交易纪录

feng-pan 发表于 2010-10-19 01:42
今天标普指数仍在上周五形成的范围内盘整。成交量低迷，价格波动也不是明显测试支撑阻力的样子。

十分无聊的一天，什么都没有发生。

收盘前标普再度走出新高，也就意味着趋势没有结束，修正并没有开始。

但由于高点没有突破太多，在日线图上还没造成本质变化，所以持续了4天的大横盘范围仍然有效。

进入十月以来，就一直在亏损。虽然没有单笔的大额亏损，也没有低级的错误，但已经从月初的最高账面金额1400回撤到现在不到500。所以，我的交易一定出现了问题。

在5分钟图上仔细回顾了过去两周的盘面，数了数使用自己系统交易的触发次数，两周一共只有大概7次，其中4次应该是盈利，3次应该亏损。这7笔交易我都做了，一个也没错过。 如果按照这个结果的话，这两周的盈利应该是500美元左右。这个数额刚好是我的半个月盈利目标。

而事实是，我的交易系统是赚钱的，但这两周我反而亏损了200多美元。

所以问题出在了那些多出来的，不是系统交易的操作。这些非系统的操作，在两周的时间里共损失了700多美元！

其实我知道自己交易过度的问题，所以这两周的交易次数已然明显减少了，但明显还减少的远远不够。前一阵一天之内都能做10笔，而那时候的走势适合我的性格，也就没有看出弊端来。但进入9月底10月以后，市场大部分时间都在盘整中走高。我的交易方式的弊端就充分暴露了出来。

正好9月中我开始实盘，当时本金1000美元。到现在1个半月，大概感觉系统交易盈利了1000-1500美元之间，基本符合自己的盈利目标。但账户的金额却只剩下不到500美元，这说明过度的非系统交易让我总共亏损了1500-2000美元，一笔不小的数目。

所以我的本质问题就是做了太多的非系统交易。手上有一支下金蛋的鹅，却还在满地的石头里面找金子。这无疑是非常非常愚蠢的事情。

再深想一个层次，这里面的原因是很诡异的。我从来没有真正想过单纯使用系统交易的话，一周只有4-5次的交易频率可以赚大钱。但这一个多月的统计表明这是个严重错误的认识。

我知道交易系统的作用，也使用自己很好的交易系统，也从一开始就知道它能够赚钱。但真正的问题是，缺乏信念。

这就跟我对趋势缺乏信念同样错误。

我不太在乎已经的亏掉的钱，但我必须改掉这些错误，让以后不再承受这种亏损。否则的话，公正无私的市场是不会让我再次回到盈利状态的。

再解释一下为什么我坚持只使用系统交易（5分钟图的EMA系统）是如此的困难。

首先就是出现的频率非常低，平均起来少于一天一次。其次不是每次机会我都交易，如果头寸方向和小时图的结论不符，或者别的什么原因组织我交易，就会放弃不做。 再者就是这个系统的持单时间非常短，平均只在半小时左右；盈利目标也很小，只有20-30个点左右。

也就是说，如果单纯使用这个交易系统的话，需要一周五天，一天10多个小时全天候的看盘，但真正交易的时间每周不到2小时。  那么另外的48个小时里都要实时看盘，却不能交易。想想48个小时，会出现多少短线的机会，多少机会的盈利空间都大于20-30个点？所以总会存在让人觉得可以挣更多钱的幻觉，但那些看起来能挣钱的机会，在长期统计下来却是不挣钱的。

622# feng-pan 加油！  交易的过程就是不断地学习，总结的过程，及时出现问题并且发现并正视，才是交易艺术进步的根本原因。

China has domestic sources of inflation, but on the topic of imported inflation, it is possible only if exchange rate is pegged. Commodities are priced in USD. If exchange rate is freely floated, prices should not rise much in RMB (unless China also increases money supply). Anyone interested can google for gold prices in Australian dollars. Gold price has actually fallen this year.

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 02:59
When inflation pressure drives up prices, is central bank increasing the interest rate an intervention?

Why did inflation pressure occur in the first place? What would cause prices of EVERYTHING to go up?

When you think about it, ONLY the central bank is capable of causing inflation, by increasing the money supply.

Greenspan is blamed for causing the bubble. If he did not cause the bubble in the first place, he would not have been blamed for causing recession, because there would be no bubble to pop.

You are right though, government is part of the market, in fact the biggest market participant/manipulator. It's the same in every country.

交易之难在于抉择，心理层面。

ectopic 发表于 2010-10-19 08:07

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 02:59
When inflation pressure drives up prices, is central bank increasing the interest rate an intervention?

Why did inflation pressure occur in the first place? What would cause prices of EVERYTHING to go up?

When you think about it, ONLY the central bank is capable of causing inflation, by increasing the money supply.

Greenspan is blamed for causing the bubble. If he did not cause the bubble in the first place, he would not have been blamed for causing recession, because there would be no bubble to pop.

You are right though, government is part of the market, in fact the biggest market participant/manipulator. It's the same in every country.

When IT technology increased productivity significantly, there are more goods and services needed to be consume for the economy not slipping into recession. To create enough "effective demand", asset prices need to increase to make people richer and hence spend more. Do you call such increases in asset prices "bubbles"?  In the second half of 1990s, the US stock markets went crazy. People said it was bubble. Greenspan gave his famous speech of "irrational exuberance" in 1997. But some people argued that it was not bubble but properly reflected the fundamental increases in assets' potential future incomes. What should Greenspan have done at that time? Increasing the interest rate preemptively enough without clear signs of inflation?

非主流書生 發表於 2010-10-19 19:12
When IT technology increased productivity significantly, there are more goods and services needed to be consume for the economy not slipping into recession.

Are you serious? You think productivity gain leads to recession?

Greenspan gave his famous speech of "irrational exuberance" in 1997. But some people argued that it was not bubble but properly reflected the fundamental increases in assets' potential future incomes. What should Greenspan have done at that time? Increasing the interest rate preemptively enough without clear signs of inflation?

I think Greenspan should have done nothing, at that time, before that time, and after that time. Just let the market determine price of money (interest rate).

同学们，朋友们，中国央行加息了！！！  今天市场一片混乱！！