- Joined
- 3 August 2017
- Posts
- 19
- Reactions
- 7
Stop losses are good in theory but in reality they make you prone to getting stop hunted by large institutions which are in a position to influence market direction.
Stop losses are good in theory but in reality they make you prone to getting stop hunted by large institutions which are in a position to influence market direction.
Better veg. eater, the cost for an organisation to trip a stop in order to cause financial loss would be phenomenol. They would have to sell down or buy up and thus incur losses of their own when price reverses.Stop losses are good in theory but in reality they make you prone to getting stop hunted by large institutions which are in a position to influence market direction.
Everyone uses stops, whether they realize it or not, otherwise they end up with a draw down chart like canoz posted. Hard or soft, visible or not - it's still a stop.
Thats taking semantics to a level that reduces discussion to nonsense. That is if I am correct in that you appear to be implying that any sell order is some form of "stop loss"?
Well if people insist on using stops at least don't base it on any obvious moving averages or any commonly accepted technical trading signals that almost every trader knows.
To be safe just use a mental stop and move it a few price steps below what you thought was a good stop initially.
Why wouldn't it be?
If I I'm trading a range of say 10 points long or short and I have a buy
3 points off a support level and a sell at 7 points above that
The exit would be 3 points below the buy and the sell would be a target stop
Label it what you like it does the same thing
Gets you out where you want to.
Semantics
One of the things I have often noticed, is the human tendency to conflate just one, of multiple possible expressions, for a single concept, with the concept itself.I dont even know what you are talking about!! (pardon my ignorance of trader's quack!)
But a "Stop Loss" is defined as an order to sell in the future at a specific price, to my knowledge no one has previously tried to claim that a normal sell order is a form of "Stop Loss". Its certainly not in any online definition of "Stop Loss" that I can find.
As I said, its mad hatter's tea party stuff.
....Carry on
Couldn't they just spoof, layer, or ratchet the market, like so many professional market manipulators have been known to do in years gone by?Better veg. eater, the cost for an organisation to trip a stop in order to cause financial loss would be phenomenol. They would have to sell down or buy up and thus incur losses of their own when price reverses.
Those practices do happen but there is a disincentive. My reply to the context of the post is still an individual is extremely unlikely to have their stop triggered by an organisation.Couldn't they just spoof, layer, or ratchet the market, like so many professional market manipulators have been known to do in years gone by?
Well there is an old saying: "you are not a criminal until you get caught!"Those practices do happen but there is a disincentive. My reply to the context of the post is still an individual is extremely unlikely to have their stop triggered by an organisation.
"Law360, New York (August 8, 2017, 8:39 PM EDT) -- The Seventh Circuit’s unanimous decision Monday to uphold the conviction of Michael Coscia for a market manipulation tactic known as “spoofing” is a landmark ruling that removes questions about the constitutionality of the law banning such conduct, strengthening government efforts to crack down on the practice, experts said Tuesday."
Thank you everyone.
Some interesting ideas here.
It's almost as if it's not worth putting a stop loss unless you've already gained some capital growth in a stock & can afford to put a stop loss in place to save a dramatic fall.
Thanks!
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.