But in any event, the point I want to make is that Mondays and particularly Mondays after a holiday sit within one of the many special contexts of markets. In this case you have not only the Monday after a long Spring Break but the Monday before the Fed pulls a totally new move that everyone (at least in the media) is talking about.

Now you may try to trade pure chart patterns… but the big boys trade charts and context (social context really – or trading other people). Given that they do, they will be paying attention to this NYC Rainy Monday and the context within which it sits. For the independent who thinks they can’t  or won’t or shouldn’t do that – it will still pay to take an extra patience pill as the markets open up.

I know everyone likes to get back to trading… but the payoffs aren’t worth it. Let the big boys take the lead and make something happen. Then jump on their coattails. Otherwise, you will have a few small losers – or scratches – and you will have debited your psychological capital to the point that when the game really starts – late today or not until after Tuesday – you will be spent.

Bars move up then down, forming a steeple

I envy that run, but miss all the fun

Unclear of direction, I pray to the sun

Today’s a new day and the markets deceptive

I’m feeling alert and focus on being perceptive

But why can’t I see a good trade to make

And be like the other traders, and partake!

The indicators on the chart provide a diversion

Allowing me to avoid my fear and aversion

But what’s there to fear, we’re all human here

Finding our way through discomfort in uncertainty

I ponder the markets vagueness, volume and volatility

Then wonder why I focus solely, on matters of triviality

When ultimately to progress, I need to regress

To feelings in childhood that have not been expressed

I’ll write in my trading journal, each and every day

And look forward to the profits that are coming my way

The two areas in trading that separate the men from the boys (so to speak) are:

1.) The ability to divide environmental perceptions in half and process them separately. First I ask myself what I am feeling and in doing so I acknowledge and honor the feelings so that they don’t cry out for expression on the chart. Then and only then I ask the market what it is telling me. (I used to combine these two observations; I used to subconsciously deny how I was feeling because I knew it was wrong to let my feelings dictate a trade and so the feelings were bleeding into my technical observations because I had not acknowledged them and honored them.)

2.) The ability to execute according to #1 as if I am even or in the black when I am in the red. If during my 90 minutes of trading (09:30 -
11:00), I’m in the red, usually the feeling is something like “I’m afraid! I want to be in the market! I want to be in a trade!”

re A.N.N.A.:

I realized it’s not enough to intellectually understand ANNA. I had to write my own version of the ANNA software for my own internal hardware. When I learned to ride a bike, even though I’d observed someone else doing it and they told me how, I still had to write the program in my own head about how to balance and pedal. It couldn’t be just an intellectual understanding.

re trading plan rules:

I think that if you need strict rules, you’re not ready to trade cash. Strict rules mean that you’re not in control of your emotional feedback
in a live market. I’m not tape reading and I have general ideas about where I get in a trade (ideally the pullback at the end of a trend) but
I don’t have strict rules because it seems trading is an art not a science.

-Trader Diagnosis

So, I found your website and purchased Access Your Psychological Capital, which then led me to devour books on emotional intelligence, mindfulness, neuroscience, and sports psychology. During this time of self-reflection, I combined my life experiences, education (Masters of Divinity in Biblical Theology), your workshop and group meetings, and many other resources, and applied them to arrive at a greater self-awareness. I’d like to share the journey of becoming acquainted with my echo with you—a journey that has led me to greater emotional understanding, less impulse trades, and no more door punching.

Your E-Learning Course introduced me to another stage of trading development: what is going on inside of me. For the first time I took responsibility for what was happening while I was trading. I realized who the enemy was—me. Why do I do the things I do? I’m a mess. Where do I start according to what Denise teaches?

I began by focusing on my body before, during, and after a trade with no self-judgment. Before getting in a trade I felt anxious, sat on the edge of my chair, and breathed heavily. After I finally pulled the trigger, I was in the trade at a less than ideal location and trying desperately to seek new information to reassess the trade. During the trade, my chest felt heavy, I clenched my thumbs, making a fist, and prayed I wouldn’t get stopped out. At this point I had no idea what other traders were doing—I was completely consumed with myself. Then, sure enough, I would get stopped out on a pull back or exit after only a couple of ticks, afraid that it would come back and I would lose what little profit I had. Even two ticks profit felt like a loss to me especially after watching it march on without me, reminding me with every tick that I just lost an opportunity. . . DAMN IT, SHIT, I lost!

I was so angry that I got upset at a simple question from my wife or the noises my kids were making, blaming them for my bad trade—as if I had lost because they were distracting me. Well, after experiencing this a number of times, I knew I had issues. It was not my wife’s or my kids’ fault, and after apologizing to them, I admitted to myself that I was afraid to lose, and didn’t want my family to think I was a failure.

But I noticed my fear of failure was just as strong when I risked only $50 as when I risked $200. So I asked myself: “What do I feel and believe about myself when facing risk?” I turned my focus from my physical response to my emotional response, for emotions reveal my true beliefs about who I am and how I relate to the world around me and, in particular, how I relate to the market.

I realized that when facing risk, I feel fear, and my earliest memory of fear happened at four years old. I was sitting on my Mom’s lap in the front seat of the car while my Dad clutched the steering wheel and peered through windshield wipers that were frantically trying to clear the window of the indefatigable rain. Lighting bolts were everywhere. Thunder crashed around us. I cried and held my blankie tight. My Dad yelled some disparaging remark about my being a baby. I felt embarrassed and ashamed.

Sitting with this memory and the emotions of it, I realize I have heretofore associated fear with being a baby and losing the affection of my dad. Looking back, I see that whenever I hurt physically or emotionally, I tried to prove to myself that I wasn’t a “baby” by rebelling against my instinct to cry and instead doing dare-devilish stunts on four-wheelers and snowmobiles, tight narrowly escaping paralysis and even death a number of times. I now know I was trying to prove to myself and others that I was fearless. Early in my trading days, I took some crazy, risky trades. I won a few and lost a bunch. It didn’t take long before the losing trades hurt, and I knew I couldn’t control the market like a motor vehicle. In front of my computer screen, I started to experience real fear, and I was angry because it reminded me of feeling like a baby, as if the market was my dad saying: “What’s wrong? Are you scared? You must be a baby!” My response didn’t help; I’d make another impulse trade, another trade out of regret and another loss. Another failed attempt to prove, to my father or myself or whomever, I’m somebody.

I realized then that part of my echo was, “I can’t have what I want because I’m not as talented or strong as everyone else”—I’m just a scared baby. I was afraid of screwing up a trade because losing meant I wasn’t strong enough or talented enough to deserve acceptance or love from those closest to me. When trading, I felt like a timid kid playing against confident giants, so I had a tendency to get out after only a couple ticks because I felt as though it wouldn’t work out. I was sure I wasn’t going to get what I want, so I better get out NOW.

This feeling of “I can’t have what I want,” was further reinforced by 1) my parents pessimistic view of adversity in life—you will never win, everyone else will come out on top, because they are stronger/more talented than you are—and 2) my parents frequently complimented other kids who were talented musically or academically, yet rarely paid me compliments about my talent in sports. Since I felt my parents were always comparing me with others and there was an absence of affirmation towards me, I felt that I had to perform in order for them to be proud of me.

I think my fear of not gaining the affirmation of my parents was most strongly imprinted on my mind when I quit taking piano lessons in 9th grade. I hated piano and, as my wife will testify, I am basically tone deaf. Yet, because the children of my mom’s friends were talented musicians, I HAD to take piano. The day I told her “I quit,” my mom blew up, cried and then tried to convince me that playing piano was “good for me,” regardless of the fact that I hated it and wanted to put my time into athletics. Her reaction communicated to me that in order to gain her acceptance and love, I had to do what SHE wanted me to do. I was only acceptable if I played piano, which was pure misery for me; therefore, I believed I couldn’t have what I wanted—success, love and acceptance in something that I wanted.

From that moment on, I feared that pursing things I enjoyed meant risking my parents’ acceptance and approval. So, I put pressure on myself to perform perfectly in basketball and football, thinking that maybe then they would accept and love me for me. I thought: “if they see how good I am at sports, piano [or whatever else] won’t matter so much.” Then when my performance wasn’t perfect, I blamed myself for BOTH my poor performance AND the fact that my parents didn’t love or accept me. This line of thinking led me to believe that their lack of love and acceptance was “my fault.”

Interestingly enough, any time I pursued something, my parents said, “Well, if it doesn’t work out. . . . ” As a kid, I interpreted that statement to mean my pursuit will fail because I’m not good enough, which will result in failing to gain my parents’ acceptance. Consequently, the fact that they don’t accept me is MY fault. . . . If only I’d just worked a little bit harder. . . .

So, when I trade, my self-worth is dependent on whether I make it or not. When I take a bad trade, I realize my full echo is, “I can’t have what I want because I’m not as talented or strong as all the other traders out there, and, the fact that I’m not as talented and strong is ALL MY FAULT!” If I don’t make it, I risk losing the love and acceptance of those I care about because I project my parents’ line of thinking onto them. The greatest revelation came one day, when after three bad trades, I just started saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” At first, I had no idea to whom I was apologizing. I was apologizing for having failed and disappointed everyone important to me. I was telling them that I was sorry for not being “good enough” and, ultimately for not making it as a trader. That is a reality I dread.

After walking, wallowing, and writing, I am finally able to name my hindering emotions: fear that I can’t have what I want because I’m “a baby,” anger and regret over the fact that I’m not “good enough,” and despair over the fact that this is all my fault. Now that I’ve named my emotions and beliefs, I’m free to channel my psychological capital towards what other traders are doing by using market profile and order flow. I have finally given myself permission to succeed and I am confident when I trade.

I can’t yet go so far as to want a bearish call spread… and I think I will still take the opportunity to put on the bullish put spread today …. but as much for the learning experience as for the conviction in the trade.

“Assumption” you say? “It isn’t an assumption Denise! It is truth!” Oh really?

First, if it is such a natural truth – like gravity or the sun rising in the east – then why is it so unnatural to do it? Why do day-traders fail at it at an alarming rate while institutions (with their MBA’s and statisticians) also fail at it has been demonstrated through the now 1000′s of behavioral finance studies and real world examples?

Aside from that basic question is the even more important one of “how does the human brain most successfully process market data“? And luckily The Journal of Finance has finally decided to publish what in my opinion is essentially earth-shattering research by Quartz, Bossaerts and Bruguier of The California Institute of Technology. This seminal and singular piece of research sheds a whole new light on the neurological processes involved in accurately reading markets. (And to boot it in turn explains why so many traders fail and why so many institutional traders can get it wrong!)

In short, …”tests show that Theory of Mind (ToM), rather than mathematical, abilities are better predictors of success in forecasting stock markets“.

Of course this begs the question… “what does that mean”? ToM is basically the ability to read other people. It is the mental capacity where you can imagine/see/”know” what they are thinking and feeling and therefore be better predictors of their coming choices of action. (See wikipedia)

In other words, if we go back and look for example at a very public decision – that of Hank Paulson to let Lehman go bankrupt – it had everything to do with the pressure he was under over the idea of “moral hazard” and very little to do with anything else.

Now that example doesn’t help you much when the market is slow and plodding and range bound but I use it because in retrospect it helps people see how a concerted effort in the Summer of 2008 to understand the human dynamics of the decision makers scenarios would have yielded a better idea about what was likely to happen. What I mean by that is if you specifically tried to play out the possibilities post Bear Stearns and pre-Lehman…. you would have come up with “they let at least one bank fail”. Once you had that idea you could see AIG was going down too!

Conversely all the modeling and probability thinking in the world would NEVER have gotten you there!

You can read the original research yourself @ Encoding Financial Signals in the Brain … or on the Social Science Research Network. (The latter compels me to point out that Antoine (Tony), whom I have been bugging for over two years about this, is an Electrical Engineer and he was kind enough to email me this week and let me know the paper had finally been accepted!)

Now the question is how much will the behavioral finance tendencies of status-quo and confirmation bias kick in … and prevent a large majority of people who care about reading markets from really grasping how to capitalize on an assumption turned upside down?

Okay then… can someone explain to me how the game, and particularly the QB’s job, is any different than being a trader or a portfolio manager? I mean sure they have a plan and they have studiously developed and trained-for expectations but don’t they still have to think “on their feet”? Don’t they have to assess the situation and make nanosecond judgments?

Why does everyone buy the widespread idea that traders have to come up with “plays” and then in turn execute them in a robotic fashion in the game of the markets? What happens to the need for judgment when faced with changing volatility? What happens to the need to use your brain in the toughest game on the planet?

Yep it is easier to NOT to have to use judgment… but is it realistic? I mean should stops and targets always be the same? Does that idea make ANY logical sense in as fluid environment as the markets present?

And in fact – worse, what is the downside to believing in the myth of the robot following the plan? There is one you know… and I submit to you that it accounts for some large % of the fact the vast majority of traders can’t consistently and reliably take money out of the markets.

And if it isn’t quite a robot – the isn’t it judgment? And if you have to use judgment at all … then what do you have to do to improve it? What do you have to do to capitalize on the fact that it is an asset?

This is a thought experiment… it is meant to help those who try it learn something… or at least stretch our minds to the point that we see the situation more as it really is.

Does anyone else see the irony here? The latter is called “the ambiguity aversion” and the former the Wason Selection test and it seems to me that the ultimate question of consistent trading or investing success is the ability to bridge the gap – i.e. know the numbers but know them in the right context – the context of predicting other people’s future perceptions and behavior.

Try it sometime – in a situation where you don’t know what to do or specifically in a trading/investing decision. Ask yourself – how will the others react?

Yes I know – it seems too nebulous a question. I am fairly certain however that if you can put the anxiety about not knowing who the others are or what their motivations might be into words (therefore dissipating the discomfort of “nebulous”) and then think about this question, your answer will help you be more accurate in whatever you are attempting to predict.

(Oh yeah – one more thing… if you think you are NOT attempting to predict when you are trading, think again.)

Reflecting now – two plus weeks post – I realize I haven’t drastically changed my long-standing opinion regarding the difference in content and value between the field of behavioral finance and neuroeconomics. BF (for short) describes and documents the inordinately probable likelihood of not seeing all the data, of seeing only yesterday’s data and of making so called “irrational decisions”. In fact, at Harvard in November, BF even demonstrates that a room full of 75 portfolio managers fall prey to the exact same perceptional “deficits” as the general population. Neuroeconomics on the other hand is attempting to reveal exactly what is happening in our brain (or at least where it is happening) as we make these well-known errors in judgment.

Anyone who has followed our thinking for any period of time knows that we explain these behavioral tendencies under the general rubric of acting out unconscious emotions and I didn’t hear a single word that dissuaded me from that position. What I did however hear and realize is  that BF as a body of work gives us a list of cognitive/intellectual strategies we all can use simultaneously alongside the pursuit of greater emotional awareness and skill to help us make better decisions.

I think however the problem is in categorizing the list of so called “biases”. To BF’s way of thinking, our sometimes funny, sometimes sad tendencies to not see information that is either right in front of us or glaringly obviously missing (and we should therefore realize we have to look for it) are called biases. For example, we have a confirmation bias – the tendency to see all data in a way to proves what we already belief. (If you can think political leanings here.)  We also have a tendency to research a problem in terms of data we already have and fail to look for data we don’t. Generally, this is considered the availability bias.

As the weeks go on, this blog (and our upcoming December online workshop) will outline the biases and how to work with them from an intellectual point of view.

Before we get started on that however I submit for your consideration the research that shows we update our beliefs, preferences and decisions in ways that keep us feeling good (Kuhnen and Knutson, 2008) and suggest that the real underlying cause, regardless of where it happens in the brain, is the emotional impact of finding, seeing, using new and possibly contradictory data.

One more thing for today – speaking of “where” in the brain … many a respected academic still talk about the triune model of the brain proposed by Maclean in 1990. Theoretically, we have a higher reasoning brain, a mid emotional brain and a lower “keep the heart” beating brain.

With NO disrespect meant, this idea is outdated. Beginning in the late 1990′s we started getting pictures of real live healthy brains and it is clear now that emotional neural networks infuse, integrate and work reciprocally with those ostensibly higher brain centers. In essence they are higher yes  – but only because they are at the top! The most recent research however shows they are non-functional without infiltrations from the emotional networks (Damaraju et. al., 2008) so I again submit the idea that understanding the reciprocity and sequencing between brain centers offers us our best possibility of defeating our otherwise seemingly entrenched “biases”.

My actual attachment is to the idea that the human unconscious plays an enormous role in all decision making and an even more specific role in risk decisions. As Freud was the first to really bring this idea to the public, I must credit him with that. There are glimmers of it in Shakespeare and earlier writings but no one before Freud is considered the father of the idea. (Additionally, I personally credit MODERN psychoanalysis and Dr. Hyman Spotnitz for my individual victory over the world of market demons but that is another story altogether.)

Today’s neuroscience of emotion, (see this post) neuroeconomics and even neuropsychoanalysis is revolutionizing our understanding of the brain literally with every passing day. While we still have a long way to go (think Christopher Columbus’ map to what would be “America”), we know orders of magnitude more than we knew a decade ago.

For example, did you know that essentially the old triune idea of the brain is out or that it appears we need functional EMOTIONAL neural networks for our visual cortex to work? Furthermore, did you know that your brain will see the market much more like a jigsaw puzzle in which 1/3 of the pieces are missing – and it will fill in the blanks through referring to context. How often does context change in a market? (I.e. what does Dow 10K mean in 2009 vs. 2008?).

I could go on – but alas won’t. I will invite anyone interested in the new psychology of risk to wander around here. Hopefully you will find a thing or two that gets you started on the path to ReThinking Thinking.

Somewhere down the road, you just might find you agree with more than you expected. Or worse, learned a thing or two about making better decisions in the face of UOUP (rhymes with soup) – uncertain outcomes uncertain probabilities.