Market prediction based on macroeconomic indicators - page 46
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
SanSanych, Sergiy, Andrey, goman, ...
I am interested in reading your posts. You all say the right things. I don't really know what to make of my experiment, but having lost a lot of money in 2008, I have a strong interest in knowing if it is possible to predict crashes. I don't mean to sound ignorant and ignore the fact that many economists, mathematicians, institutes and amateurs have tried it before me and failed. Can the market be compared to a game of poker, yes, on short time scales. On large time scales, the market is driven by economics for one simple reason. Stocks on the stock market reflect the value of companies. This value depends on the profitability of companies today and their predictions for the future. The value of a stock cannot fall on its own without depending on the outlook for the future of the company. Although I will admit that there is a lot of manipulation in the market. For example, some hedge fund may start a propaganda campaign claiming something is wrong in some company. Traders will start selling the company's shares, the price will go down, the company will lose the opportunity to raise capital by selling its shares, expansion plans will fall, etc. It is also possible to manipulate not just one company but the whole economy. You can publish news for months that China is slowing down and it will affect the US economy. If you talk long enough, investors will soon believe it and limit their investment in manufacturing, leading to a decline in manufacturing - one trader at Morgan Stanley explained it to me. I have long noticed how organised the mussel is in staging a propaganda hike in tone claiming the market will fall or vice versa. This psychologically affects traders and their decisions. Can this be predicted by my models? - No. However, I continue to hold to the idea that the market is dependent on GDP for large stretches of time, and a decline in GDP leads to recessions (that's even by the definition of recession) and a market decline. How the market fluctuates during growth or decline is of no interest to me.
SanSanych, Sergiy, Andrey, goman, ...
..... I've noticed for a long time how the mussel organised propaganda hike in tone claiming that the market will fall or vice versa. It psychologically affects traders and their decisions. Can this be predicted by my models? - No. However, I continue to hold to the idea that the market is dependent on GDP for large stretches of time, and a decline in GDP leads to recessions (that's even by the definition of recession) and a market decline. How the market fluctuates during growth or decline is of no interest to me.
Why?
Not interested in what?
Why not?
If you were interested in economics AT ALL, you'd be reading truth-rule sites like ZeroHedge. And if you read them you'd know that the main buyout of the falling-slumping SP500 right now is .... The SP500 companies themselves (!) Microsoft took out a loan during the recession (this is Microsoft, which itself has a cash pile of tens of billions of dollars, which it literally doesn't know what to do with). It issued BONDS and used the money from those bonds to buy back some of its shares, thus increasing their price and IMMEDIATELY increasing the value and VALUE of each share. Moreover, I got involved in this discussion of yours just when the ECB was also announcing that it would be buying BONDS of European companies. If someone buys the bonds of a company, the company's stock goes up as well. It is a causation.
There are a lot of derivatives tied up in the SP500 index, the derivatives are now over 600 TRILLIONS (I repeat, trillions, not billions). There is no way the SP500 could have fallen during the current crisis years. Directly buying back FED shares would have been too crude. So the financial mafia made an agreement with the SP500 to buy back shares en masse by the companies themselves and issue BONDS for this purpose. And bonds can even be bought quietly by banks without regard to investment law prohibitions. They wanted to kill two birds with one stone, and for a while they succeeded.
Where is your GDP here in this cunning scheme?
Correlation is not a causation.
And you, Vladimir, are looking for a reason where there is no causation at all. How could (!?) one not know this, who introduced Burg, Quinn-Frenandes etc. spectral methods to this forum, and who rediscovered here mathematical method of sinus fit, which was originally invented by Andrew Choi, a scientist from Hong-Kong - is a mystery for me.
That's to say nothing of the fact that the SP500 itself is not "almost" traded by traders or market makers, but everything goes through the ES futures. No one forecasts the SP500, all the pros actually forecast the ES futures (smoother, no gaps).
I was only enough for the first paragraph - then my eyes bled....
Puppets, Reptiloids, Freemasons, Conspiracy....
Can you imagine a Russian, Russian or Ukrainian trader willingly wasting his precious time on forums, free of charge, to defend himself?
I can't. But some anonymous trader like "Dmitry" is persistently doing it here.....
See, even the American Vladimir - does not do it. Even the AMERICANS themselves are no longer doing it. About 50% of Americans are now in favour of Donald Trump, whose main theme is the Establishment's PROTEST.
But the empty-headed "Dimitri" is doing it here.....
Can you imagine a Russian, Russian or Ukrainian trader willingly, for free, wasting his precious time on forums to defend Americans?
I can't. But a certain anonymous trader like "Dmitry" is persistently doing it here.....
See, even the American Vladimir - does not do it. Even the AMERICANS themselves are no longer doing it. About 50% of Americans are now in favour of Donald Trump, whose main theme is the establishment's PROTEST.
But the empty-headed "Dimitri" is doing it here.....
Do you think Trump is our candidate? I highly doubt it.
It might be a "first we smoke yours and then we all smoke ours" thing.
Ours smoked, now Trump says stop feeding everyone, it's time to take care of ourselves. Smoking ours is what he calls feeding everyone.
They'll take care of it, we'll have to make do with it. No, you say A, you have to say B. They de-industrialized the whole world, divided it into zones of division of labour.
That is how the Union collapsed, when Gorbaty allowed the transition to self-sufficiency. Those who had profits in the inter-branch balance remained trumps, and the rest fell apart. Only the former did not realise that their profits depended on the crumbling businesses in the chain.
So if Trump wins, those who want to live the rest of their lives at least in some human conditions, will be forced to pile into the states and the rest on a subsistence economy in the Middle Ages, well, in 30-40 years we will work out, and the states by this time will sell to us natives heat generators, and other high-tech shit, well, again around the clock globalization and so on.
And I understand the Americans voting for Trump. For them, he is the way to go.
If you consider predicting a rate with a foundation - what are you doing here?
You see, Dimitri, your post contains some sort of condition. But if you consider that both parts of your question are false, then ANY answer to it would be meaningless. I will now, with your help, show why the discussion in the "Baessian regression" thread makes no sense, and therefore has zero perspective:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/72329/page46
It's all about the inherently wrong postulates of modern probability theory. But first, here's a simple example of how incorrect initial assumptions always lead to a total fiasco:
You said here the other day that you "need to come up to Lomonosov and kick Chernyak's ear off" for my "teaching".
If you had been paid money for a reason, you would have spent 2-3 minutes more in your work and found out that
a). I was taught in general and not at all by Czerniak.b). I was not taught at all on Lomonosov.
в). c) Czerniak has been running the econometrics department for a relatively "recent" time.
d). knowing Alexander Ivanovich Chernyak, it would never occur to anyone that "kicking his ears in" might be such a simple task.
e. I do not suffer from an inferiority complex for fear that some professor of mine might "judge" me. Moreover, my classmate Galiya Pyatnitskaya is now an economics professor herself in Kyiv.
You see, Dima, I have a program that predicts spot forex rates for the first time in 150+ years. Can any economics teacher be unhappy with that? That's a rhetorical question.
See? Incorrect postulates lead you, Dimitri to absolutely nothing. Yes, yes, Dima, I understand, you get paid for it and your tutor there is demanding at least some kind of "revenge" against me for telling the truth about the USA.
What is my point? What does this have to do with the standard, prescribed in the manuals of a small southern country, attacks of a hired Cossack? Well, here's what it has to do with:
Physicists and radio engineers, who just now in a branch about Bayes can't get out of closed circle of notions of their professorship, usually suffer from this complex of fear of judgment from freeing from habitual notions and views. In that thread it seems to them that they understand each other, but then it turns out for the 101th time that it is not so. And mind you, none of them will stop and ask "Why do we all have decent engineering degrees but can't understand each other in probability theory in an economics forum?".
The problem is (I repeat it for the 10th time, but it seems that only Reshetov here took it seriously and took it to heart) in modern probability theory the postulates and axiomatics are wrong. The funny thing is that this is not even discussed by physicists and radiologists, but this "minor flaw" is circumvented by traders - when they start trading futures and options. Futures and options are a long known workaround to the postulates of probability theory by practical methods. But the problem is also that traders solve the problem of predicting options - using ..... under-formulas from classical probability theory. The result is a vicious circle, like a snake biting itself.You see, Dimitri, your post contains some sort of condition. But if you consider that both parts of your question are false, then ANY answer to it would be meaningless. I will with your help now show why the discussion in the "Baessian regression" thread makes no sense and therefore has zero perspective: