Q&A
Since You Asked
| Confused about some aspect of
trading? Professional trader Don Bright of Bright Trading
(www.stocktrading.com), an equity trading corporation, answers a
few of your questions. |
Don Bright of Bright Trading |
ADJUSTING ENTRY PRICES
How do you go about entering a trade after considering it for
purchase the morning after your nightly analysis, when premarket
indicators look to gap sharply higher, gap sharply lower, moderately
higher, moderately lower, and neutral? Do you adjust your entry price
accordingly, or do you use pivot numbers? --Joseph Anthony
I assume you want to attempt the best possible entry (buy) the next
day. If you see an expected gap up prior to the stock opening, based on
opening indications from the specialist, then I would not buy on the
opening. Remember, the specialist cannot participate on the buy side
when there is a gap up opening; rather, he must accommodate the excess
buy orders by selling. It is never a good idea to go against the
specialist. Now, if you see a gap down based on opening indications, I
suggest you double-check your homework, and then participate with an
opening-only order to buy. This way, you'll be on the same buy side as
the specialist (for the reasons I mentioned).
If you are referring to the opening-only order strategy by itself, I
would adjust one side of the entered limit pricing before sending the
order. For example, if my fair value calculations (you say "pivot
points") show a $31.10 bid and a $31.40 offer, but the opening
indication is $32.50-$33.00, then I leave the buy price alone, but move
the short sale price up to around $32.75. I want to be in the top half
of the indicated price, but I do not want to buy a gap up, no matter the
circumstances.
DISCRETIONARY vs. SYSTEMATIC RISK
Discretionary trading on an intraday basis seems much riskier than
systematic trading. Why do you think those outcomes are the way they
are? There is the idea in some circles that those who are older or have
been in the brokerage business do not make good discretionary traders,
proprietary or otherwise. Is there a remedy for that, if in fact that is
correct? Would the overall success rate be higher with a systematic
approach or by simply disengaging from the whole endeavor? Thanks in
advance for your insight. --Craig
The NYSE specialists have been making money for 200 years, and we
teach our traders how to trade on the same side as the specialist. We do
opening-only orders (based on fair value calculations) and we "outside
envelope" the basic markets to take advantage of trade-throughs (price
improvements, guaranteeing we are on the same side as the specialist).
As former exchange floor traders, we understand we make money by
responding to the market. I often use a baseball metaphor, of the batter
(trader) responding to the ball being pitched (by the market/pitcher),
wherein we can't possibly have a systematic approach to an unknown
factor (the pitch). If we were to say we want to swing at a 70-degree
angle with a swing speed of 18 miles per hour (MPH), it obviously
wouldn't work, since the pitcher is throwing the ball all over the
place.
There are systems that work for a while, and we have traders with
great black boxes (fully automated reactions to the market), but they
need constant tweaking to stay successful. We have more traders who make
money by knowing what their response will be to a possible variable
(Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan speaking, market breakouts, and
so forth), and doing the same profitable strategies, day after day
(opening only, enveloping, and so on).
If a system worked forever, there would not even be a marketplace,
since everything would be absolutely predictable. Systems work until
they don't, but - as long as we have a free marketplace - discretionary
traders will be able to make money forever.
FLOAT, VOLUME, AND BETA CORRELATION
I'm trying to understand the correlation, if any, between volume,
outstanding shares, float, and volatility beta. I thought there might be
a relation between large volume/small float or small volume/large float
to beta. Am I looking for something that's not there? --Joe
Osborn
The best way to look at various aspects of individual stock data is
to think about supply and demand. The more stock that is available via
the float, the less locked stock that is unlikely (but not impossible)
to be traded. A good example is Wal-Mart. A large portion of the stock
is still held by the Walton family and is not likely to be traded in a
short period. This stabilizes the stock and causes a lower beta (stock
movement vs. the entire market movement).
Now to the daily volume, where the supply and demand issue takes
over. If I can buy $50 million worth of stock within a $1.00 range, then
the overall supply is pretty high and able to fulfill occasional demand
fluctuations. If, on the other hand, $50 million worth of buying would
cause a stock to move 20% or so, then that stock has a much higher beta,
for the obvious lack of supply.
E-mail your questions for Bright to Editor@Traders.com, with the
subject line direct to "Don Bright Question."
Originally published in the April 2005 issue of Technical Analysis
of STOCKS & COMMODITIES magazine. All rights reserved.
©
Copyright 2005, Technical Analysis, Inc.
Return to April
2005 Contents
.gif){kind=tracking}
