Basic forex strategies - page 9
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
Many practices associated with the new stock market are highly controversial, as illustrated by the public furor following the publication of Michael Lewis’s book Flash Boys. Critics say that HFTs use their speed in discovering changes in the market and in altering their orders to take advantage of other traders. Dark pools – off-exchange trading venues that promise to keep the orders sent to them secret and to restrict the parties allowed to trade – are accused of operating in ways that injure many traders. Brokers are said to mishandle customer orders in an effort to maximize the payments they receive in return for sending trading venues their customers’ orders, rather than delivering best execution.
In this paper, we set out a simple, but powerful, conceptual framework for analyzing the new stock market. The framework is built upon three basic concepts: adverse selection, the principal-agent problem, and a multi-venue trading system. We illustrate the utility of this framework by analyzing the new market’s eight most controversial practices. The effects of each practice are evaluated in terms of the multiple social goals served by equity trading markets.
We ultimately conclude that there is no emergency requiring immediate, poorly-considered action. Some reforms proposed by critics, however, are clearly desirable. Other proposed reforms involve a tradeoff between two or more valuable social goals. In these cases, whether a reform is desirable may be unclear, but a better understanding of the tradeoff involved enables a more informed choice and suggests where further empirical research would be useful. Finally, still other proposed reforms are based on misunderstandings of the market or of the social impacts of a practice and should be avoided.
Both figures are unrealistic from current market levels. Few have acknowledged that an important part of the lofty real returns of the past has stemmed from rising valuation levels and from high dividend yields which have since diminished. As this article will demonstrate, the long-term forward-looking risk premium is nowhere near the 5% of the past; indeed, it may well be near-zero today, perhaps even negative. Credible studies, in the US and overseas, are now challenging this flawed conventional view, in well-researched studies by Claus and Thomas [2001] and Fama and French [2000, Working Paper], to name just two. Similarly, the long-term forward-looking real return from stocks is nowhere near history's 8%. Our argument will show that, barring unprecedented economic growth or unprecedented growth in earnings as a percentage of the economy, real stock returns will probably be roughly 2-4%, similar to bonds. Indeed, even this low real return figure assumes that current near-record valuation levels are "fair," and likely to remain this high in the years ahead. "Reversion to the mean" would push future real returns lower still.
Furthermore, if we examine the historical record, neither the 8% real return nor the 5% risk premium for stocks relative to government bonds has ever been a realistic expectation (except from major market bottoms or at times of crisis, such as wartime). Should investors require an 8% real return, or should a 5% risk premium be necessary to induce an investor to bear stock market risk? These returns and risk premiums are so grand that investors should perhaps have bid them away a long time ago - indeed, they may have done so in the immense bull market of 1982-1999.
Intuition suggests that investors should not require such outsize returns, and the historical evidence supports this view. This is a topic meriting careful exploration. After all, according to the Ibbotson data, investors earned 8% real returns over the past 75 years, and stocks have outpaced bonds by nearly 5% over the past 75 years. So, why shouldn't investors have expected these returns in the past and why shouldn't they continue to do so? Expressed in a slightly different way, we examine two questions. First, can we derive an objective estimate of what investors should have had good reasons to have expected in the past? And, why should we expect less in the future than we've earned in the past?
The answers to both questions lie in the difference between the observed excess return and the prospective risk premium, two fundamentally different concepts that unfortunately carry the same label, "risk premium." If we distinguish between past excess returns and future expected risk premiums, it is not at all unreasonable that the future risk premiums should be different from past excess returns.
This is a complex topic, requiring several careful steps to evaluate correctly. To gauge the risk premium for stocks relative to bonds, we need an expected real stock return and an expected real bond return. To gauge the expected real bond return, we need both bond yields and an estimate of expected inflation through history. To gauge the expected real stock return, we need both stock dividend yields and an estimate of expected real dividend growth. Accordingly, we go through each of these steps, in reverse order, to form the building blocks for the final goal: an estimate of the objective, forward-looking equity risk premium, relative to bonds, through history.
How News Trading Strategies Works?
Trading Systems
This paper approaches the opportunities for contrarian and momentum profits during the periods of high trading volume preceded by stock prices shocks. We investigate these aspects for ten stocks from New York Stock Exchange. We found that more than three quarters of the periods of high trading volume were preceded by shocks which occurred less than six working days before. The values of the average excess returns for these periods suggest that opportunities for momentum profits prevailed over those for contrarian profits.