Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.invest.stocks,misc.invest.technical,misc.invest.canada,comp.ai.neural-nets
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!psinntp!isc-newsserver!vaxg.isc.rit.edu!BKV2673
From: bkv2673@vaxg.isc.rit.edu
Subject: NeuroQuant Profiles (Discrepancy...Error in Price!)
Message-ID: <1994Oct31.201023.5126@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
Sender: news@ultb.isc.rit.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxg-eth.isc.rit.edu
Reply-To: bkv2673@vaxg.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:10:23 GMT
Lines: 70

Folks,

this is with regard to a reader's query on the reporting of the TMX
short trade....we've let a wrong price slip through and I'm writing this
to clarify the situation. the enclosed reply is self explanatory.

regards,

- aL vinjamur

=====reply starts here=====

Thanx for your note on the discrepancy in the TMX trade. I'm clarifying
the situation for you.

>In your Neuroquant Profile a couple weeks ago you said to "short" TMX 
>when it crossed below 60.  In your latest Profiles, you say you shorted 
>the stock at 61-1/8 but in the Technical Comments you said not to short 
>until it crossed 60.  The best I remember, there was a gap opening and it 
>opened in the 57 - 58 range.  

	You're bang right on the price discrepancy...that should read 
	$60 and not $61 1/8...Please excuse the reporting error...rest
	assured, we'll correct the typo and re-do the results....

	On 10/24/94, the low on TMX was at $60 1/8....the stock gapped down
	the very next day...some of our models are momentum based and in cases 
        where there are suitable technical constraints the models may start 
        building up a position even before the exact price levels are hit 
        (since we're trading size we cannot go in and buy a ton at a certain 
        price)....we'd have loved to short more...in fact our average 
        shorting price on TMX was at a much higher level...think around 
        $60 1/2...a 1/4 higher than what should be reported.
	
	Since investment timeframes have compressed a great deal it is not 
	always possible to get in on a rule or even for a trade to be filled
	at exactly the price we asked for....

>You advised in the same letter to go long Airborne Freight, but it also 
>had a gap opening and you say you did not buy because it did not hit your 
>criteria you stated in your Technical Comments.

	The stock was actually delayed and then it opened down. We most 
	definitely don't expect investors to just be looking at the
	price levels we indicated and follow us down to the last detail as
	that would really be blind trading....if someone had a long order
	in for ABF and he/she saw a trading imbalance on the sell side, 
	we'd most definitely expect them to cancel it...the best investor
	would be one who'll listen in on ideas and search for the truth
	for himself/herself...and all we're really trying to do is to 
	alert you to potentially profitable situations....and we most
	definitely would not want everyone to listen to us on the last
	detail...we like to originate ideas.....and that's where we stop..
	we don't advise people...

>Why did you short TMX BEFORE it hit your criteria?  The only reason I am 
>asking this question is because I was thinking about subscribing to the 
>Neuroquant Profiles, but I do not understand this discrepancy.  I am sure 
>others noticed this also.

	As mentioned above....momentum based models usually keep adding on
	to the position as the trade keeps going its way...

	Again, thanx for writing...I hope the situation has been clarified.

	Regards,

	- aL
	

