« April 2013 | Main | June 2013 »
Helen Keller, the American author, political activist and lecturer, learned to talk despite being deaf and blind.
Here she is with her instructor and lifelong companion, Anne Sullivan. In this footage (from 1930) Sullivan shows the way how Helen Keller learned to talk.
via Smithsonian.
Kind of cool.
At least summer travel will be easier ...
Here are some of the posts that caught my eye. Hope you find something interesting.
Sports are Big Business.
You may have heard that the highest-paid employee in each state is usually the football coach at the largest state school. Don't believe everything you read ... Sometimes it is the basketball coach.
Deadspin via Flowing Data.
Remember, though, the bulk of this coaching money—especially at the big football schools—is paid out of the revenue that the teams generate (not your tax dollars).
It is not limited to big State schools. I went to Duke, which is a small liberal arts college. Their basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski (better known as 'Coach K'), took home about $10MM. Good work if you can get it.
Life imitating Art.
Here is a version of David Bowie's Space Oddity, recorded by Commander Chris Hadfield on board the International Space Station.
Hadfield is not only an astronaut, he is a social media star who invited the world to experience space differently by sharing the photos and videos he captured during his stay on the International Space Station.
With deference to the genius of David Bowie, here's Space Oddity, recorded on Station. A last glimpse of the World. youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9d…
— Chris Hadfield (@Cmdr_Hadfield) May 12, 2013
In the clip, Hadfield floats around the space station singing the 1969 track (with modified lyrics such as, “Ground control to Major Tom, lock your Soyuz hatch and put your helmet on,”) and playing an acoustic guitar while gazing at Earth from space.
Kind of fun to watch.
If eating bacon really took minutes off your life ... I'd be in trouble. Good thing I don't believe conventional nutritional theories.
Here are some of the posts that caught my eye. Hope you find something interesting.
A year ago, investing in Apple and Facebook seemed like 'smart' choices.
Back in February 2012, when Facebook announced its plans to go public, the tech world went crazy. The hype was enormous over what many believed would become one of the biggest IPOs of all time.
On May 18, Facebook started trading at $38, giving the company an implied valuation of $104 billion. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be a sure shot investment, hasn't turned out that way. On its first trading day, the stock closed just above its IPO price but only thanks to the company’s underwriters, led by Morgan Stanley, who bought heavily to keep the stock above its offering price.
The next week, Facebook’s stock began crashing, and it did so until it hit rock bottom at a price of $17.73 on September 4th. Those who had bought shares at the offering price of $38 had lost 54 percent of their initial investment in less than four months.
After Facebook’s biggest lockup expiration in November did not trigger the feared fire sale, Facebook’s stock slowly started to recover. Carried by decent results and the introduction of mobile advertising products, the stock gradually climbed back up; but as of yesterday it was still closer to its all-time low than it is to its IPO price.
Those who bought Facebook shares at $38 are still down 30 percent, and there are countless investments that would have yielded better results over the past year.
Remarkably, even AOL and Yahoo, both Internet companies of the first generation, which had already been pronounced dead, would have been much better investment choices than the much hyped Facebook IPO.
via Statista.
Had you invested $1,000 in Yahoo shares a year ago, you would have $1,787 today, instead of the $688 that Facebook’s early investors have left.
Who knew?
Not sure it is dancing ... but it's fun watching.
You've got to respect the talent and practice that made this possible.
What are you committed to being this good at doing?
The chart below shows how an industry leader got replaced by an upstart.
No surprise here; you have seen it happen before.
Given enough time, the victor of many battles is still likely to lose the war. Positions of strength (which were won through hard work and much strategy) are often wiped away in what seems like an instant.
Successful companies are not immune to competition or entropy. As proof, the capitalist landscape is littered with the corpses of established products toppled by newer, cheaper products that (over time) got better and became a serious threat.
What Causes An Established Leader to Falter?
A closer inspection might suggest a deeper truth. Perhaps this marketplace shift happens when the established player places too great an emphasis on satisfying their customers' current needs (for example, myopically focusing on what got them here, rather than 'skating to where the puck will be ...").
In other words, companies are lulled into a false sense of security (by their progress, talent, infrastructure, etc.) and fail to adapt or adopt new technology that will meet customers' unstated or future needs. Consequently, such companies eventually fall behind.
The Chart Above Shows Only One of the 'Ripples'.
The chart in this post shows AOL (which was the first mass entry point to the Internet and e-mail) and how 'Broadband' was captured by someone else (Netflix). But it didn't just happen here. What about Blockbuster? Don't you think their executives saw Netflix coming? Still, somehow, a smart group of people chose to stick with their
'bricks and mortar' business model ... and lost billions in shareholder value.
This creative destruction is a tectonic force in our marketplace. There have been books written on it (like Clayton Christiansen's the "Innovator's Dilemma"), and yet it's often surprising what happens.
Huge Shifts Are Happening All Around You.
When the Internet first gained popularity, who suspected a whole generation of Americans would 'cut-the-cord' and still be able to watch TV and movies on portable devices? Neither of my sons owns a TV. Many in that generation don't subscribe to cable at their house. Why? Because they take for granted that they are able to stream the content they want to the device of their choice.
That means someone is winning and someone is losing.
The 'Old Way' Is Constantly Fading Away.
Sometimes I buy fitness supplements from a small nutrition shop next to the gym I attend. It would be cheaper and easier to buy it online; but, I want to support a local merchant (and have someone to talk to if I have questions). But how long will that last? I certainly don't buy computers at a computer store (or books at a book store).
Likewise, when I first started trading, I talked to my broker often. It was comforting to know that I wasn't alone in the dark. But when was the last time you called a broker truly expecting a tradable insight or a real edge?
Electronic trading is driving prices down, and I don't see how traditional financial service institutions can avoid the creative destruction of their old business models. I'm not just talking about how they interface with customers, even how they trade and manage risk has to change.
That doesn't mean that a new business model won't arise. Of course it will. The point is just because something's been done a certain way for decades, doesn't imply it's right. In fact, it is a neon sign pointing to a strategic danger or opportunity (depending on your perspective).
It is often by standing on the shoulders of the past that we are able to gaze into the future.
A change is coming.
Love this illustration of Thinking versus Doing.
Here are some of the posts that caught my eye. Hope you find something interesting.
The Rally Continues, Even Though Smart Money Expected a Short-Term Top
Traders are often confronted by mixed signals.
Personally, when I have to choose between something straightforward or something complex - simple is better.
For example, when large "Smart Money" traders show their directional bias, it often pays to follow in their tracks.
Another technique would be to bet against the smaller retail "Dumb Money" traders (because, historically, they are often wrong at major turning points.
However, if I have to decide between following "Smart Money" or doing the opposite of what "Dumb Money" does ... then in the absence of other information, following Smart Money wins because it is more straightforward and simpler.
Here is an example.
Smart Money - Dumb Money Confidence Index.
The chart, below, compares the bets made by small traders (a.k.a. the "Dumb Money"), to those of large commercial hedgers (a.k.a. the "Smart Money").
In practice, Confidence Index readings rarely get below 30% or above 70% (they usually stay between 40% and 60%). When they move outside of those bands, it's time to pay attention.
Even more noteworthy is when there is a wide confidence spread with bullish bets by the Dumb Money and bearish bets by the Smart Money. This type of sentiment spread only happens a few times a year. We often get substantial bullish reversals when that happens.
So, early last week, I took notice of this chart from SentimentTrader. The confidence spread it shows was pretty close to extreme levels.
Conventional trading wisdom says that Crowds are usually wrong at turning-points. That doesn't mean they are wrong all the time (yet, as discussed, it makes sense to notice when the Smart Money clearly disagrees). So, after such a strong rally, this is the kind of data that causes me to pay closer attention.
The Markets had been selling-off a litte. Would this be a trend-break or a buying opportunity? Would Smart Money start actively making Bearish bets?
As the next chart shows, two days was all it took to get back to the status quo.
That is why trend following works. Price is the primary indicator, and until it breaks down, dips will be met with buying.
Posted at 04:09 PM in Current Affairs, Market Commentary, Trading, Trading Tools | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0)