Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

daedalus

The Truth of Trading

Recommended Posts

  Kiwi said:
The difference is that I think that he has an edge that is the original edge.

 

His adaptation results in continuous improvements to the edge.

 

Without the initial edge the adaptation might just result in his flapping in the wind.

 

 

I feel that I'm saying that a sailor has a edge from his sail and an edge multiplier by way of adjusting the sail to the wind strength and minor directional changes. And you might be saying that his edge is only the second part (what I define as an edge multiplier).

 

I think, and have never tried to verify, that no matter what the pattern, in the long run if you trade it perfectly, you'll likely break even if you trade it every time it appears. Break even really means losing since you have to pay the house a small amount to play. After a thousand trades, you are down +- 5000. On the other hand, if a trader has learned when to trade that pattern, when not to trade that pattern, and when to take the opposite side of that pattern, then he has an edge. I am minimizing the importance of the pattern.

 

I read MD's Zone and it was a great book to get me to break even. In a nutshell, me getting to BE meant ceasing to move my stops and targets out of fear and greed. It didn't take long to do, and I laugh now at how wimpy my behavior was. However, I do not think that a trader can use what he suggests as an entry and exit strategy for an extended period of time. And, I think he is off on his definition of an edge which seems to be a commonly used definition on these threads. I do not see how a trader would stumble trading if he thought he had an edge like a casino. You will never see the day when you are playing blackjack and you put your chips in the circle and the dealer second guesses whether he wants to take your bet or not. He knows in the long run that he is going to kick your ass.

 

My belief is that when you enter the market, you do not know what the odds of your trade really are, and what type of payout is available to you. So, you need to be prepared to be wrong, right or prepared to be more right or more wrong than you thought. The better you get at this, the more you will be able to take and keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:

My belief is that when you enter the market, you do not know what the odds of your trade really are, and what type of payout is available to you. So, you need to be prepared to be wrong, right or prepared to be more right or more wrong than you thought. The better you get at this, the more you will be able to take and keep.

 

First, "edge" is the expected value of a trade. Its really a shame how the term "edge" has taken off in trading as opposed to expected value. Edge in gambling is a very vague term, tends to be used as a yes or no thing for a bettor. He has an edge or he doesn't...Expected value is a more precise idea, I imagine "edge" took off though because you need quite a large sample size of actual trades for an EV calculation to have any meaning.

I don't agree with the first statement and the second you are just describing probabilistic thinking. I almost feel like there is some dissonance in your thinking because if you really can not know the odds and payouts available on a trade then it would be purely random as far as your results on pushing a trade when you are right or pulling a trade when you are wrong. Really, you almost saying trading is random with that but i think its because you are using "know" for odds and payouts still in an absolute sense as opposed to a probabilistic sense.

You can really only know the odds and payout of a bet in an absolute sense if someone is setting the line/payout and the bet is binary, win or lose. This is a totally different game than the markets because finding value in that kind of betting setup comes from betting against the line being set wrong as opposed to the outcome, which skews the payout wrong. If the house sets the line on a binary bet at -200/+300 but you believe the fav should be -600 and bet on the fav, both you and the house have the same belief on what side is going to win. You just disagree on the probability win rate.

On the other hand if your delt AA at a $2/5 no limit holdem table at a casino, while you can't say my expected value using only this single hand is X...you know without question you have an "edge" on this trade and if you have played enough hands you would have some idea of what the EV of the hand is in its most basic sense. Some idea of what the odds and payout will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the above post ignore the rollover for "skew"...It would be a good idea to delete these types of things on here for terms that have exact mathematical definitions.

Its almost intellectually offense to me that a newbie could read that post and think I'm referring to some bogus concept as (VWAP - PVP)/SD if I didn't post this.

Of course it wouldn't make sense to have a rollover for skew that shows

854ec22ead13d4cd66894606540f07a7.png

 

If anything the roller for something with an exact mathematical definition should point to wikki like this

Skewness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

To me in learning to trade there is right, wrong and way worse than wrong..Its good to find "wrong" because its not so far from "right"..Way worse than wrong though leads you down these nonsense paths into a maze that is hard to get out of and even if you do just wastes a lot of time.

 

I'm sure I'm on the extreme end here because if this was my board I would actually block the ability to post the words "fibonacci" and "gann" but thats a bit of a tangent.

 

Educating people that skew = (VWAP - PVP)/SD is an incredible disservice.

Edited by natedredd10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:
First, "edge" is the expected value of a trade. Its really a shame how the term "edge" has taken off in trading as opposed to expected value. Edge in gambling is a very vague term, tends to be used as a yes or no thing for a bettor. He has an edge or he doesn't...Expected value is a more precise idea, I imagine "edge" took off though because you need quite a large sample size of actual trades for an EV calculation to have any meaning.

I don't agree with the first statement and the second you are just describing probabilistic thinking. I almost feel like there is some dissonance in your thinking because if you really can not know the odds and payouts available on a trade then it would be purely random as far as your results on pushing a trade when you are right or pulling a trade when you are wrong. Really, you almost saying trading is random with that but i think its because you are using "know" for odds and payouts still in an absolute sense as opposed to a probabilistic sense.

You can really only know the odds and payout of a bet in an absolute sense if someone is setting the line/payout and the bet is binary, win or lose. This is a totally different game than the markets because finding value in that kind of betting setup comes from betting against the line being set wrong as opposed to the outcome, which skews the payout wrong. If the house sets the line on a binary bet at -200/+300 but you believe the fav should be -600 and bet on the fav, both you and the house have the same belief on what side is going to win. You just disagree on the probability win rate.

On the other hand if your delt AA at a $2/5 no limit holdem table at a casino, while you can't say my expected value using only this single hand is X...you know without question you have an "edge" on this trade and if you have played enough hands you would have some idea of what the EV of the hand is in its most basic sense. Some idea of what the odds and payout will be.

 

A trader will have a problem with my first statement only if he thinks he needs to know the odds and payout of a trade before he enters a trade. The question is then can you trade if you really do not know the odds and payout and risk? My answer is yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:
A trader will have a problem with my first statement only if he thinks he needs to know the odds and payout of a trade before he enters a trade. The question is then can you trade if you really do not know the odds and payout and risk? My answer is yes.

 

The fact a trader can pull the trigger based on nonsense means nothing.

Good luck if you think you can trade without knowing the odds, risk and payout...

Utterly laughable.. Its hard for me to view trading other than the odds, risk and payout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:
The fact a trader can pull the trigger based on nonsense means nothing.

Good luck if you think you can trade without knowing the odds, risk and payout...

Utterly laughable.. Its hard for me to view trading other than the odds, risk and payout.

 

I agree that it is hard and discomforting and it requires a paradigm shift. Of course you can think you know the odds and take trades and make money and be none the wiser.

So if you back test your hypothesis and determine that it will provide you with a 2:1 payout 42% of the time and it works in real time, then you are a winner whether you know the odds or not. Similarly, a Gann trader can populate his chart with Gann Square of 9 data and take trades based on it and swear the numbers have meaning and make money using it.

 

Ultimately, if you have figured out how to take money from the market, that is all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TheDude said:

 

Based on the assumption the markets are random 'most of the time' to the unaware, .....

 

That's a whole can of worms opened right there! :D I'm going to say nothing more than that is quite an assumption.

Edited by BlowFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:

 

Educating people that skew = (VWAP - PVP)/SD is an incredible disservice.

 

Having said that Pearsons contribution in the field have been pretty worthwhile imho. I am not sure anyone is 'education people' that his is the same as the skew. It is simply a quick and dirty. Determining 3 central moments of a weighted distribution with a continuous algorithm is a very tricky problem. Very. If you are happy to use an iterative approach it is fairly trivial of course and that option is always open to you. So you have two choices, use one of Pearsons approximations or use an algorithm that does not scale with large data sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from a purely discretionary stand point...I think an important aspect of trading "an edge" (or you can say it's part of your edge) that's hasn't been mentioned is varying the leverage used depending on the underlying context of the market in which your "edge" is setting up in. Most retail traders either {a} use max leverage all the time on their entries which requires you to be amazingly accurate with every entry or {b} they don't know when to up the leverage and increase their position size when underlying market conditions warrant it.

 

Everyone loves the poker analogy : picking up pocket 10's or picking up pocket aces, both hands you would want to play but then again 2 hands that you would probably play differently pre-flop not only according to the quality of the starting hand itself but also according to the context of the situation - are you 1st to act or last to act, has any1 limped, has any1 raised, how many chips do you have...etc , etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:
The fact a trader can pull the trigger based on nonsense means nothing.

Good luck if you think you can trade without knowing the odds, risk and payout...

Utterly laughable.. Its hard for me to view trading other than the odds, risk and payout.

 

You only think you do.

 

If I were a gambling man (I'm not), I'd say you base these figures on past outcomes of a series of trades.

 

However, the past is no guarantee of future events. That kind of puts the kyber on the idea of backtesting and the scientific approach to trading I guess. Ho hum.

 

If you take the trade at the singular level, then MM is right.

If you take the trade in the context of a series of trades you may be right.

 

Thats where the skill of the (good) discretionary trader stomps all over the mechanical trader. The discretionary trader can see the probability unfold in real time. He is working and focusing and calculating all the time. He knows whether to let the trade run for more, or whether to cut it before a loss is incurred. Sometime he gets it wrong, but thats the market - it can do unexpected things suddenly. The mechanical trader is a lazy trader. He takes his trade and hopes it fits the average - probably while listening to music or something.

Edited by TheDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TheDude said:
However, the past is no guarantee of future events. That kind of puts the kyber on the idea of backtesting and the scientific approach to trading I guess. Ho hum.

 

That's really something that is said to protect people.

 

All trading, be it 100% systematic or 100% discretionary is based on the assumption that the past is a good "guarantee" of future events but guarantee is obviously too strong. The adaptive systems or discretionary trader (never forget that a lot of those failed after the 1990s bull market finally topped) realizes that markets change, sometimes in cycles or waves, sometimes in ways that have never happened before. At that point your predictors fail and you have to adapt.

 

Darwin didn't say "survival of the fittest" he said "survival of the adaptable." Carrying on with evolution many people think that natural selection creates perfect creatures - but in fact it is a satisficing mechanism and it simply creates a creature now sufficiently adapted to the current conditions.

 

The lessons we might take from evolution are:

- the past is a good predictor of future events (but sooner or later it won't be so think adaptation not perfect for ever)

- the traders job is to satisfactorily fit his niche picking out bucks often enough to survive and procreate but the job spec doesn't need you to be perfect or to be best.

 

Good enough is good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Kiwi said:

The lessons we might take from evolution are:

- the past is a good predictor of future events (but sooner or later it won't be so think adaptation not perfect for ever)

.

 

Exactly. You never know when a six-sigma event may happen.

 

In the markets. Or in nature, like this:

 

15667687.jpg

 

Happy trading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps I should put some more definition on my statement.

 

This is my view, and I understand and welcome different opinions:

 

In some ways the past can be a useful insight into future events. By that, I refer to human emotion and it's corresponding behaviour. That you can see in the market, but it's quite difficult to backtest as you probably cant get a good feel for traders emotional levels looking at last years charts.

 

In other ways the past is no use at all, especially when developing mechanical systems. If it were, then someone, somewhere, by now would have developed that killer system. How many traders around the world over time have developed and tested such systems based on indicators, candle shapes, TA, etc, then optimised, then forward tested, etc just to see it fall over? If such a system did exist, doesnt anyone here think it would have been discovered by now? Maybe that method did work in the past for a window of time, but by the time it takes to discover, back test, forward test etc, the cycle changes just as the trader starts to trade it.

 

Magic? Nope. Victor N points out the same thing happens in horse racing. The gambler studies the form, realises a pattern has emerged, just as the others who study form identify the same or very similar patterns. The bookie then has to change the odds as everyone bets the same way and so the system no longer works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have traded both systematically with 100% automation and on a 100% discretionary basis. After many years of watching the ES and trading it .. I have discovered that the actual process of trading during the day while the tape is running and the indicators (Tick, Trin etc.) etc are making alerts... has somehow now worked inside my brain to give me a pretty good idea of what the market condition is like. This is completely missing on backtest / review of historical data. Looking back, you can see what happened to the price bars... but you can't "feel" them.

 

Now I find that seeing the time and sales and watching how traders are lifting the offer (or not) gives me the occasional (dare I say) "gut feel" for the move. Not for the entry technique. Of course, I have to rely on my entry criteria and be patient and watch for a setup ... but one develops a feel after time spent. And one knows that the time will come. Don't chase.

 

The truth about trading for me is that when I first started I would make the normal mistakes of entering after a move had started and exiting on a pullback or worse... Newbie mistakes. I went thru a period of being " total mechanical or systematic" to get around this market trickery.

 

Now, as the trading day develops, I absorb, perhaps subconsciously, market price action and often can tell when a market is done... and about to sell off hard... or when it is about to run parabolically and positions should be held, and added to, when possible. I look back on entries a week later and wonder then how I knew at the time...

 

My Truth about trading is: practice and screen time is required before one can confidently make consistent money.

Edited by bakrob99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I first started, most of my strategies revolved around waiting for a major news event and predictions of how that event would affect the given market. Sadly, this strategy worked less than half the time, because it's based on "feelings." When these "feelings" can be predicted, that can be planned against, thus tipping the scale back to unpredictability. This same outcome can be applied to really any strategy; expectation versus the amount of people using the same strategy.

 

Whether or not there is a group of an elite few who actually control the strings of the market is unknown and rather irrelevent.

 

My truth? "Be like water my friend!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  bakrob99 said:
I have discovered that the actual process of trading during the day while the tape is running and the indicators (Tick, Trin etc.) etc are making alerts... has somehow now worked inside my brain to give me a pretty good idea of what the market condition is like. This is completely missing on backtest / review of historical data. Looking back, you can see what happened to the price bars... but you can't "feel" them.

 

Good point....the condition or context of the market, not only on a short term basis but maybe more importantly on the background or longer term, is often overlooked when testing strategies or an "edge".

 

My truth be told.....successful traders realize that setups for both winning and losing trades look identical when looked at only in the context of short term market activity.....its the longer term background that can distinguish between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:
That's a whole can of worms opened right there! :D I'm going to say nothing more than that is quite an assumption.

 

To me traders have an almost moral obligation to destroy this idea when it comes up.

Either markets are forward pricing economic activity or they are not. If you believe markets are not pricing forward economic activity then I don't see why you would bother since you can not gamble on a random walk at profit.

If you isolate my economic activity today and think the reason I didn't buy an HD projector tv because i flipped a fair coin and gasoline/pizza won out, producing a random walk in my economic behavior then i don't know what to tell you.

Its not hard to figure out that Paul Samuelson is a fraud and that the psuedo science of the economics profession has a feedback loop because of self interest that amplifies nonsense like a religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:
Having said that Pearsons contribution in the field have been pretty worthwhile imho. I am not sure anyone is 'education people' that his is the same as the skew. It is simply a quick and dirty. Determining 3 central moments of a weighted distribution with a continuous algorithm is a very tricky problem. Very. If you are happy to use an iterative approach it is fairly trivial of course and that option is always open to you. So you have two choices, use one of Pearsons approximations or use an algorithm that does not scale with large data sets.

 

The problem is there is zero evidence that volume has anything to do with the return distribution of markets. My point though was that there is no reason to highlight "zero" in my last sentence and inform people its something other than the exact mathematical definition no matter how many post were generated if I posted a system I called "zero"...

It would be a huge disservice to anyone who had never ran across the concept of zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh OK It sounded as if you had an issue with Pearsons approximation. Again I don't think anyone is suggesting that 'volume has anything to do with the return distribution of markets' it is a very useful metric if you know what it represents and how to use it.

 

Weighting by volume makes complete sense if you think 10 trading at price p carries more weight that 1 trading at price p. It obviously makes sense to use as a benchmark for anyone wanting to judge a traders performance (the price the trader got for their lots vs the average price for the total sample). There really is no other 'fair' way to do that if you are price motivated. Of course if you are time motivated you might use TWAP.

 

Between you me and the gatepost, Im inclined to agree about random walk but didn't really want to be the torch bearer on this occasion :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always interesting to see the debate.

 

Even more interesting when I refrain from leaping in with "you bloody idiot ... you don't know what you're talking about." I do think it but I won't say who I thought it about this time. I'm trying to master my desire to fix your thinking. :)

 

A new poster, mb3000, posted this link in answer to a request of Al Brooks videos. People responding to or just reading this thread might enjoy the video on that page by Jack Schwager - Winning Methods of the Market Wizards. He's definitely on topic.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Kiwi said:
Its always interesting to see the debate.

 

Even more interesting when I refrain from leaping in with "you bloody idiot ... you don't know what you're talking about." I do think it but I won't say who I thought it about this time. I'm trying to master my desire to fix your thinking. :)

 

A new poster, mb3000, posted this link in answer to a request of Al Brooks videos. People responding to or just reading this thread might enjoy the video on that page by Jack Schwager - Winning Methods of the Market Wizards. He's definitely on topic.

 

.

 

It's nice of Al Brooks to package and deliver his trading methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  BlowFish said:
Ahh OK It sounded as if you had an issue with Pearsons approximation. Again I don't think anyone is suggesting that 'volume has anything to do with the return distribution of markets' it is a very useful metric if you know what it represents and how to use it.

 

Weighting by volume makes complete sense if you think 10 trading at price p carries more weight that 1 trading at price p. It obviously makes sense to use as a benchmark for anyone wanting to judge a traders performance (the price the trader got for their lots vs the average price for the total sample). There really is no other 'fair' way to do that if you are price motivated. Of course if you are time motivated you might use TWAP.

 

These WAPS don't make sense at all...like i said..latest nonsense to tick down to retail thinking they have found something..Shit, this board is basically built from that BS..

Way easy to turn these algos non discreet..As if that would be some amazing thought.

TWAP just as nonsense. Not hard to figure retail guys are fucking fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:
These WAPS don't make sense at all...like i said..latest nonsense to tick down to retail thinking they have found something..Shit, this board is basically built from that BS..

Way easy to turn these algos non discreet..As if that would be some amazing thought.

TWAP just as nonsense. Not hard to figure retail guys are fucking fools.

 

Calm down, natedredd10...you'll give yourself a tummy ache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  natedredd10 said:
The problem is there is zero evidence that volume has anything to do with the return distribution of markets. My point though was that there is no reason to highlight "zero" in my last sentence and inform people its something other than the exact mathematical definition no matter how many post were generated if I posted a system I called "zero"...

It would be a huge disservice to anyone who had never ran across the concept of zero.

 

Hi Nate,

 

I've thoroughly enjoyed all your posts and will continue to follow you in the future. I appreciate the depth and knowledge embedded in your comments.

 

About your post I've quoted: Is there evidence to the contrary--that volume has no bearing on returns? I am most likely deeply misunderstanding what you mean, but isn't volume i.e. liquidity consumption at the root of all market returns? Or do you mean that volume right now has poor predictive value for price ten minutes from now? Maybe you mean neither.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • NFLX Netflix stock watch, local support and resistance areas at 838.12 and 880.5 at https://stockconsultant.com/?NFLX
    • Date: 8th April 2025.   Markets Rebound Cautiously as US-China Tariff Tensions Deepen     Global markets staged a tentative recovery on Tuesday following a wave of volatility sparked by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. The Asia-Pacific region showed signs of stability after a chaotic start to the week—though some pockets remained under pressure. Taiwan’s Taiex dropped 4.4%, dragged lower by losses in tech heavyweight TSMC. The world’s largest chipmaker fell another 4% on Tuesday and has now slumped 13.5% since April 2, when US President Donald Trump first unveiled what he called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.   However, broader sentiment across the region turned more positive, with several markets rebounding sharply after Monday’s dramatic sell-offs. Japan’s Nikkei 225 surged over 6% in early trading, rebounding from an 18-month low. South Korea’s Kospi rose marginally, and Australia’s ASX 200 gained 1.9%, driven by strength in mining stocks. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6%, though still far from recovering from Monday’s 13.2% crash—its worst day since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China’s Shanghai Composite added 0.9%.   In Europe, DAX and FTSE 100 are up more than 1% in opening trade. EU Commission President von der Leyen repeated yesterday that the EU had offered reciprocal zero tariffs on manufactured goods previously and continues to stand by that offer. Others are also trying again to talk to Trump to get some sort of agreement that limits the impact.   Much of the rally appeared to be driven by dip-buying, as well as hopes that the intensifying trade war could still be defused through negotiations.   China Strikes Back: ‘We Will Fight to the End’   Tensions reached a boiling point after Trump threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing rolled back its retaliatory measures by April 8. ‘If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow... the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%,’ Trump declared on social media.   If implemented, the new tariffs would bring total US duties on Chinese goods to a staggering 124%, factoring in the existing 20%, the 34% recently announced, and the proposed 50%.   In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a stern warning, stating: ‘The US threat to escalate tariffs is a mistake on top of a mistake... If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.’ The ministry also called for equal and respectful dialogue, though signs of compromise on either side remain scarce.   Beijing acted quickly to contain a market fallout. State funds intervened to support equities, and the People’s Bank of China set the yuan fixing at its weakest level since September 2023 to boost export competitiveness. Additionally, five-year interest rate swaps in China fell to their lowest levels since 2020, indicating potential for further monetary easing.   Trump Talks Tough on EU Too   Trump’s hardline approach extended beyond China. Speaking at a press conference, he rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and industrial goods, accusing the bloc of ‘being very bad to us.’ He insisted that Europe would need to source its energy from the US, claiming the US could ‘knock off $350 billion in one week.’   The EU, meanwhile, backed away from a proposed 50% retaliatory tariff on American whiskey, opting instead for 25% duties on selected US goods in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.     Volatile Wall Street Adds to the Drama   Wall Street experienced wild swings on Monday as investors processed the rapidly evolving trade conflict. The S&P 500 briefly fell 4.7% before rebounding 3.4%, nearly erasing its losses in what could have been its biggest one-day jump in years—if it had held. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by as much as 1,700 points early in the day but later climbed nearly 900 points before closing 349 points lower, down 0.9%. The Nasdaq ended up 0.1%.   The brief rally was fueled by a false rumour that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs—rumours that the White House quickly labelled ‘fake news.’ The market's sharp reaction underscored how desperate investors are for any sign that tensions might ease.   Oil Markets in Focus: Goldman Sachs Revises Forecasts   Crude prices also reflected the uncertainty, with US crude briefly dipping below $60 per barrel for the first time since 2021. As of early Tuesday, Brent crude was trading at $64.72, while WTI hovered around $61.26.   Goldman Sachs, in a note dated April 7, lowered its average price forecasts for Brent and WTI through 2025 and 2026, citing mounting recession risks and the potential for higher-than-expected supply from OPEC+.       Under a base-case scenario where the US avoids a recession and tariffs are reduced significantly before the April 9 implementation date, Goldman sees Brent at $62 per barrel and WTI at $58 by December 2025. These figures fall further to $55 and $51, respectively, by the end of 2026. This outlook also assumes moderate output increases from eight OPEC+ countries, with incremental boosts of 130,000–140,000 barrels per day in June and July.   However, should the US slip into a typical recession and OPEC production aligns with the bank’s baseline assumptions, Brent could retreat to $58 by the end of this year and to $50 by December 2026.   In a more bearish scenario involving a global GDP slowdown and no change to OPEC+ output levels, Brent prices might fall to $54 by year-end and $45 by late 2026. The most extreme projection—based on a simultaneous economic downturn and a full reversal of OPEC+ production cuts—would see Brent plunge to below $40 per barrel by the end of 2026.   Goldman noted that oil prices could outperform forecasts significantly if there was a dramatic shift in tariff policy and a surprise in global demand recovery.   Cautious Optimism, But Warnings Persist   With both Washington and Beijing showing no signs of backing down, markets are likely to remain volatile in the days ahead. Investors now turn their attention to upcoming trade meetings and policy decisions, hoping for clarity in what has become one of the most unpredictable trading environments in recent years.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.