having caused this avoidable financial crisis and profited from it must now be required to pay for it, not U.S. taxpayers,'' according to the letter, which was signed by Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, and Representative Pete Stark, a California Democrat. In a news conference today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would support some mechanism that could return more funds to Treasury coffers if the $700 billion to be spent to acquire troubled investments isn't later recouped. She didn't endorse any specific proposal and suggested it is likely to be explored later. ``You might make a judgment down the road that there is a shortfall and it should be covered,'' Pelosi said. President George W. Bush in a televised address last night urged swift action on the $700 billion rescue plan to help avert ``a long and painful'' recession. The $700 billion proposal would allow the Treasury to buy troubled assets to restore financial stability, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday.

Couldn't resist... a little after market trade:

And one from the EC: And ES:

Here's a setup on the Stoxx from this morning that I took on the OEC simulator to see how it reacted: Trade required patience, that's for sure. Green line is where I had my stop at. Why Stoxx? B/c the ES did not have a setup IMO.

Blue - feel free to join us in the Candlestick Corner. If you want something simple to start with, go to this thread about the 20 EMA. I know others will say take a step back, get a job, etc. but if you want to start working towards a new trading life, start today. Food for thought - you can easily make that daily target on ONE solid trade per day. Maybe just using the 20 EMA thread can do it for you...

I don't know that quitting is the answer. We don't know exactly what is behind the troubles here but if it's purely an emotional thing, that can be corrected if worked on intensely. The key is to find the problem - whether a poor system or emotional issues - and see if there's a way to fix that. He says he is making money on sim, so in theory the system can make money. When the real money light is on though, something changes.

They have a decent finance area but maybe a few of us could come up w/ something. Worth a shot.

Data feed fine here.

I agree. If you are confident in your system, easier to just trade larger size and get your $ goal vs. trading all day and/or trading less contracts out of fear.

Good to hear! I'm sure others could gain a lot by seeing your progress more if you are able to post some updates or ideas.

I'll provide my opinions Blue and you can take it for what it's worth... I can understand that as I am the same way - just about everything I do can be successful if I work hard enough. This is why when I hear the - trade on sim and when you can do it there, you can do it live - is incredibly misleading. As the rest of your post demonstrates, there is a high degree of emotion involved when real money is on the line that simply cannot be simulated. The good news is that your paper trading is making $. The key from there is to work on the emotional part so you can do it live w/ real money. This is the most disturbing part of the post for me. Reason is that you do not have a set of firm rules in place. If you do, they are not being followed (back to that emotional thing). From the sound of the post, you are basically trading by the seat of your pants even if they are some pretty typed up rules that are laminated by your computer. The rules, if any, are not being followed. My suggestion Blue is to create a money management plan. You need to come up with a plan that makes sense for you but also puts $ in your pocket. I do not believe the game is rigged nor is your broker trading against you since the NQ is traded at a centralized exchange. Your broker makes money on commissions, not on you losing money. They cannot fake quotes or move the market to get your contract(s) out. I've never traded at IB but if they were doing this, we would hear and read about it rather quickly. So yes, that is the paranoia, or better yet, anger/frustration/fear/etc talking in your head. Can you make $ at this business? You sure can. Is it difficult? Incredibly. And your post illustrates that - you can make money in sim but can't live. In theory, there should be no difference (assuming your fills are accurate); yet we know this to not be true. When your emotions kick in and you trade recklessly, the odds are stacked against you heavily. Winners are tiny and losers a big. We need the opposite to be true. ================ Some other thoughts: * There are some great threads right here on TL about actual trading. Recently, this thread in the Candlestick Corner, has gotten popular. Take a look. This area that DB runs is also popular. * Trade entry is only the first part and you've seen this. From there you need to design money management rules that fit your risk tolerance. * If you want feedback on how you are trading, start a thread and post screenshots. Use SnagIt to annotate them. * While it can get messy, elitetrader does have some gems floating around there as well. It's time consuming, but you can find some good ones if you look hard enough. * Get a daily log/blog going. TL has a spot here or head over to a free service like blogger. Don't worry about how many are viewing, just get your daily thoughts on paper. Good luck in your journey and use the community here as there are some very good members floating around.

I agree. You don't see round #'s on the ES often, but it's worth watching. Round #'s can be especially true on stocks as well... 50.00, 60.00, etc.

Nice post BB. As I've attempted to say here and many other times on TL, the system is only as good as the trader trading it and as good as the research and work they've put into it. I think there is so much emphasis placed on when to enter a trade when the exits are just as important or more important IMO. The key for any trader is to attempt to maximize the return on your dollars while minimizing any potential losses. Of course, that's easier said than done.

IMO this makes or breaks this (or any system). Stop placements: 1) Classic candlestick analysis would say one tick above the high or below the low of the entry candle. 2) Use previous support/resistance. 3) Fixed number. Money Management (too many to think of at once): 1) Trade all day or after a profit target hit (which could be reached in one trade)? 2) How many losers in a row can you take before realizing it just ain't happening today? 3) Do you trade pre-market, if so, when? If not, why not? 4) If the first pattern fails, can you re-enter in the same area even if it's not a new pullback pattern? IE, you get a nice inv hammer to go short that fails. 2 candles later is another inv hammer... can you take it? Or do you need to wait for the full setup (move down, test back up to EMA, inv hammer)? A few ideas there. That's the reason why I say this part of the trading plan is more important than the entry method. I think this thread has shown there is potential here but it's also easy to see how it might not work depending on the money mgmt portion.

BB - what do you think of the 2nd arrow? It got through the EMA but gave an inv hammer. Would you consider a short there or no b/c it busted the EMA?

This morning. I see two (one pre-market).

I truly am surprised about this. Being a bank is in, being a broker is out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aG34lbH1boqE&refer=home Goldman, Morgan Stanley Bring Down Curtain on an Era (Update3) By Christine Harper and Craig Torres Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The Wall Street that shaped the financial world for two decades ended last night, when Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley concluded there is no future in remaining investment banks now that investors have determined the model is broken. The Federal Reserve's approval of their bid to become banks ends the ascendancy of the securities firms, 75 years after Congress separated them from deposit-taking lenders, and caps weeks of chaos that sent Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. into bankruptcy and led to the rushed sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp. ``The decision marks the end of Wall Street as we have known it,'' said William Isaac, a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ``It's too bad.'' Goldman, whose alumni include Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary presiding over a $700 billion bank bailout, and Morgan Stanley, a product of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that cleaved investment and commercial banks, insisted they didn't need to change course, even as their shares plunged and their borrowing costs soared last week. By then, it was too late. As financial markets gyrated -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average whipsawed 1,000 points in the week's last two days -- and clients defected, executives at the two firms concluded they had no choice. The Federal Reserve Board met at 9 p.m. yesterday and considered applications delivered that day, said Michelle Smith, a spokeswoman for the central bank. The decision was unanimous, she said. `Blood in Water' ``There's blood in the water in the industry and the sharks are circling,'' Peter Kovalski, who helps oversee about $10 billion at Alpine Woods Capital Investors LLC, said at the end of last week. ``It all comes down to perception and the current trust within the community.'' Morgan Stanley rose $2.58, or 9.5 percent, to $29.79 as of 12:25 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Goldman advanced 10 cents to $129.90. Wall Street hasn't had such a shakeup since the 1980s, when firms including Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns Cos. went public and London's financial markets were altered forever with the so- called Big Bang reforms implemented in 1986. Bear Stearns disappeared in March, when it was bought by JPMorgan Chase & Co. The announcement paves the way for the two New York-based firms, both of which will now be regulated by the Fed, to build their deposit base, potentially through acquisitions. That will allow them to rely more heavily on deposits from retail customers instead of using money borrowed in the bond market -- the leverage that led to the undoing of Bear Stearns and Lehman. Depositors Rule Morgan Stanley has taken $15.7 billion of writedowns and losses on mortgage-related securities and other types of loans since the credit crunch started last year. Goldman's tally stands at about $4.9 billion. While both companies have remained profitable and avoided money-losing quarters suffered by Lehman and Merrill Lynch, their revenue from sales and trading and investment banking has been declining this year. ``Deposit-banking is king right now,'' said David Hendler, an analyst at CreditSights Inc. in New York. ``It's the only meaningful critical-mass way to make money.'' Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., Japan's largest bank, said today it will pay up to 900 billion yen ($8.4 billion) for as much as a fifth of Morgan Stanley. The deal would mark the biggest overseas acquisition by a Japanese financial company, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Building Deposit Base The Japanese bank will become ``a valuable partner as we transition to a bank holding company and build our bank services and deposit base,'' Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack said in a statement today. The deal announced today came after Morgan Stanley held talks last week to pursue a merger with Wachovia Corp. That deal became less likely now that Morgan Stanley is becoming a bank holding company, said Tony Plath, a finance professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest securities firm until this week, had $36 billion of deposits and 3 million retail accounts at the end of August. The company plans to convert its Utah-based industrial bank into a national bank. ``This new bank holding structure will ensure that Morgan Stanley is in the strongest possible position,'' Chairman and CEO Mack, 63, said in a statement last night. ``It also offers the marketplace certainty about the strength of our financial position and our access to funding.'' Citigroup, JPMorgan Goldman, the largest and most profitable of the U.S. securities firms, will become the fourth-largest bank holding company. The firm already has more than $20 billion in customer deposits in two subsidiaries and is creating a new one, GS Bank USA, that will have more than $150 billion of assets, making it one of the 10 largest banks in the U.S., the firm said in a statement last night. The firm will increase its deposit base ``through acquisitions and organically,'' Goldman said. ``Goldman Sachs, under Federal Reserve supervision, will be regarded as an even more secure institution with an exceptionally clean balance sheet and a greater diversity of funding sources,'' Lloyd Blankfein, 54, Goldman's chairman and CEO, said in the statement. The Washington-based Fed is the primary regulator of bank- holding companies, which are firms that own or control banks. Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and JPMorgan are bank- holding companies regulated by the Fed. Goldman and Morgan Stanley will be able to become bank holding companies immediately, without submitting to a five-day antitrust waiting period, the Fed said today, after consulting with the Department of Justice. Less Risky Securities firms, by contrast, had been regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC's future becomes dimmer with the change in Goldman and Morgan Stanley's structures. ``You can't kiss goodbye to the last two important investment banks without noting that the house is empty,'' said David Becker, a former SEC general counsel who is now a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington. ``It's a downward spiral where the less significant the population you regulate, the less your available resources.'' The change is also likely to lead to less risk-taking by the companies and possibly lower pay for their employees. Both Goldman and Morgan Stanley held more than $20 of assets for every $1 of shareholder equity, making them dependent on market funding to operate. Goldman, in particular, has been remarkable for the high bonuses it pays to its employees. Goldman's CEO and two co- presidents were each paid more than $67 million last year. ``They're going to have to protect their deposit bases by law, and the days of high leverage are gone,'' said Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College in Riverdale, New York, who wrote ``Wall Street: A History.'' ``The days of the big bonuses are gone.''

I know there are others learning from this so even if the intended person is not reading, many others are. There's a valid entry signal setup here. From there it's up to the individual person to figure out where, how and when to exit. Easier said than done.

I was looking as well BB:

Going to install Avast per Kiwi's reco.

Looks like it's trying to project reaction points and some of the screenshots are not impressive and you have to assume these are the best of the best. Buyer beware. The grail is not out there for one easy payment of $320.

I would pull up charts and see for yourself BF. I watch these markets daily and do not see a regular correlation/inverse correlation that shows up w/ any regularity. There was a time a year or more back where Oil and the ES were inversely correlated almost daily. Was a beautiful thing but of course that did not last too long.

This thread on ET has some good info too. The writer there recommends Avira. Good recommendations here, thanks everyone! Keep them coming if you got other suggestions.

Gotcha. I am a simple mind. Pull up a intraday CL chart and compare to an intraday ES chart and they will not look identical = uncorrelated as far as I am concerned.