1. Market commentators say money’s going to be made by anyone who goes long volatility. You decide it’s time to:

2. Tomorrow is your birthday and you’re feeling good. To celebrate your birthday, you’re going to:

3. It’s vacation time. You’re on a tropical island and a street vendor offers you a bag of peanuts for 50c. You:

4. Selling short is inherently riskier than going long because:

5. The 3-6-3 rule is:

Check out what sort of trader you are on Spot the Sucker.

In his 1987 letter to shareholders, the masterfully quotable Warren Buffett said, “If you’ve been in the [poker] game 30 minutes and you don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.”

In the same letter, he said, “If you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game.”

Four Grades of Sucker

The equally masterful quote-smith, Jesse Livermore, categorized four grades of sucker:

The Beginning Sucker: has read little and knows little.

The Semi-Sucker: has read books about trading - usually written by higher-grade suckers. He can recite wise stock market sayings. He does not realize that reading books is not the same as trading experience. He loses money more slowly than the beginning sucker because he has learned some basic trading rules.

The Wall Street Fool: knows enough to make a profit if he sticks faithfully to his trading rules. The excitement of the market overpowers the fool; he trades more often than he should and loses his advantage over the market.

The Higher Grade Sucker: makes his money from selling trading books because he can’t make money in the markets.

Although Buffett and Livermore are at opposite ends of the financial spectrum in terms of buy and sell criteria, they wholeheartedly agree that if you don’t have some advantage over average market participants, you’ll lose money.

There are a lot of intelligent players in the markets and plenty of fools too. Unfortunately, too many stock market books try to persuade their readers that fools predominate, lulling the semi-sucker into a false sense of security. If only you will do what it says in the book (often with too little detail to put together a truly effective trading strategy) you’ll be successful.

Before you trade, you should have some idea of where your advantage is coming from. You should paper trade to verify your advantage.

Then you need to trade for real – this is hardest of all because once you have your own money in the markets, your emotional involvement increases. The emotions – greed and fear start kicking in - cause difficulties for many traders. Some find the advantage they thought they had evaporates.

So, do you call yourself a beginning sucker, a semi-sucker, a Wall Street fool, a higher-grade sucker or a successful trader? The best test is the direction of your trading account balance over several years. As an alternative, though, you could try passing the Stock Market Sucker Test.

A few days ago I wrote about the ludicrous Foolish Four technique of investing. The thrust of my criticism was that random number patterns in historical data can fool people into thinking they’ve found a new, profitable technique for trading. The new technique of course fails instantly when anyone tries to apply it to “live” data.

So when I’m testing trading methods, how do I avoid this sort of mistake?

I do this by testing the method on different data sets. I test on different stocks in different markets – say USA, Canadian, UK and Australian – in different time frames. I initially develop a method using old data – say from 1995 through 1999. Then I see if it’s successful in a different time frame – say 2000 through 2004. Finally I apply the method to more recent data. By going through this type of process, I get an idea of how robust the method will be and I am able to minimize the risk of being tricked by a chance pattern.

Of course, working like this has its drawbacks. You can’t do it in 15 minutes a year and you need to be able to count. But it does have the merit of seeming to work!

After an exciting week on the markets, one I’m sure Jesse Livermore at the peak of his powers would have relished, here are a few jokes - probably as old as Jesse - to ease us into the weekend:

“I’m giving you three weeks’ vacation,” said the boss at the investment bank.

“Wow, thank you very much sir.”

“And make sure you enjoy yourself. When you come back I shall have something very serious to say to you.”

***

The assistant at the meat counter had been fired and had sworn vengeance on the store.

He returned on Saturday, when the store was swarming with customers, and very publicly placed a dead cat on the counter, calling out cheerily,

“Hey guys, that’s the last of this week’s dozen.”

***
At the investment bank:

“Sir, there’s a debt collector in your office.”

“Tell him he can have the pile in my in-tray.”

I’m not an economist. I’m just a simple scientist turned stock trader who tries to take money from the markets whether they’re going up, down or sideways. Admittedly the latter isn’t so easy – but it can be done. It’s just not so profitable so I trade up or down in preference to sideways.

I’ll begin with an apology to economists. If an untrained economist were to write an article about physics or chemistry, it’s likely he or she would be given short shrift. So don’t take what I’ve got to say seriously. My opinions don’t matter – all that matters is my ability to take a steady flow of income from the markets.

And now for a little history…

On March 10 1988, an opposition MP goaded British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at “Question Time” about the way her Treasury (run by Nigel Lawson) was using interest rate policy and intervention in the foreign exchange markets to keep sterling trading in a tight band with the deutschemark. Mrs. Thatcher actually deeply disapproved of Lawson’s exchange rate policy and she replied - famously:

“Adjustments are needed, as we learnt when we had a Bretton Woods system, as those in the EMS have learnt that they must have revaluation and devaluation from time to time. There is no way in which one can buck the market.”

Unfortunately for United Kingdom taxpayers, Mrs. Thatcher’s successor, John Major, did not subscribe to her views. Under his government the UK joined the European Exchange Rate Mechanism at an unrealistic level. George Soros and others pounced on sterling, shorting it at considerable cost to taxpayers - whose money was recklessly wasted as the government sought to prop up sterling on FX markets.

Soros told the Times: “Our total position by Black Wednesday had to be worth almost $10 billion. We planned to sell more than that. In fact, when Norman Lamont [Treasury Chief] said just before the devaluation that he would borrow nearly $15 billion to defend sterling, we were amused because that was about how much we wanted to sell.”

Moving on a few years came the Greenspan Put. Following the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan – who had previously offered an opinion that stocks were overvalued – cut interest rates. Traders called Greenspan’s position “The Greenspan Put” because a put option gives investors the right to sell their stocks at a set price. Greenspan’s actions were seen as a guarantee to the market that he would keep cutting interest rates to prop up the stock market.

We can see the damage low interest rates and reckless loans have done to the economy. US consumers are expected to be the engine of world economic growth – even if they have to get into serious debt to do so. Every time consumers stop to get their breath back, they’re told to wake up and get out spending their money again (or more likely someone else’s money).

Today Ben Bernanke has talked about stimulating the economy again – through cutting interest rates and cutting taxes. This despite the fact that both inflation and government debt are already higher than anyone thinks is prudent.

It now seems all the more credible that the Fed. Chairman is trying to write the Bernanke Put. With the steep falls in stock prices today it seems the markets are telling him that - even with all the intervention in the world – they’ve realized that American consumers and taxpayers cannot go on borrowing forever to fund the expansion of their own and overseas economies.

Perhaps Ben Bernanke should pay heed to those famous words I’ve quoted from Margaret Thatcher?

Anyway, whatever happens, my job is simple. I just try to stay on the right side of whichever stock or market I’m trading. I’ll leave it to smarter people to fix the economy.

I’ve written before about how I started off as fundamental investor – placing heavy reliance on reports and data coming out of companies. I was also misguided enough to listen to what analysts were saying.

Like Jesse Livermore, I learned from my sucker’s mistakes. Experience taught me to pay less attention to reports and analysts and to pay more attention to whether the stock’s price is trending up, down, or just sloshing around.

Today, here’s another fine example – from Germany – of a company and analysts telling investors that everything was fine when its chart told an entirely different story.

Hypo Real Estate Holding AG had been insisting that it wasn’t exposed to the subprime crisis.

Analysts, as of 12.11.2007 were still recommending “BUY”.

Just last week ratings agencies S&P and Moody’s had the outlook for Hypo marked “STABLE”.

Meanwhile the chart was saying “SELL” and had been doing so for some time.

Finally, today, Hypo admitted a writedown of $580m (390 million euros) on debt it had bought. Given that Hypo’s total profit last year was 429 million euros, there’ll be little if any profit this year. In today’s trading, Hypo’s shares promptly lost one third of their value.

Somewhat incredibly, Hypo’s CEO, Georg Funke commented that Hypo’s management had “not made any mistakes”. In fact he said they had done a “fantastic job”.

Sounds like another good year for bonuses then.

Here’s Hypo’s 12 months “SELL” chart with today’s 30%+ fall at the end. Below the chart are recent analyst recommendations from Hypo’s website.

Chart Recommends “SELL”

12.11.2007 Analysts Recommend “BUY”