Seeking Alpha

OldWarrior's  Instablog

Send Message
I am a retiree who spends about 1-3 hours a day researching Equities. My retirement is solid enough that my trading account is mainly a hobby separate from my retirement. (I label myself more "Trader" than investor) I also spent a long career in Medicine, with experience running... More
My company:
Military Order of the Purple Heart
My blog:
  • Forum On The Tools And Philosophy Of, Peter F. Way And His Usage Of Market Maker's Hedging Strategies 35 comments
    Jan 1, 2014 12:44 AM

    Philosophy and Use of Tools



    Disclaimer: There are examples below of BlockDesk tools provided to me by them at my request as I was preparing this Blog. Any Tool so displayed without explicit reference to any source was so provided or obtained with the help of

    This Blog represents my opinions and research about my experiences with this investing philosophy while Beta Testing and does not necessarily represent the views and explicit ideas of either Peter F. Way, or the website They did assist me by providing certain tools and pointed me to many references to publicly available information. Still, the opinions and conclusions expressed are my own and those of the contributing posters.

    ADDITIONAL Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in I am an independent retail investor who may trade any stock at any time without notice. I do Beta Test the tools at, and have established my opinions from Data obtained from them; but I do my studies independently and at times my opinions may differ from those of Any opinions published here are my own. I try to maintain the highest standards of research possible without outside influence.

    As is now open for purchases of Data by the Retail Investor, I am more limited now in the obtaining and release of certain "current" data in order to abide by the TOC. Retail Investors are encouraged to browse their site as some data is still Free, and what products they are selling may change without prior notice to me.

    Some of the following data was provided to me without charge while the site was Testing. Certain products I have purchased and am sharing with the reader for their benefit. I am not a Financial Advisor, nor should the reader assume that my opinions have any greater intrinsic value than their own.

    My Opinions:


    Peter F. Way has written many articles on "Seeking Alpha" and elsewhere about a different philosophy of investing, which is far different from "Buy and Hold" or even "Market Timing". Instead, he follows Market Makers hedging activities in order to mitigate the risk they assume when investing money into stocks that they have to buy and sell to provide liquidity for their clients. This means having to find (often), a number of other buyers or sellers to accumulate or dispose of enough shares to complete their client's transactions. This means that they often have to put their own money "At Risk" in the process. The basic intent at the trading desk at a Market Maker is to keep the firm's net posture on each stock flat (neither net long nor short) and minimize the firm's end-of-day capital sequestration (aka "haircut") and Risk. To maintain this posture, they need to hedge those positions. This involves interactions with other MMs, who will sell or buy hedging insurance. The proprietary method that Peter has developed follows these hedging activities in order to discern the opinions of the very well informed traders at these institutions. These Market Makers most often have access to information before it is available to the "Retail Investor"(if ever available). At times this information is never available to the public, such as "Client investment strategies".

    This new investment philosophy requires somewhat more time and activity in investing than "Buy and Hold"; but has the potential (in my opinion) for far greater rewards than even most "Active Traders" attain. It means that one sets definite Price Targets or Time Targets (63 Trading days) at which point a position is closed. The "Annualized Return" displayed is based upon that provides a "Head-to-Head" comparison between stocks. You might consider it a "Normalized Number", to compare a stock that (for Instance) gains 5% in 28 days, to one that gains 6% in 32 days. As questions arose around this concept, I came to the conclusion that, instead of buying only one or two good looking stocks, the best way to "Play the Odds" was to buy a basket of smaller positions in the most attractive stocks, and look upon it as your own "ETF". One then looks at the entire portfolio as a whole. Is my total NAV going up or down? With the odds that Peter gives us in these tools, there should be enough gain in the winners to far offset the stocks not meeting their PT before the expiration of the Time Limit, though these stocks sold at a Time Limit may well still be profitable after 63 trading days. This is reflected in the Cred(ability) ratio.

    Here is where the power of time is realized. A stock that reaches it's PT in 30 days on average; is more desirable than a stock reaching the same % gained in perhaps 45 days.

    The first thing I found out after beginning to learn from Peter Way was that I had to change my approach to investing completely. I had to "Unlearn" so much that I had held true, such as Diversity means owning different sectors. Diversity is, in reality buying differently managed companies, whether in the same or different sectors. The information he offers changed my entire way of looking at stocks. I have never been a "Buy and Hold" investor, but I looked at stocks individually, and set "Stop Loss" orders. I was never quite certain about my sell points, so I set my stop losses arbitrarily at what I considered my Risk Tolerance. While I was successful the majority of times, I was distressed at the number of times a stock would hit my stop loss, then after I had been pushed out, would climb back far into where I would have been profitable. In other words, I had no sense of the value of TIME in investing.
    Then I read

    (click to enlarge)Power of Time

    It hit me then, that time is a cost of investing as much as Capital, Commissions and Fees. In fact, far more so as it is a "Power" rather than a linear cost. Think "Compound Interest". Instead of bragging about my "turning $50 into a fortune", I would just like to point you to Peter's articles on UPRO this last fall (2013) including:
    UPRO was ~$66 on August 29. That position closed only 20 days later, having met it's Price Target . One needs to extract the profits in order to experience "Compound Interest". If you just reset the time, it then is buy and hold, and you do not compound your interest. I compare it to a decision similar to Dividend Reinvestment. Dips from volatility become buying opportunities. I have found that, despite a stock looking even better on subsequent occasions, it is critical to stick with the strict discipline of selling at the PT set on the BUY date. If the position still looks good for a buy, one still must compare it to other potential buys. While the original stock may show a 92% forecast of (for example) 8% in 45 Market Days, there may be many other stocks with equal or better odds that are forecasted to reach their target in perhaps 30 days.

    While it is tempting to allow the Market Maker's DD suffice, one still has to do your own DD on any buy to make sure that it fits in with your diversity, philosophy, and any news that may have come out since the MMs set their PT. Even 1 day can alter expectations significantly. Further query's often indicate quite different prospects, and a stock may change very quickly. The information gathered is processed after Market Close, and news may change before the next day's open. Further investigations often indicate different prospects, and a stock may no longer be within the desired BR. Stocks do not always reach their PT, but the ones closed at TT are still often profitable. Here is where the Credibility Ratio helps. While "Past performance is no guarantee... Etc.", historical moves when a stock is in similar situations DO tend to repeat themselves, thus we are given "Odds" rather than the empirical "Buy, Hold or Sell" prognostications that Analysts so love.

    Best Products: I have found that a valuation that is good one day, may move far from a buyable point the next. In order to get the best results, a stock should stay buyable for several days, either consecutive or over the course of a week. This in not 100%, as I have seen stocks be buyable for only one day, yet generate double digit returns if bought at open the next day. If you can track a stock on the Volatility Tool (See Below), and it stays steady, then it probably stays buyable.

    PT=Price Target - The price at which Market Makers would close out a position, it having met it's predicted gain.
    TT=Time Target - The length of time in which a stock is expected to reach it's predicted PT. For my purposes, I will be using ~3 months, or ~63 Trading Days. At this time a position is closed, regardless of gain or loss.
    MM=Market Makers - The institutions that carry inventories of stocks in order to provide Market Liquidity. More can be read about Market Making at in the FAQ. and the article by Peter F. Way
    BR=Buy Range: This is usually at or near the current price of the date that the Tool was created, as MMs (being people) can and do change their forecasts on a daily basis. I personally would like to be able to see a prospect stay within similar odds over a couple of days within a 3-4 day period; but that will have to await the site going "Live".

    SP=Share Price

    DD=Due Diligence: For these products, much DD has been done by the MMs; but each individual has their own preferences, from buying "Green Friendly" stocks to, in the case of ETFs, exactly what their holdings are in order to reach their goal. Included in this is assessing one's Risk Tolerance.

    RI=Range Index: Quote from PFW "The Range Index is the simple calculation of the current market price minus the price at the bottom of the forecast range, divided by the price differences between the forecast top and its bottom. The RI value is the percentage of the price range that lies below the current market price."

    BTF= Block Trader Forecasts: Herein is the meat of the product. I will go very deeply into these further below.

    CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model)


    While stocks may look good on a BTF chart for one day, my best results have come from a stock staying within the "Buy" range (in my case ~87% or 7/8) for at least several days, and even better for an entire week. This not only gives me confidence that the stock is looked upon optimistically, but allows me to confidently add to positions on dips. An example was JAZZ, where the BTFs stayed over 90% even as the stock dropped from ~$133 to $122 around it's reporting period. Acting upon the confidence of positive BTFs, I added to my position several times below $130 from 5/8/2014 to 5/15/2014. Within ~40 Market days, JAZZ had broken my sell target of $150. A stock remaining within the buy range for many days is almost always a very positive sign to add on dips IMO.

    When doing DD on stocks I want to buy, I also do DD on the stocks I hold to see what, if anything, has changed. Some people may call this rebalancing, but that, to many people, infers selling losers. I now look at my total portfolio, and rather than paring off stocks that may be down but are still well within their estimated "lifespan"; I do not sell a stock that falls early in it's life, unless some serious event has occurred such as SEC issues, re-stating earnings, even the political climate or some other external force. That does NOT include the announcement of some Big Kid announcing they were shorting the stock. Early in a stock's ~63 Trading Day" span, such occurrences often create a "Short Squeeze" situation, which can propel a stock into closeout territory very quickly. If my DD reveals no other significant changes, these are often the best entry points. I point out the December 2013 such announcement on QCOR, driving the stock down 10+% to ~$50. As of Dec 27 2013, it had rebounded to >$54, at one point reaching $55. That was 10% in ~2 weeks. I'll let others annualize that, me, I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

    Using the Tools

    There is the temptation to call these charts; but they are better described as Tools, as Charts track historical fact, while these tools also contain forecasts. Some include historical points for reference; but they contain an element of forecasting as well.

    The first tool that I want to discuss has just been developed, and is a true "Screener". It is called the Odds vs Payoff Tool.

    As you can see, the estimated Odds% goes higher towards the right; and information calculated from column 9 below (% Payoff) decreases with height. In other words, the lower right quadrant is the target spot. I repeat, the % Payoff is not from "Sell Target Potential"; but from calculations made from historical data as it has been derived from results from similar Range Index and Odds, that have happened over the past 5 years. It is suggested that you do enough DD prior to buying this tool to have a promising list. has now released the number of stocks that one will be able to enter into this screener as 20. Of the stocks at the 100% level, many will be based upon small numbers of prior experiences; and therefore may not have enough prior data to be much more than a gamble. Stocks that plot from 85% to ~98% usually have more prior experiences. In the case of seeing a Tool like the above, I personally would be spending my money on BTF Tools for perhaps #'s 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and maybe 11.

    Volatility Tool

    This is another tool for tracking volatility and Risk of stocks. It needs no numerical labels as it is a way of tracking similar positions on the tool as days go by. First, the theory of the table.

    The main point here is that the Nobel Prize-winning model CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) mistakenly suggests that volatility is a reasonable proxy for risk. That is completely incorrect. If there were no volatility, there would be neither gain nor loss. Volatility is a necessary component of the market to present opportunity. It's better tracked by this, less cluttered tool. One can track movements around this tool with overlays, but volatility does not equal risk. This may be the hardest thing for investors to unlearn.

    This Tool is from the kind people at It plots the volatility towards the upper right; but the movement towards the upper left reveals only a stock's Range Index compared to previous plots. Your best way of establishing risk is from within the BTF Tools such as below. Once established, this Tool is extremely useful in tracking risk without having to buy extra BTFs as they should be used sparingly. There is where the combined wisdom of performance is applied; both from historical data, and the forecasts of the Block Traders. There is no shortcut to assessing risk. You must combine your DD, along with the BTFs
    Here is the resulting "Intelligence List" from one of Peter's Articles. Each row is derived from the BTF Tool for that stock.
    (click to enlarge)BTF Tool

    In reference to this tool, stock 12 (NYSEARCA:IYW) has by far the lowest RI at -2, but has a lower volatility than Stock 1. (NYSEARCA:XME). (XME) has a quite high RI, putting it higher on the Tool, but it's volatility (+10.4% vs -13.3%) is rather higher, putting it more to the right on the Volatility Tool. If one were to build Volatility tools over several days, one could well track the RI and Volatility of each of these stocks. I recommend using a graphic program that allows you to create overlaying layers of less opacity to track movements. My personal favorite is Arcsoft's Photostudio, but there are many out there. There is important data here; but I personally will use it to track movements of a small "Basket" of stocks. Once the website is open, I will use it to track movements of RI and daily volatility. RIs and Volatility predictions can change quickly following the ever-changing opinions of the MMs. They are human also, and as such often change their minds very quickly about a stock's prospects. External forces (think Tsunami), company announcements, credit rating changes, and much information not quickly available to the Retail Investor all change daily, and sometimes even hourly. Example is

    There is no "Cutoff Point" for RIs. They must be used in context with movements around historical RIs of a stock (see the Thumbnail images below).

    R-R Tool

    Used with permission

    I have had to re-learn the uses of the R-R Tool several times. At first I thought that it was only for tracking stocks Day-to-Day (which it does very well; but there are indeed other uses. This is quoted from


    Information Displayed

    Quote from that Article.

    "These maps plot on their horizontal (Reward) scale the percentage difference in price between the subject's market quote at the time of its near-future forecast and the top of that forecasts price range. Near-future means less than 6 months, typically 2-4 months."

    ( In My Words- The Horizontal scale is a forecast of Potential Upside from the Day of the Quote used, commonly 63 Market days for my purposes)

    "The vertical (Risk) scale, instead of being a forecast, draws from actual experiences from prior forecasts for the subject, where the balance between proportions of upside vs. downside had been similar to what is being seen at present. The risk measure extracted from those prior experiences is the average of each forecasts worst-case price drawdown during the 3 months following the forecast date."

    (In My Words-The Vertical Scale amounts to the average of historical maximum risks previously experienced on the way up to the forecasted Upside or over 63 Market Days, whichever comes first.)

    What could be unfortunate comparisons in these pictures?

    One unequal dimension in the above tradeoffs has to do with the number of risk experiences seen previously that were similar to the present-day forecast of upside-to-downside proportions. A single observation may show up for one subject's history, where dozens or even hundreds of priors were involved in measuring the average price drawdown of another."

    (In My Words-This means that a stock may display well, but in the BTF generated, there are not enough prior experiences to determine if a stock is buyable, no matter where it plots in the R-R Tool.) That is why I recommend the Odds vs Payoff Tool for Screening, then plotting in the R-R as a tracking tool.

    RI Tools was kind enough to send me a variety of Tool Views seen elsewhere when I inquired about them in order to help us understand more about the relativistic nature of RIs. Along with the RI information is a thumbnail Tool. You will see a range of Range Indexes along the bottom. Left to right are the plots of previous RIs. The height of the plot is the number of samples at similar recorded RIs up to 1261 (5 years of Trading Days). The further to the right the current RI is, the higher the RI. Once a plot has moved to the right of the peak; the less likely a stock with fewer previous experiences is likely to be buyable. Beware stocks with a fewer than 25 RI experiences and to the right of the peak. On the left side of the peak, low RIs in this area are very risky; but for the gambler, far more likely to succeed than the rightmost "Low Sample" RIs are.

    Here is what we are looking for:

    The combination of a fairly low RI, and quite a few similar experiences make this a less risky trade, and when DD is good, and if the stock has high odds (> 7/8), it is in a likely buyable range. Notice that the RI is to the left of the peak number of experiences. We look for a large number of good experiences similar to a present positive situation.

    High RI Few Samples
    Here is an example of few samples, and a high RI. This would be a high risk trade, and unlikely to even generate a "Probability" score. It might show up against the "100%" line in the 'Odds vs Payoff" Tool, if at all, often a stock entered into the list to be analyzed will be excluded from being plotted in the Tool due to lack of data or expectations by the MMs. Notice along the bottom they list the total number of RIs that they have recorded. Newer Issues will naturally have less experiences, and several articles has stated that less than 3 years of experiences is suboptimal for the real "magic" to occur.

    Even fewer previous experiences make this also very risky trade, but the lower RI may make this a target for a true "Gamble" trade. Again, there are just too few prior experiences to generate any further reliable data. You must rely entirely on DD before gambling here.

    Here is a situation with a large number of total experiences, but still few experiences of similar RIs. Another high risk trade, but because of the low RI, probably a better gamble than stocks with less experiences.

    RI Thumbnail
    Here is an unusual situation. Spikes in the RI Tool indicate periods of time when the MMs have non-current expectations, probably repeating for days on end within the 5 year history. DD MUST find an explanation for these episodes; or you could find yourself with a stock "edited out" of the R-R Tool for lack of MM expectations. Sometimes these are caused by stock splits or M&A events, in which case one has to decide if the risk is worthwhile. Here I refer to the "Editing Out" which Peter had to do in a recent article on ETFs. I lost the bookmark to this, but maybe others recall that one of the first commenters asked where certain stocks had disappeared to. The answer, as I recall, was that those stocks had been edited out and replaced with others due to lack of data. I regret my inability to link this article.
    There is much more to write, especially about the BTF Tools, as well as using this information in a "Bear Market". So far within the last 5 years we have had some corrections, but no true Bear Market such as 2008-09 to draw data from. That said, Stocks with above average RIs, and low probability scores most often do not do well subsequently; and may be Short candidates. Not participating in Options atm, I will let others speak to such strategies.


    Here we get into the real meat of the value of Peter's work.

    This is an example of a BTF Tool

    (click to enlarge)BTF Tool

    This consists of 3 parts, the top tool includes a chart of prices over either 6 months or 2 years, depending upon buyer's choice. With each price point is the forecast High/Low price range. Two things of note here, one is how quickly the MMs can change forecasts. The other is in the second and 3rd tool parts. The red box indicates that the number of prior experiences is low. The RI Tool shows that the RI is far to the left, which makes gain more likely than if it was to the far right.

    The middle tool

    Range Forecast High and Low=The actual predicted price range forecast.

    Current Price and Sell Target Potential - self explanatory.

    Drawdown Exposure - Different from Low Price potential. I Quote Peter here: The drawdowns are not part of the implied forecast ranges. They come from the test of prior RIs like the present RI.
    When we applied our standard test of how instances worked out in the next 3 months, or until they reached their sell targets, each one of them had some worst-case price drawdown. In an ideal situation, when the forecast was at the bottom of subsequent price progress, that worst-case would have been 0%. In all others, the actual price experience would be below the cost price of the equity following the forecast, some negative percentage change." Now in this particular graphic, there was only 1 prior, but the definition applies to all BTF Tools. it is NOT the Low forecast as a %, but is derived from an average of all past "Bad Experiences.

    A similar but Opposite description applies to the "%Payoff" block, but is derived from an average of all past "Good Experiences".

    The rest of the information is also rather self explanatory except the "Annualized" column, which is described in Peters Article;

    " In each case, divide the closeout price [cp] by the end of day price the day after the forecast (it being the assumed cost of investment) [ic]. Set the result [r] aside.

    When all instances of interest have been measured, add up all of the calendar days [d] it took to reach all of the closeouts. Count the number of instances that have been measured [n]. Multiply any one result by all of the others, one at a time, and take the [n]th root of the product to get what is known as their geometric mean [gm]. Then divide the total number of days [d] by the number of instances to get an average holding period [hp] for each instance.

    Now take the [gm] and raise it to a power of (1 divided by the [hp]) to get an average rate of change per day [dc]. Then raise the [dc] to the power of the number of calendar days in a year to get the annual rate of change [ar], which is what is wanted when comparing things with different natures over different periods of time.

    For those with an algebra fetish, here is that process in letters rather than numbers:

    [r] = [cp] / [ic]

    [gm] = (r*r*r*r…)^ (1/[n])

    [hp] = [d]/[n]

    [ar] = ( ( [gm]^ (1/[hp]) ) )^365)-1"

    Detailing the Intelligence List;

    In an attempt to avoid "Information Overload", The people at sent me this colorized "Intelligence List".

    ((click to enlarge)

    Yellow is quote data, gold is their proprietary analysis or derived directly from it. Blue is historical performance of the issue when the MMs valued its RI similarly in the past.

    This is an example of a more attractive looking Intelligence List of Long Levered ETFs from

    Dec 30 Long Levered ETFs

    Remember that these Tools are not current, and are only for demonstration purposes. I call your attention to the 2 rightmost columns. The "R ~ R ratio is a simple math ratio of Upside Sell Target Potential/Drawdown Risk. We saw a very important column in the "next-to-last" column above labeled "Cred-Ratio".

    Concerning the "Cred Ratio", I am going to quote Peter's explanation from the referenced article.

    "The Cred.(ibility) Ratio is a simple measure of how the current sell target upside prospect is supported by the previously achieved % payoffs from similar Range Index events in the sample from history. That test is, when subjected to our standard test of 'was the sell target reached in 3 months, and if not, when closed out, what was the average simple % gain on all of the experiences?' "

    Since this was published, Peter has changed the Cred Ratio expression to a different display, where what was 100% is now 1, 150% - 1.5 etc. Aditionaly, Peter has added a new column, the "Weighted R-R", which is not a measurement in that it has no "value" attached; but adds extra weight to those stocks with more samples experienced, and less weight to stocks with few samples.

    **The Cred Ratio is especially important when a Graphic Display is confusing with many spikes or "Flat-Line" areas when there were no daily expectations. Any confusing graphic display should lead you to look at the Cred Ratio, and in my experience, any Cred Ratio below .9 (90%) requires extra DD before a purchase.

    Something I should discuss on the BTF Tool is that you can look at historical data and often see where there were "Buy Ranges" and "Sell Ranges". The placement of the price on the vertical bar is simply the graphic display of the Range Index. What you can spot is where the price block climbs above the top of a previous Range. That is the Price Target established on a prior day. Below is a Tool of Amazon that points out several probable BR days, (Green Lines) and when the price broke the top of that day's Price Target. This may be confusing a bit, but not having the daily Odds available on these previous days, I can only say that if purchased on the Green line day, and selling on the corresponding Black line day, the PT was hit prior to the 63 day Time Target.

    The first image is not annotated so you can better see the "Buy" price positions. My Annotations are a bit clumsy

    (click to enlarge)

    These Tools do not IMO represent DD; but present a valuable tool from which I would select favorable looking stocks upon which to do fundamental DD. I am not a "Technician" who relies upon technical data only.

    This is the updated Risk/Reward Tool of th 35 lesser known stocks in the article

    Using Intelligence Lists

    Assuming a purchased Intelligence list contains 20 stocks or more;

    I take the top 10 from the R-R, Volatility and Win Odds Tools after the next day is finished. I want to make sure a stock stays favored for 2-4 Market Days. I then look at the SP history charts from elsewhere. Taking from that, the best 6, then do DD at brokerages sites as well as other sources such as recent SEC filings. While no one factor is a definite BUY, I can often find preponderences pointing either way. That said, I sometimes find a single "Don't Buy" signal such as SEC problems that are decided against a company, or things in their SEC filings that are hidden at the bottom. (I once found a fair looking stock; but in a disclaimer, they stated that they did not have the assets to meet their Notes Due in the next 30 days.)
    I settle on 4 after 2 Market Days, and will add 4 more after 3-5 Market Days. The entire list will be treated as 1 "ETF" with a Purchase Date as rated at the date of the Intelligence List Data and Target Prices established and Sell Target Date established from the date of the original list.


    IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT is now open to the Retail Investor for the purchase of Intelligence Lists, and may offer other products at any time.


    To Contact, Email .



Back To OldWarrior's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (35)
Track new comments
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1220) | Send Message
    Dear OW,
    I applaud your tenacity. I have been following Peter W. for some time now. I have to admit that I still can't read the charts Peter puts up even with the explanations. Thanks for putting up your interpretation of PWs methodology but I still don't really get it. I have a couple of tracking portfolios that I set up using PWs articles as best I could an they have had unbelievable positive results, maybe dumb luck on my part.
    Happy New Year and profitable trades.
    1 Jan, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » What questions can you think of specifically?
    From what I see, his tracking system has a definite edge if you take a basket of stocks, and look at the portfolio as a whole. We are working with derived but very well informed opinions of the MMs. When I see numbers like 7/8 or 87.5% and up, it means that:
    These being people's "Opinions", there will be occasional losers; but I don't sell losers until the ~63 Trading days have passed, nor sell winners below the Target Price unless the Time Target has passed. The reality is that there sometimes are external forces (as stated above) that make me bail out early. My history is that if I just enter the stocks in my Watch List, I win ~60+% on price target, and run ~90% overall positive. The total portfolio gains far outweigh the ~10% losers. The reason my score is not higher is that those numbers come from a lot of "Paper Trades" on which I did not do DD. I just cannot do DD on even all of the top 10 or 11 stocks of all the different stocks he writes about. When I invest, I do up to 3-4 hours of DD (depending on my investment size).
    He brought in a new metric (Cred-Ratio) that he revealed today in
    The Credibility ratio. As he explains it, it is a measure of not just stocks hitting their PT, but adding in the ones that hit their ~63 Trading days profitable. There are always stocks that do not hit the top of the opinion in time, but are still profitable when closed out on Time.
    I'm going to add that tool after I get a better handle on how that works. It's going to take some checking my "Watch Lists" and entering some new calcs in my spreadsheets. I'm sure I'll have an opinion on it well before I complete my analysis. <grin>
    May you have a happy and profitable New Year as well.
    1 Jan, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1220) | Send Message
    I guess it would make more sense to me if each parameter (column) had some kind of written expectations. For example What is desirable in a range index, sample size etc.
    1 Jan, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • JustALittleGuy123
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message


    As I understand it, the Range Index (column 7) tells ONLY a PART of the story about the MM's percieved value of the issue, fund or index. The MM's expect the price of the issue in question should ordinarily be within a range, set in their minds as limits of being over- or under-priced. The upper and lower limits are the values given in columns 2 and 3. Sell Target Potential (column 5) is straightforward math using columns 2, 3, and 4.


    But the RI alone isn't enough information to make an intelligent choice to invest or not, because the MM's may not have enough prior experience (that's the two Sample Size values-- prior occurrences, and the timespan of available data; some issues are younger than 1261 market days). Historical analysis of those prior occurrences and what degree of accuracy the stock performed as predicted by the MM's reveals the Worst-Case Drawdown number, along with the average gains, and other attendant follow-on result data from the historical tabulation of MM's success are given in columns 6, 8, and up.


    Hope this is helpful.


    2 Jan, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • anarchist
    , contributor
    Comments (1220) | Send Message
    OK, just looking at the top 6 of PW's last Chart I calculate that FAS is the pick of the litter. It does have a possible -11% draw down but it has an R-R of 1.1, 200 of 1193 samples, payoff of 13.7%, annual return of 191%, hold time of 30 days. Some are better in every column but FAS seems, to me to be the best overall.


    Am I anywhere close to being correct.
    2 Jan, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » You are correct in reading the data as presented, so I may be successful in teaching you the usage of that particular "Tool". It shows all the data you mentioned, so I believe you now understand what it says.
    My purpose here is to explain the Tools usage, which you seem to be beginning to understand. These tools are for demonstration purposes only.
    I only chose that Tool because it shows the new "Cred Ratio", which has not been present prior to then. I did not post that Tool to recommend stocks, but to show what information can be gleaned from BlockDesk Tools. I will not be updating that list of stocks here; but I believe Peter will be updating them over time in future articles.


    According to that article, (at ) all of the top 6 are discussed further below in that article. My suggestion is to read that article for the discussion of them. You might throw your ideas around there. If you find several choice stocks in that article, then you can concentrate your DD on them.
    No "Tool" is a substitute for DD.
    In Addition, you also have to assess your "Risk Tolerance".
    2 Jan, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » For sample size, as I state above, <25 is not desirable, <13-15 is probably statistically insignificant, meaning; if you look at stocks with less than 25 similar experiences, there is increased risk of inadequate data, below~13-15, there really are not enough experiences for a viable assessment. For RI, there is no absolute cutoff number, you just compare the number of prior experiences at that RI, and the historical odds of success at that range, keeping in mind the "Days Held" reveals the column Annualized return. Time must be thought of and considered as "Compound Interest" If a stock yields 5% in 25 days, it is more desirable than one that yields 5% in 50 days by a power of > 2.
    If you receive the 5% in 25 days on $1, then you have $1.05. 5% more in another 25 days =1.1025. Thus the power of TIME. Time is a cost even more powerful than Commissions and fees.
    The entire object of these tools is to minimize the time invested in order to maximize the annualized returns, while minimizing risk.
    I did not put up a particularly desirable list of stocks here, but the next one will be. If you go to the link in my previous answer, that is the better list, but I do not yet have the R-R tool to compare it to. Please go there and study the comparisons of the best/worst there. The lowest rated have ~8 prior experiences, taking away their validity.
    I will hopefully have the R-R tool soon, so I can put them up together.
    2 Jan, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » I just updated the page with a colorized list, and new information. I hope this clarifies things some.
    2 Jan, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • crademan
    , contributor
    Comments (910) | Send Message
    Thanks for an interesting blog post. Peter F. Way's investment method is difficult for a new investor to understand. Looking at the first BTF chart, (VDE) has a Win Odds/100 score of 79 and a Payoff Target of 84%. (IYH) has a Win Odds/100 score of 93 and a Payoff Target of 108%. (VFH) has a Win Odds/100 score of 100 and a Payoff Target of 154%. (VDC) and a Win Odds/100 score of 100 and a Payoff Target of 131%. (XLI) has a Win Odds/100 score of 100 and a Payoff Target of 168%.


    How could an investor use this information as part of due diligence? Is the Win Odds/100 score more important than the Payoff Target? How could one use the other factors in the chart to select an investment?
    4 Jan, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » The first thing I want to point out is that these forecasts change daily, and these are old forecasts, so they are not relevant to current expectations. For the most current expectations you need to follow current articles by Peter F. Way. These Tools are for demonstration purposes only.


    I'll answer the easy question first. This is not part of Due Diligence; as DD IMO is looking at a stock's Fundamentals as opposed to the Technicals. These Tools are a new form of Technical analysis, and when current, provide a variety of stocks to do Due Diligence on.


    Second, what you want to look at are short segments of time, which stacked together create a "Potential" annualized rate. By that I mean that the element of Time is not 1 year; but the time in the "Days Held", or 63 Trading Days, whichever comes first. I apparently gave a very inadequate description of each statistic, which I will correct tonight.
    The last column in the first BTF Tool is not rate of return but Credibility Ratio. Here I quote Peter's description of that as at the end of the Article.
    Concerning the "Cred Ratio", I am going to quote Peter's explanation


    "The Cred.(ibility) Ratio is a simple measure of how the current sell target upside prospect is supported by the previously achieved % payoffs from similar Range Index events in the sample from history. That test is, when subjected to our standard test of 'was the sell target reached in 3 months, and if not, when closed out, what was the average simple % gain on all of the experiences?' "
    From the article


    Please come back in a few hours in which time I will update things.
    4 Jan, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Blog Updated. I hope this clarifies things.
    4 Jan, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • jranyak
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
    Thank you OW. Your post helps a lot. Looking over the abbreviation list, I drew a blank on DD. Where is due diligence defined? Isn't PW's ranking of stocks and ETFs the sum of due diligences by BTF of MM's superior DD? What value can I, an unsophisticated seat-of-the-pants investor, hope to add to this grand collection of market wisdom? I'm so impressed with the results they're getting from the 2013 charts that I hesitate to impose any other filters. With PW's addition of Cred Ratio we may be able to cherry pick candidates for portfolio turnover. You say as much in your first comment to "anarchist", but I would like to know what DD your experience would suggest be used on the candidates. In my comment to PW (which you kindly answered), I pointed out how the BTF rankings were inconsistent over time; hoping for a general clarification. Their method of selection may be random to a degree so as to avoid simplicity at this stage of their evolution. Followers of BTF charts need to know, one way or the other, how to pick from their copious lists week by week. Your blog is helping us prepare for the launch of the new service. Thanks again from an older warrior
    5 Jan, 01:39 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » First Welcome Home!
    You are partially right on the MMs having done DD to reach those projections; but they also have clients who give them info on what they are looking to buy, so IMO, that influences their Short Term "shopping Cart". If they know "X" Retirement fund is buying or selling a position, in the near term that stock will move. Whether other investors jump on (or off) is unknowable.


    Thus the description of investing as a "Game"


    Previous to this Blog, I had one on Due Diligence, which was obsolete and I pulled it for re-write. I will try to get it back up ASAP.
    In the meantime, for DD, one needs to look at the fundamentals of any stock for indications of things like SEC investigations, Company Announcements, Etc. Yes the MMs do far greater DD with information unavailable to us; but I have seen them change their minds quickly on some issues over time. Imagine what would happen to Ford if Mulally(sp?) suddenly announced that he was going to MSFT. Even the MMs don't know everything.
    I'm going to add a BTF tool soon to show how quickly they can change projections. Remember that they are as human as you or I, thus they "Hedge". Think of what we might do to buy some puts to reduce losses if one of our "longs" tanks unexpectedly. The MMs hedges are far larger and far far more complex. Their very hedging activities is what Peter follows in order to glean this Data.
    IMO much of their projections are based on "normalized" markets, and they get caught by surprise just like us on occasion.


    My personal DD involves reading SEC filings, and tracking insider trading. I also look at "Analysts" reports, not for their opinions; but for things they say that might be worth confirm/deny investigation.


    My ideal Portfolio is from 5-10 positions, while PFW often reveals 20-30 good candidates per month. I need to look at a number of them, and pick out the ones that 1) keep me diversified, 2) fit my Risk Tolerance and 3) fit into my investment objectives. I cannot buy every good looking stock, so I need ways to select what I buy.


    After initiating a Portfolio, certain stocks hit their closeouts at differing times, so it is not like "Quarterly Re-balancing"; but watching the whole portfolio, and trying to anticipate what sector I might buy into next.
    Therefore DD is done both before seeing Peter's revelations; and after to pick out which of 5-6 best (as seen in the top of the Long Levered list above) that suit me to replace a position near closeout. I did not build a watch list from that particular article; but there is the likelihood that more than one of those top 6 will not reach their Price Target within 63 market days. It's far too soon after publication to know as yet.


    I hope that others may join in with DD ideas in addition to my own. In any event, that list is now a week old, and as such is no longer reflective of the MMs current opinions.
    Again I suggest looking ar the FAQ at and reading the referenced articles at your leisure.
    5 Jan, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • JustALittleGuy123
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message


    Your specific needs may be some of the MOST IMPORTANT filters of DD. You may have specific concerns about what you feel is ethically worth your investment dollars, or fits into your desires for maintaining certain diversity requirements, etc.


    You are likely to know of certain companies you feel are operating in industrial sectors that run counter to your moral values, or you might feel they are leading society in a bad direction. You would never give them a dime of your business, and would never provide them with your investment capital. That is a very personal filter.


    Can you elaborate on your observation that BTF rankings were inconsistent over time? My experience with them suggests that on any given day, the MM's will have new and fresh concerns, and their valuations will change accordingly. The MM's derive an outlook about what would be a reasonable price range, and that range *should* change from one day to the next, because the world isn't a static system. It is in a constant state of change.


    Peter's recent article: describes in detail ways that BTF data can be used as criteria for selection/deselection.


    Good luck in your investing!


    12 Jan, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • dekarate
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
    Some of the ETFs tracked by PW are leveraged indexes. This is both a plus and minus. DD in this case is nearly impossible as it is tied to sector or class of stocks. For example UPRO is leveraged to the S&P 500. Granted ProShares runs the ETF so there is some DD possible to insure that the ETF manager/company is up to snuff, but that turn over or negative events is relatively rare. The good news is that a single corporate event rarely tanks the entire S&P500, except on a short term news cycle basis, far shorter than the 63 day timing cycle. And this could be considered a level of DD in the case of a short term price influence.
    The idea of leveraging the MM info does provide the small investor greater insight into the market herd. What could be of concern though the that the hedge funds have for the past several years under performed the market. This goes back to the importance of the time variable. Should I be happy at selling at a 1% gain in a day and repeating that once a week or a 30% gain over a year from a buy and hold approach? The former compounds to a higher annual return, but the later is still a great return. Using an arbitrary time period, 63 days in PW's model splits the difference of a day trader and that of the buy and forget Buffet approach.
    8 Jan, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Certainly the first thing that comes to mind is how much interest are they paying on their leverage, so it's good to know their S%P or Moodys or whoever Rating they have. Also, their management fees. An Index Fund with over ~.5% fees is overpriced; considering that they are not "Actively Managed" (I found no fees charged in my cursory glance; but have not read their Prospectus). A quick look at their (UPRO) history shows that they lost money in 3 of the 4 Q FY 2011. To me that says that they do not manage risk well in an adverse climate. Over the last week things have gotten again adverse. If it continues, I personally would look elsewhere, especially with the huge Margin Requirements relative to non Levered. UPRO not being a Hedge Fund, means that possibly good decisions in their positions have hurt the "Hedgers" I have no way to confirm that, it's just my suspicion. If true, the HF's bit back in 2011.
    13 Jan, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Part of my DD on ETFs is looking at their holdings. Especially the Levered ETFs buy stocks as well as the Index. As stated elsewhere TQQQ holds AAPL in addition to Index Funds. What with AAPL being a heavyweight in that index anyway, a tank in just 1 company CAN hit the Levereds hard, or equally, a spike can make oversized gains. What I like to see is positive forecasts in both the Levered and the non-Levered ETF of a sector.
    DD need not be as intensive on ETFs as for a single stock; but it's nice to know exactly what their holdings really are.
    For the Math-minded, the formula for time is expressed in:
    For some formatting reason, I cannot quote the formula here.
    In my next edit, I'll add it as a jpeg file.
    8 Jan, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » I just did some minor editing concerning the RI definition, as well as the Cred Ratio. Peter used a different expression in the Cred Ratio in a recent article that went from % to a <example> 1.2 or 1.3. so am awaiting what format he will eventually settle on. It's still relative to previous positive experiences, so the definition is unchanged.
    11 Jan, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Latest Edit contains the whole BTF Tool
    13 Jan, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • Learner16
    , contributor
    Comments (105) | Send Message
    Thanks, OldWarrior, for the instapost. It helps to understand Peter's work better. Do you think it might be useful to find stocks or ETFs to short, too?
    17 Jan, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » My research on finding possible Shorts is only halfway through the quarter; but so far, the stocks with the lower odds ratings are not as predictive as the placement of the Price Block on the daily estimated range. The higher on that vertical bar, the poorer the subsequent performance over the intervening time period. Think of that vertical bar as a reverse fuel gauge. Low on that bar indicates potential upside, while high on that bar is the reverse.
    I am going to try to get some deeper info from Blockdesk to get actual numbers.
    10 Feb, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Just yesterday (Thursday), I started rooting through Peter's articles for those with long lists of stocks mentioned to "bottom-feed". If you have bookmarked such pages, and can find stocks with under 30-40% odds, feel free to post them, or at least a link to them. Since we have not had a real "Bear Market" within the last 5 years, I am kind of starting from scratch. If you are really ambitious, you might pull up charts on those poorly rated stocks to see if they broke their "Forecast Lows" within 3 months of the date they were rated. This is probably only useful if the forecast lows were greater than the upside price target. By Forecast lows, use column 2, not "Worst Case Drawdowns", as that metric is different than the forecast lows. What I want to see is stocks that were rated with more forecast low than forecast high. and throw out anything that did not fall >~10-20%+ or $10-$20+.
    As I start from scratch, it will take me from 1 to 3 months to get enough Data, unless I can get some screened data from Peter. Once I get the data processed, I'll have to look back at Analysts forecasts like Zacks "Bear of the Day" to see if this method beats the Street. It's probably enough work for someone to do a PhD Thesis on.
    When I mentioned this idea on one of Peter's articles, his reply was that in his experience, MMs were better at forecasting winners than losers. The idea being that once a stock falls below a certain threshold, they move on to better looking stocks. The price of hedging such losers is probably just too expensive.
    18 Jan, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Added a few paragraphs about trading in the current market; but I still have inadequate data to judge's usage in Bear Markets.
    24 Jan, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Please message me if you desire a Skype tour of to include analysis of DOW Stocks.
    26 Mar, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » The value of the Credibility Ratio is hard to underestimate. I quote from my latest addition:
    ""The Cred.(ibility) Ratio is a simple measure of how the current sell target upside prospect is supported by the previously achieved % payoffs from similar Range Index events in the sample from history. That test is, when subjected to our standard test of 'was the sell target reached in 3 months, and if not, when closed out, what was the average simple % gain on all of the experiences?' ...
    **The Cred Ratio is especially important when a Graphic Display is confusing with many spikes or "Flat-Line" areas when there were no daily expectations. Any confusing graphic display should lead you to look at the Cred Ratio, and in my experience, any Cred Ratio below 1 (100%) requires extra DD before a purchase.**"
    A negative Cred Ratio is, to me, a Red Flag. There are not many situations where I would buy a stock with a negative Credibility Ratio.
    7 Apr, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » This is now an open forum for discussion of anything directly related to, the philosophy and strategies as expressed by Peter Way, and anything that may have a bearing on pros/cons of such. Although moderated, or their representatives are not responsible for the content herein. Blame it all on me.
    11 Apr, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • rmpalpha
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
    As someone who is a follower of Peter Way's investment strategy, I am curious whether you have explored the new Blockdesk subscription website, and if so, what are your opinions?


    I recently did so, and must state my disappointment. The essence of Peter's integration of his investment strategy has been the filtered tabulations of securities ("Best of's") that Peter has been publishing in his SA articles; but I do not find this feature on the subscription website. Instead, there are a collection of limited-access tools that are interesting, but not actionable. The filtered tabulations, and the associated forecast data for each equity, contained actionable data that I actually have used for selecting equities.


    Am I missing something? What is your opinion?
    24 Apr, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » In addition to the DOW 30, I have been told that I can also use Intelligence lists from Peter's recent articles as examples to guide you through in a Video Call using my access privileges, thus avoiding using up your allowances. This applies to all users who have been given access.
    If you DL Skype, I will show you my screen as we walk through. You need not show me your screen nor video from you.
    24 Apr, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » As a Beta Tester, I have had access to the site for quite a while and here is my experience:
    I first find a list of promising looking stocks on my own, or selected from Peter's articles. The site expects you to bring your own list of stocks with potential.
    I then run them through the Odds/Payoff, Volatility and R-R tools in that order. In the Odds/Payoff tool, I look for stocks that are rather "Center-Right" located. The far right stocks are quite often (but not always), the stocks with a lack of data; but stocks between the 90 and 98 range towards the right, and lower on the plot are what I look for. I only look at stocks better than ~90% to the right and greater than (lower on the page) ~4-5% down from the top unless it is a stock I already own.
    If you look at the very first tool above (Odds vs Payoff), the stocks in the "Sweet Spot" are 2, 3, 5, 6, and 9.
    I extract stocks from that list for further research. I check their volatility to make sure they are "movers", then run BTF Tools on the most promising ones. If I am only looking to buy 1 stock, I would only pick the 3-4 best looking ones like 3, 5,6, from that Odds List. If I am looking for more than 1 buy, I add usually 2 more BTFs for each additional buy. In that way I create my own "Intelligence List".
    What Peter publishes frequently are pre-screened "Intelligence Lists", but I am told that in order to get pre-made ILs of that nature requires a higher level of access than we currently have. You can ask about such Intelligence Lists.
    Having created my own list though, I am down to 3-5 stocks upon which to do additional Due Diligence. Before I buy a stock, I run BTFs on that stock over 3-5 days (2-3 looks), to make sure it stays in the Buy range.
    What my target is, is to eventually have 4-8 stocks in my inventory as kind of like my own "ETF". I then have diversity in both time and price Targets. After that, I watch the total NAV of my list. out of 8, I can usually expect at least 6 to be profitable if not all 8; but only about 3 to hit a PT>8-10%, while the profits on the rest outweigh any that do not perform.
    I can give you a "Skype" tour for demonstration purposes if you want to see this process visually. We can use your access with my hints, or I can use the Dow 30 as a "Starting List".
    24 Apr, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » As of 6/25 the 2014 ytd aggregates are:
    total recommendations: 237
    closed out by target or time:125
    average calendar days held: 65
    average net gain: 5.0%
    Annual Rate of Return: +31.7%
    S&P500 ytd AROR: +12.1%
    % winners in closeouts: 70%
    % winners in still-opens: 81%
    recommendations still open: 112
    aggregate opens value to cost :100.4%
    28 Jun, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • rbfallon
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
    "What Peter publishes frequently are pre-screened "Intelligence Lists", but I am told that in order to get pre-made ILs of that nature requires a higher level of access than we currently have. You can ask about such Intelligence Lists."


    I have emailed blockdesk twice over the last couple of weeks asking for pricing and availability for these pre-screened Intelligence Lists with no response....maybe you could get the details for your us?
    3 Jul, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » I will forward your post to them, and possibly they can shed some light on when such lists and the cost of such will be available. I believe they will go "Live" very soon, so they are very busy and answering emails might be pushed back on their priorities. Also we have a Holiday going on atm.
    I can usually judge how busy they are by the frequency of Peter's Articles, and there have not been nearly as many of late.
    I cannot guarantee that any new information will be sent to me regarding your question, but I will make the effort.
    3 Jul, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » rbfallon
    I'm told that the site is working towards some list construction, but the Holiday and some other things are still under discussion. I know the wait is kind of frustrating; but at least Peter still puts out actionable lists a couple times a month. There is plenty to digest and do DD on in just those. Though the lists may be 24-48 hours old, some DD still helps you pick out good buys from them.
    5 Jul, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • jsIRA
    , contributor
    Comments (2427) | Send Message
    Hi, OldWarrlor:


    I am not impressed with the result.


    I have been running my short term play for many years and the result is about 800% return per year.


    Short term play: hold stocks up to 5 trading sessions. But most are day trades (1-3 trades per day).


    I started another round of run this April. So far the retrn is 68%, 14 weeks into play.
    6 Jul, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • OldWarrior
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » While Peter's results may not match yours, they have consistently beat the S&P.
    I'll take the profits I am getting because I personally cannot beat his returns on my own. Most Fund managers cannot either. Neither I nor Blockdesk claim to have the "Best" outcomes that can be had, Peter is just reporting what he believes the Market Makers think about stocks, and the decision of whether or how to use that data is your own. Perhaps in your case, it might be a possible adjunct to your DD, or Not.
    6 Jul, 06:14 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.