Free UK Technical Analysis 04/03/2015

DISCLAIMER: I am not FCA authorised or authorised in any sense to give financial advice. Do not regard any of the following links, or information as investment or trading advice.


Today's Analyses:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0wd9XTIWftmfmcyeURobmdUTDdmeS1UREtUV3N0cDBtVDQ3Q1NpeHhPWVJkQ3oyX1BMS0k&authuser=0

How to use these reports:

• http://themaskedstocktrader.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/technical-analysis-instructions.html

• More information regarding this project can be found here:

http://themaskedstocktrader.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/my-experience-with-quantitative-finance.html

Quindell PLC - Understanding Institutional Investor Analysts.

Recently, I was fortunate enough that a good friend of mine arranged for me to visit a major investment bank in London. While I talked with the director of corporate finance, the subject of Quindell came up and we had an exhilarating, in depth discussion on the company.


What made this discussion particularly interesting was that we both came from opposite ends of the Bull-Bear Spectrum, with me sitting firmly with the bulls and him with the bears.


We discussed all of the major points: cash-flow, business model, Gotham City Reports, etc.


The point when we came together however was when I discussed the validity of his point about the implications of their cash-flow conversion rate (he was saying that this was the main reason why their in-house analyst was bearish on the stock), by discussing how institutional investors had significantly increased their positions in the company since the Gotham City Attack (Fidelity, Milton Asset Management, Artemis, etc).


The reason we came together on this point was because we both agreed that Fidelity (situated on the floor below us at the time I believe) are an excellent team of asset managers, but more than this have much more advanced research methods than investment banks.


Let's take a brief look at why:


1. Analyst Teams vs Analyst Lone-Wolves:

This is possibly the most important point that needs to be raised, which is that large asset management firms like Fidelity will have teams of analysts one one stock rather than just one analyst. The bank that I was visiting had one analyst on Quindell and my host said it was highly likely that Fidelity would have at least three analysts highly familiar with the stock for each sub-fund that had a position in the company.


2. Public Image:


My host at the investment bank I saw made a highly amusing point, that their in-house analyst was banned from meetings (AGMs, analyst meetings, etc) with Quindell.


This may only be a small point in the grand scheme of things, but being close to the company is essential in order to both truly understand how the company works, but also to get further ideas from the upper-management as to the onward progress their likely to make over various timeframes.


According to another friend of mine in the industry, hedge funds and asset management firms in particular are very good at not alienating themselves to firms, regardless of wether they're long or short and tend to be more tactful generally than the large investment banks are.


3. Management Stakes:


Personal stakes in the funds that they manage doesn't necessarily increase the actual level of their stock picking ability, but instead it makes certain that when these fund managers open a position in a stock that they have done their full due diligence and have covered all research bases fully.


Most investment banks will now actually trade or have any sizeable stake in the companies that they rate, as ninety percent of trades at these banks are primary trades, not proprietary trades. Even then, compared to the size of these large asset managers, the proprietary trading desks of these major investment banks are still not vast.


This means that the analysts for these major banks and brokerage firms only risk their jobs if their clients lose substantial percentages, as opposed to their jobs and a significant proportion of their net worth. Therefore, this is another prong in favour of following the asset managers rather than the investment banks and brokerage houses.


To sum up this very brief writeup, I think we can take away an albeit generalised, but pretty accurate view of the key differences between these two sides of banking world. Further to this, I personally believe that following the movements of these large asset managers is a sure fire way to successful stock picks - after all, they get paid such large amounts because they exceptionally good at their jobs and in asset management circles personal management stakes also play a strong incentive in ensuring good decisions are made. I am not saying that the rating from brokerage firms and investment banks should be ignored at all, but that I personally place the movements of respected asset managers higher than them in my personal rankings.


All the best,

The Masked AIM Trader.

Using Options To Manipulate The Underlying Equity.

Good morning fellow traders and investors.


Today I'm going to briefly discuss something that I wish I could use in my everyday trading to manipulate equity prices, but sadly I can't, because my account simply isn't large enough.


Most of you will know that options are derivative contracts that allow you to buy (call - you're calling the asset towards you) or sell (put - you're putting the asset away) something at a pre-agreed price.


Now, to quickly make it clear how people practically use these, you can hedge with them or speculate with them. That's pretty much it, although you can use them to assist takeovers, etc.


If I was a hedge fund that wanted an asset to move up in value I would want to create a picture in the derivatives market that looks nice and rosy in order to encourage the buying of that equity. In this instance I would be aggressively buy call options, which would give the impression to the market that the asset was going to rise in value on that day.


This may not sound too fantastic at the moment, but the beauty of options is that you can create an excellent picture for large equities in the derivatives market without spending very large amounts of money: $10,000,000 in on the US equities market is enough. This means that you can (if the market goes with your options play) take profits not only from your proportionately larger position in the underlying equity, but also on the options you purchased as well.


To summarise, the ratio of money to percentage gain you need to move an equity by using derivatives is much better than the ratio you get from just buying the equity at the present market value.


Trade well,

The Masked AIM Trader