Heute ist Dienstag, der 30. Juni. Herzlich willkommen zu einem weiteren Sonderpodcast, featuret bei Handelsblatt, im Rahmen der Reihe mit der Foundation for the Study of Cycles. Wir sprechen mit einer echten Wall-Street-Persönlichkeit, John Bollinger. Er hat die bekannten Bollinger-Bänder entwickelt vor vielen Jahren, die heute noch den Ton mit angeben, wenn es unter anderem um Marktbreite geht. Viel Spaß mit dem Interview, das auf Englisch geführt wird. Wenn ihr Untertitel haben möchtet, dann bitte bei mir auf dem YouTube-Kanal.

Viele Trader kennen die Bollinger-Bänder, aber nur wenige verstehen wirklich, was sie eigentlich messen. Wir sind in New York bei der Foundation for the Study of Cycles, eine Zyklenkonferenz, und wir sprechen mit John Bollinger, der Entwickler dieses technischen Indikators. Wir sprechen darüber, was Volatilität verrät, dass überkauft nicht automatisch auch verkaufen heißen muss und wie man die Bollinger Bänder richtig einsetzt. Du bist ein Experte in Option Trading. Und ich meine, die Bands auf die Preis-Struktur war bereits da. Aber was ist das, was in deinen Terms gefehlt? Und warum hast du diese Bands entwickelt? Wenn ich angefangen habe, wir nur mit Fixed-Width Trading Bands benutzt. Typically, ein Moving Average shifted auf und auf ein paar Prozent. Für den DOW, es war ein 21-Jähriger Moving Average und 4.5 Prozent auf und auf ein paar Prozent. Aber es ist problematisch. Wir waren keeping charts by hand, so es war ein viel Arbeit. Und als die markt conditionen verändert, du hast du den Witz des Bands. Und das war eine terrible Sache, weil wenn du du bist, du bist ein Bullisch-Picture mit den Bands. Und wenn du du bist, du bist. So, du hast die Emotions-Seep in den Prozess. At the time I was an option trader and I was very lucky I had an early microcomputer and spreadsheet supercalc.

Und einen Tag, ich kopierte die Formulierung für Volatilität in einem Köln von Daten. Und ich sah, dass es sich verändert hat, über Zeit. Und ich hatte die Idee, dass ich das vielleicht könnte, um das zu setzen, um die Bands zu setzen. Und in den letzten Tagen habe ich es alles figured, und es hat sich nicht verändert. So, es ist 43, 44 Jahre jetzt. Das ist crazy. Ich habe, wenn ich gehört, dass wir in der Interview mit ihr in der Interview gesehen haben, Would you have ever thought that Bollinger Bands would be such a widely used indicator on a global basis? Everybody pretty much knows your name in connection with Wall Street and Finance. So, no, obviously I never thought that it would become widely used, but I did want it to be available to people. So I put it in the public domain when I created them. You could say I was the original open source kid.

Und people always ask me why they still work and it's very simple it's not a trading system it's just a tool How does the changes in the derivatives market affect your models? Now you have a derivative market with all the zero DTE options and the gamma squeezes that we currently see in the market in certain tech sectors is that influencing the behavior of the Bollinger Bands und in unterschiedlich ways als man vielleicht nicht erwartet? Ich weiß nicht, dass es sich beeinflusst den Behaviour des Bands aber es sicherlich beeinflusst wie wir die Bands benutzen. In other words, they work pretty well as specified. When we created them, we found that they contained about 90% of the data. People expect them to contain 95% of the data, but the data is not normally distributed. Finance stuff just isn't. So it actually contains about 90% of the data. And that's held remarkably true over time. The one thing that's changed that's pretty funny.

It used to be if you varied the length of the bands from 10 periods up to 50 periods you'd have to vary the width of the bands but we don't have to do that anymore and I can't explain why that's true I've never figured it out, now the plus or minus two standard deviations is pretty standard regardless for any interval from 10 to 50 periods talking about those length settings for those bands, would you just talked about. So, one principle you always tell is question everything. So, I have a question. Oh!

So, instead of using a fixed length setting, let's use a different method, cycles or whatever, to have a more dynamic adjustment of the length. So, first of all, I think it's a great idea and I'd like to see, you know, how it can be put to But second of all, we do a little bit of that in that you can change the type of moving average you're using. We use a simple moving average, you know, it's a 20-period window or something like that. But sometimes we use an exponential moving average or front-weighted moving average or some other measure of central tendency. So we can get a little bit of adaptive like that, but I think the idea of changing the, Pulling in some cyclical information to create a more dynamic set of bands would be great. I mean, we're already dynamically setting the width of the bands. Why not dynamically set the length of the bands as well? I think it's a terrific idea. If someone uses Bollinger bands, what should they combine them with? Like momentum, volume, trend analysis? The original thing that we did was we put them on the averages, like the Dow. That's what we worked with back in the day. That was the average. Nobody really cared about the rest of them back then. And we kept two oscillators.

One was based on advanced decline statistics, number of stocks up or down on the day. We kept a 20-period running total of that. And the other was up and down volume. We kept a 20-period total of up-volume minus down-volume as well. Those created supply-demand oscillators. So we would compare the action of price. Suppose you got up to the upper band and one of those indicators was negative. That's a sell alert.

And I still think that that sort of approach is very, very useful in relation to voluntary bands. But the key is, you know, everybody wants to, you know, a hard, you know, a hard signal, right? Sell here, buy there. You know, you really, it doesn't really work that way if you want to be successful in this business.

What you really want to do is you want to use those as alerts and then wait for price to confirm. And when price confirms, then you take action because that dramatically improves your probability of success. So in other words, overbought does not automatically mean you got to sell.

Absolutely not. You know what they say in a bull market? The signature of a bull market is it gets overbought and stays overbought. What do you think is the biggest mistake people do when they look at the Bollinger Bands? Automatically selling at the upper band, automatically buying at the lower band. I mean, with no other consideration, just, oh, it's up there, it's a sell, it's down there, it's a buy. That's a total mistake. So what would you be looking, well, you already explained it, But what would you be looking for in detail as kind of like an early warning sign that markets might be turning from an oversold or overbought area? A classic one is a W bottom. So price comes down very hard, so hard that it gets outside the lower band. And then you bounce back in and then price comes down and retests the low again. Very, very common formation and rallies. Und wir sehen, dass die zwei Lowe sind. Und viele Leute sehen sie auf einen absoluten Basis, aber ich prefer, dass sie auf einen relativen Basis sind. So die erste Lowe ist außerhalb der Lowebänder, und die zweite Lowe ist inside der Lowebänder. Wir haben eine Indikator für das. Es ist ein Prozent B, und es zeigt sich, wo Sie sind, in relation zu den Bands. So eine Klasse W-bottom ist.

W is a new low in price, a new absolute low in price, which scares everybody, but it's not a new low in relation to the Bollinger Band, so you know it's a possible setup. And again, you wait for confirmation. The Bollinger Band squeeze is one of the best known Bollinger Band setups. How would you explain it in simple terms? I think the best known Bollinger Band setup is the squeeze, where volatility comes down very, very tight and it's, Very low volatility is a forecast for high volatility, but my favourite is what we call the head fake. And that's where you come in to squeeze, the bands get very tight together, price gets all congested and all that. They try to take it to the downside and they go, and everybody looks around and says, nope, and goes the other way.

That's my favorite setup. But how old do you try this? I just wait for the reversal. I just wait, you know, they go, oops, mistake, right there.

John, maybe last question on that, because I've not been aware that you are so deep also in cycles. So, you showed us today that you're rooted long-term also in that analysis. So, maybe just one sentence about what is your experience and the root cause of cycles also using for technical analysis. So, the cycles that I use mostly in my work are the ones which I understand the motive causes best. Those are the cycles I like. So, I like the four-year cycle, the presidential cycle. It often has useful information. I like the annual cycle. I like the weekly cycle. There are certain days of the week that are stronger than other days. I find these very helpful as background information. You know, if I'm trying to buy something and I'm facing a period where there's likely going to be some weakness, you know, I know I can wait a couple of days. Or even if it's on a very short-term basis, I know I don't have to chase the price. I know the price is probably going to come back to me. So, patience is key Patience is key Patience is key John.

Thank you very much I appreciate your time, Lars Thank you so much for setting this up I know you have to run to give your own speech now Yeah, but that's fine So thank you, John, for taking the time with us I can't be late because he's going to speak next So.

Thank you durch ihre Risikohinweis von Mr. Markus Koch. Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Aufsichtsbehörden, ich darf Sie darauf hinweisen, dass die Inhalte in diesem Video ausschließlich der allgemeinen Information dienen, und keiner Empfehlungen zum Erwerb oder der Veräußerung bestimmter Finanzinstrumente und somit keiner Anlageberatung darstellen. Insbesondere können Wall Street Correspondents und der Vortragende nicht einschätzen, inwiefern die im Video gemachten Empfehlungen ihren Anlagezielen, ihrer Risikobereitschaft und Verlusttragfähigkeit entsprechen. Wer also auf Basis von Informationen in diesem Video etwaige Anlageentscheidungen trifft, trifft diese ausschließlich auf eigene Verantwortung und eigene Gefahr. Das wiederum bedeutet, dass weder Wall Street Correspondents noch der Vortragende, das ist immer noch dieser Mann hier, für Verluste haften, die sie dadurch erleiden, dass sie Anlageentscheidungen aufgrund von Informationen oder Kommentaren in diesem Video getroffen haben. Vielen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit und weiterhin einen erfolgreichen Handelstag.