Clive is a smart guy!
Hi Clive. See my response to Toofuzzy in my previous post.
I'm thinking along the lines that instead of starting an LD with part actual part virtual holdings instead you started LD-AIM with ALL virtual.
This would be No-Down AIM. Our buddies across the channel from you have suggested this in the past. Karel in particular.
Monitor a wide range of stocks and whenever one flagged an AIM buy then inspect to see if the reason for the price decline looks terminal or not and if apparently OK then perhaps assign 3 buy trades worth of funds - say 1000 to each trade, 3000 in total, to that stock (Newport style fixed trade size amounts for both buy and sell amounts would be better here than % of stock value).
Once I get my sectors lined up I may very well take this approach in sectors that do not have timing on their side at the moment. For example, I may define a sector and program called 'REITS'. I could get everything all set up and target those Reits that are most likely and pull the trigger at the appropriate time.
appreciate this is impractical for those who run paper based AIM accounts, but nowadays with Internet price downloads/updates etc. its not such a daunting task to monitor perhaps 100 or more stocks.
I have a number of sectors with 'candidates' already defined within My Yahoo (where I do most of my monitoring). For example I decided to monitor the LED industry some time ago, but have never pulled the trigger. Others are Retail, Semiconductors, Gaming, and a general candidate list. I easily have over 100 stocks listed there.
AIM does a decent job of identifying relatively good times to buy/sell (LIFO) so the potential is there.
Downside against any one stock is limited. You'd be buying only whenever AIM believed the price to be low and would have a large enough stock universe to produce sufficient signals such that you could level your overall 'at-risk' total exposure level as desired. The wide range of stocks traded would help reduce overall risk and possibly circumvent the need for running with stop-losses.
I agree except for the circumventing stop loss phrase in the last sentence. I've been burned often enough with stocks falling 20-40% over a short time frame, but still coming back. If the process can be managed, and realistic rules are in place, then why not try to maximize results?
BTW: Thanks for all of yours and others feedback on this topic. I appreciate it.
Best Regards, Steve (The Grabber)
