/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12517833

Just don't fall for the trading literature, too early. This is important, because if you do not have some knowledge you will find it very hard to determine the snake oil princes from proper...well let's say...scientifically feasible literature. If you are specifically interested in how trading at banks is done, you should look at: Duhon, Terri - How the Trading Floor Really Works [2012]. Should you be interested in how a market as an abstract concept works, see: Harris, Larry - Trading and Exchanges [2003] and Johnson, Barry - Algorithmic Trading and DMA [2010].

>>12428603

I still have to digest post no. 28, but what you said in >>12428603 is nearly all wrong:

"You are a regard trying to sound smart,which is why you don't use plain language." - Well, I have a PHD in model theory and I was under the assumption that I broke things down nicely using as few technicalities as I could. I honestly didn't intend to sound smart, I do not know what to say else about this accusation.

"Retail is far greater than institutional money in many asset classes." - At first I thought this must be false on all possible ways of interpretation, but there is CFDs and binary options. You c-o-u-l-d see this as "markets" and then the retail side clearly outnumbers the institutionals, but this is, of course, because no institutional would be dumb enough to do business in there. Speaking proper capital markets here...well then institutionals always outnumber retail guys.

"What you call "Quantitative Analysis" is just a more advanced version of TA. Meme lines are very old." - This clearly is wrong. I tried to argue for this above. TA is by no means a method or theory. Algorithmic trading however seen as quantitative finance put into practice can at least be put under proper statistically evaluation, because it can be formalized and is therefore (every algo on its own) a proper theory.

[again, have to split]