Stocks & Commodities V. 23:4 (10-14): Letters To S&C by Technical Analysis, Inc.
I just received and enjoyed reading your magazine, STOCKS & COMMODITIES. In the February 2005 issue, on page 87, you list futures liquidity from most to least liquid. I find it amazing that you list the British pound (GBP) as being more liquid than the Canadian dollar (CD). I have traded on the floor at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for 25 years and have traded actively in both the GBP and the CD pits. The CD pit is far more liquid than the GBP pit. While trading in the GBP pit, I was told that if you compare the daily range with the volume, the GBP pit was the least liquid pit on the floor.
LGO via email
The Futures Liquidity page of the December 2004 Technical Analysis of STOCKS & COMMODITIES states that [the] “Greatest number of dots indicates the greatest activity.” Taking a look in the average volumes traded in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) reveals that e-mini Standard & Poor’s 500 has more volumes than S&P 500. If that is the case, why does S&P 500 [have] more dots than e-mini S&P 500?
In the article “The End Of The Trend,” author Cornelius Luca states that intraday formations are much less reliable than daily ones. If the concept or strategy is robust, shouldn’t it work in all time frames and all markets? Luca also mentions that shoulders
patterns should be of fairly similar heights. How much leeway can we give to determine if it is a perfect head
and shoulders pattern?