Steve:

I have seen several posts quoting Lichello regarding the minimum $ Trade amt. The advent of the very low commissions makes it a different world in that regard.

However, after selecting a min Trade Amt, the interesting thing is that the number of shares recommended changes, and the prices for the trades change, depending upon how much "excess capital" is initially funded into the account. The trade triggers will change based upon how much excess is available. The example I provided was not any form of recommendation to use that setup. Just illustraed the extreme.

However, there are two real benefits of the LD-AIM approach, IMHO. The first is to capture more volatility on the original capital base. The second is to allow for smaller investment per individual issue so that more issues can be owned.

Minimum trade size is certainly one of the constraints when looking at the method with thesetwo objectives. Once you have achieved the diversification objective, then start increasing the trade size and the amount $ Amount allocated.

Charley

Steve:

I don't think I changed any of the cell values - other than in the green cells.

Try this example,

5230 available
30.00 share Price
Sell Parameters
5 sell transactions
0
0
$700 Min transaction

Buy Parameters
4 Buy Transactions
0
0
$700 Min Transaction

Results:
Initial Purchase 81 sh
virtual Purchase 93 sh
Virtual PC $5,230

Change the $ Available to be $100,000
New Results:
Initial Purchase 115 sh
Virtual Purchase 3218 sh
Virtual PC $100,000

The Buy and Sell Prices are radically changed on the Work Tables Sheet

However, what I have been trying to do with the LD-Aim method is to use it to somewhat Optimize for the minimum values $Available for a given $Transaction size and # of Buys and Sells.

Then I can input these initial values into a normal AIM account Spreadsheet - Aim Bare - and operate the account as a normal AIM account. I'm only using the LD-AIM spreadsheet to forecast the initial setup values and allocations.

Regards
Charley

Grabber,

Another quirk I've found in the LD-Aim spreadsheet is that it is sensitive to the "excess" capital available for the set up under consideration.

I had used the SS to try to see what the Min Capital would be. then, playing with it, I would reduce the Amt Available from $10,000 to the Amt required as calculated. Doing that changed the number of shares and I got a new number. Lots of wiggeling aroung.

OK, then I plugged in $100,000 as the amount available. Shares went up a little. But profits went to heck. LD-Aim changed the selling prices to be much lower prices with very little gap up to cause a new sale.

Anyway, there lots of intertwined factors to consider and play with. Brain cramp comming on.

Regards
Charley

Grabber / Steve / Symetry

I've also been trying to resolve a slightly different symetry thought.

Using the LS-AIM variant of your - excellent BTW - I've been thinking about how the initial purchase of enough shares for five Sales ends up with the last one at an 80% gain. The first Sell occurs at a Gain of ~ 18%. The difference between the Sales prices on the way up is generally about 10% increase to trigger another sale.

Using the settings of $10,000 available, $10.00 per share, 5 sell transactions, 5% Safe and 10% Minimum that you supplied as somewhat generic.

The five Buys occur with a first Buy at $8.70 (-13%) and the final Buy price of ~ $7.00 for only a 30% Price decline, most of which occured before the first Buy. The difference between Buy #4 and Buy #5 is only a price decline of ~5%.

I'm slogginging around with your Spreadsheet and the one that Jibes has done, trying to resolve this symetry issue myself.

So, basically the way that I trade is to wait for the market to tell me that it has moved as far as it is going to go for the moment - it will either 'catch its breath' and continue in the same direction or it will change directions. In other words, I wait for the market to pause. When it does pause, I compare the current price with my *actual cost.* I then size my trade based on the size of the difference between them (ala AIM). If I sell, I sell my shares in the reverse order that I bought them, i.e. LIFO, and then recalc my actual cost. If I buy, I calc my actual cost. So, what I have is a true automatic investment management system. My AIM-like system tells me how much to trade and the market - via momentum indicators - tells me when to trade. By coupling that with ETFs, I have taken as much of the stress out of investing as I can. To me, it is a good method of prudent risk-taking.


++++++++++++++++

Matt,

Can you tell us a little more about what you use to determine that there has been a pause - or that it is time to Sell. And, do you use something similar to determine that it is time to Buy?

Then you have your AIM-like system determine the amounts for the actual trades. Can you expound a little more on how you are set up to determine the amounts. I understand LIFO and FIFO as used by the accounting profession. I'm not sure how you are applying it with your system in determining the trade sizes. Or Average Cost either.

I like the idea of what you write that you have done. I'm certainly unclear what that is however.

Good Returns
Charley

Bernieg,

Using my last of three posts for a day, let me try again. The response had nothing to do with TMA in any particular way, your choice of it, or when you may have recommended it. Congratulations on selecting something that was profitable for you.

If a stock goes up in price, you are always better off owning more or it. Does that agree with your line of reasoning?

If a Stock goes down in price, You are better off not owning it during the Decline in price. Does that agree with what you would like to do?

Funds not invested in Full AIM program for one stock can be used to fund another AIM program for a second or third security. Is that what you have found or do you do something different?

Using fewer dollars to fund a particular "program" - whether AIM or LD-AIM - will allow you to have funds invested in a larger number of "programs." If you had chosen to invest only in those shares that subsequently appreciated in price you would have better returns than from having invested in some that declined in price or those which did not appreciate as much - no matter whether it is AIM or LD-AIM. Perhaps your experience is different in this regard.

The general point I was making about the assessment of whether a particular investment scheme has been a success is that any assessment is done based upon the temporary price that currently exists. It does not matter if the time frame is 6 months, two years, or six years.

bernieg wrote:

<snip>
Of course if I don't liquidate it will continue to earn dividends. I realize that dividend paying stocks are not recommended for LD-AIM, but my question is this: Assuming that there is a stock that has a considerable enough increase in price to cause three AIM sells. Wouldn't the loss of the Capital Gains on the virtual shares be considered a disadvantage to LD-AIM?
Bernie
+++++++

Certainly, I'm not Steve. But I've been wrestleing with some similar thoughts on LD-AIM and some other approaches. When I read your question, I wonder if what you are really asking is - "Wouldn't I have been better off with more invested in the winners?" Which has a fairly obvious first response answer of Yes.

However, because of the LD-AIM lower capital requirement, you have been able to own several other positions that may have also appreciated - if you were equally successful at making stock selection. Further, IF the price of TMA had declined you would not be feeling the loss as hard.

I don't there is a perfect answer. Whatever answer you develop today is based upon today's price. Six months of price changes will likely change your answer.

Regards
Charley

I suppose what somewhat disturbes be about the idea of intentionally holding shares that i expect to decline is that it just seems to be the oposite of what a rational investor would do.

I select a stock to invest in because i expect it to appreciate in value. I don't know exactly what path it will take, and am willing to accept some volitility along the way. AIM can help in that regard to possibly increase returns. With the bounces in price, I expect three UP bounces for each two DOWN bounces. Ending up at a higher price over the holding period.

I don't know why I would want to hold it if I expected four down bounces for each up bounce - ending up at a 30% lower price? The dividend is relatively constant over a one or two year period. The lower cost I have in the shares, the higher the dividend % return. I guess I could forego receiving a check for a month or two if I strongly expected the next few price changes to be equal 30% decline.

BWDIK.

Regards
Charley

Tom posted:

"AIM will have me start to repurchase shares (sold above the $9 mark) when the price retreats to the low $7s. My best guess is that ACG will eventually bottom at about $6 per share before the next up-leg of the bond cycle."

++++++++

Ok, I'll ask.

If you expect it to go from $9 to $6, why hold it?

The only reason I would consider purchasing XXX stock is because I expect it to go up. Maybe not in a straight line, but UP with a few wiggles. AIM benefits from the wiggles.

I can think of no reason to own something I expect to decline in value. Unless it is a racing car.

Regards
Charley

that is a genuinely bizarre statement to be making at the current time.

+++++++++++

Nothing bizarre about it if you consider where the impetous for the spending comes from - defense excluded of course.

That's exactly what the Nazis said when they took over... <g>

++++++++++

You don't practice revisionism all the time do you?

The reports I've read indicate that a significant number were not allowed to leave. Unless you consider that train ride to the camp leaving. A few that were able to excape were required to pay confiscatory exit fees.

No one in the world is happier than a Democrat spending someone else's money.

A mass exodus from Hitler's, ahem I mean Bush's U.S. is already starting... to anywhere other than where these lying criminal fascist Bush neoCONs are.

+++++++++++++

May they find happy redistributive socialist totalitarian homes they so joyously seek.

When the door closes behind them, I hope it does not strike whatever is stuck up their butts.

Solutions are NEVER easy to find if you are not looking to fix the problems.
+++++++

Yeah. That is just what we need. An old worn out socialist like Bernie Sanders trying to fix things. Send in the Great Chairman with the solution.

Maybe we can make all thing equal with a Sweedish 70% tax rate. What a life. Might as well not go to work at all. Oh, yeah. Even the Sweedes figured that part out.

Quit being jealous of others success.

Good Returns
Charley Meng

Steve,

In looking over the LD-AIM method, I was also concerned about the "problem" with selling all shares too soon. Then I looked at your note about using settings that would make the last sale price equal to a gain of about 80% on that slug of the shares. The ROCAR was about 50% if the sales were made successevly - without a buy anywhere in between.

So, I looked at the charts of the several stocks I was expecting to include in the LD-AIM scheme. Looking at the highs and lows for the past year. I tried to set up parameters that would allow for buys down to the recent lows - usually about 50% down. And the idea of closing it out after a straight up price climb of 80% didn't bother me.

While it may increase the number of shares a bit, I wanted to try to have at least four sales to get to that 80% number. I haven't had your "problem" yet. Hope to though.

Good Returns
Charley

Tom Veale posted:
That composite graph of the Dow Sectors looks like it may have mirrored the S&P500 pretty closely. My hope is that it beat it slightly by using AIM. If it did, it did so with considerably less risk since the average at risk for the entire time frame and each of the ten sectors was only 66%. Although now near the 90% invested area, it was very heavy in cash just as the market peaked out.

+++++++++++++

Tom,
Everyone always is interested in the theory of Averageing In on the Buys. Even though lots of studies show conflicting results as to the success of that approach.

Anyway, the discussion rarely gets to Averaging Out on the Sells. An AIM type system provides this feature as well. Maybe it could use some tuning, but it does accomplish both sides of the Averaging equation.

Regards
Charley

Mark,

In looking at the B&H results for some of the screamers, I had come to a conclusion similar to what you wrote. No one would really hold all of the shares from $1 to $150 anyway. There are so many zigs and zags along the way that surely some shares would have been sold anyway to "balance" the portfolio.

What I'm really thinking though is that the system should be able to capture say 70% of the gains on the screamers - 1 stock in 100 - while doubling the gains on the more choppy modest risers to more than make up for it.

I particularly liked you example of using all of the Dow Stocks. As a group, they handily beat the DOW. Have you done anything to extend that study to cover more years?


Thanks for the comments.

Tom,

You wrote:
<snip>
So, should we pray for a Bull market again? Not if we like what AIM does! It's best if we see a ranging market with a generally flat slope to get the greatest benefit from AIM's management style.

Best regards, Tom
++++

A stock market investment style that does not benefit from rising prices does not seem to make much sense. Particularly if it suffers much of the pain from declining prices. But that is just MHO on it. And why I hope that Don Carlson's work will either be sufficient in and of itsself or give me some avenues to explore.

Regards
Charley

Don,

The relevant information, at least to me, is not so much how these compared at the end. That is certainly of interest. Except, depending upon where one decides to end the test, the results can be quite different.

My interest was in how the results compared for the enitre portfolio of NDX or SPY stocks compared to the B&H of the NDX or SPY. Is there a period where the B&H was 5X greater than the AIM value. The fact that AIM was ahead when the overall market was at a nearterm low is not terribly suprising. It would be better to see an overall equity curve from the combination of the stocks that continually exceeded the curve of the B&H of the NDX.

What drew my attention to the chart was the results posted for several of the stocks tested by you and by Aptus. In some cases, AIM was well ahead. But, the number of shares held by AIM was much less than the B&H originally bought. And, with any upturn, AIM would be prepared to sell and generate more cash. I am not as experienced with AIM as you seem to be. however, it seems that if AIM - at some point - has three times the total value of the B&H because of later market declines, it would be picking up enough shares to have near the original number of shares. Now that it had three times the money in the account.

Regards
Charley

Don Carlson,

I have looked at your results from the thorough study on MACRO AIM. It caused me to look at the charts you developed along with the study. One chart that is not clear to me is this one:
http://www.ttrader.com/mycharts/display.php?p=5646&u=doncarlson&a=Don's%20Charts&id=219

It appears from my reading of the chart that the end result is that Buy and Hold (the Red line) gave a better end result than using any other approach. I suspect that I am not understanding what the chart is displaying. Can you give me some clarification?

Regards
Charley

As I understand the Turtle System,

A Buy is entered when the price is greater than any high for the past 20 days. That would require that the current price change is at least higher than 20 days ago - Rate of Change 20 > 0.

A Sell is entered when the Price is lower than any price in the last 10 days. Rate of Change 10 < 0.

The StockChart selection is not exactly what the Turtle System calls for. But, it seems close enough to give some idea of how active the trades would be.

One important thing about the Turtle System - at least to me - is that they require trading uncorrelated markets. To a certain extent all equities are correlated. Also consider the comments about the total account size that will lead to diversification efficiencies.

Good Trades
Charley

OK, Undertaker.

You have a sell target of $11.50.

You cannot enter a GTC since you want it to trade through this price - and maybe continue higher.

So, you check prices every XXX minutes, hours, or days and find that the target of $11.50 was hit. But close was $11.25. Do you enter the order at $11.25 - taking the $0.25 hit? Do you enter the order at $11.25 minus $0.11 for maybe a further hit? Do You start watching closer so that IF it passes through the $11.50 again, you will be there to enter the Stop Order and continue to move it up? Take a look at the Average True Range again and see how many days you would last with a 1% Stop.

It is a lot harder to implement than to write about in concept.

Regards
Charley

Larry,

You probably have better charting capabilities than I do.

However, this chart from stockcharts is an idea of the in's and outs of the turtle system on the QQQ.

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=QQQ,uu[w,a]daclyyay[df][pc150!c26!f][vc60][iUm20!Um10]&a...

Good Trades
Charley

Undertaker,

When you write the "logic" of your suggestion, it appears very simple and seems effective.

However, I haven't seen anything that would confirm that it will work in the long term. Go to StockCharts and look at the chart using O/H/L/C and compare it to the 1% Stop you are recommending. Then, also look at the ATR - Average True Range - for the stock. Further, since you will have these Stops in place overnight, look at the variation in the next day Open compared to close.

Most Stop systems use it to prevent a wipe out in long term holdings. Maybe something on the order of 20%.

Daytraders, on the other hand, are relatively overleveraged, and may use tighter stops for similar reasons. But they are out at the end of the day anyway.

Regards
Charley

Jibes,

I've looked over the DDCA Spreadsheet and would like to contact you off the Aim Re-bal Message Board. At you web site you show an e-mail address of jibes2@yahoo.com. That does not seem to work. But it could be my set up. In any event, Is that still a good address?

Regards

Charley

Grabber - Steve -

I've gone back and looked at the spreadsheet done by jibes where he implements the Dynamic Dollar Cost Averaging - DDCA. Take a look at it again if it has been a while since you looked at it.

In essence it has the effect of varying the Safe factor. Interesting to work through - I'm far from having an understand of how the various components interact. Not just from the formulas on the spreadsheet, but the interaction of various components as time transpires. Darned interesting implementation.

Regards
Charley

The idea of "Variable" or "Changeable" Safe continues to rumble around for me. The concept of continuing to purchase - until oblivion - just is a very painful one to accept. However, the entire idea of AIM is to "Buy the Dips" and that cannot be avoided.

If the equity initially selected Goes to Zero, the investment is lost. Avoiding additional buys on the way down will not prevent a severe loss - but will not make it quite as severe. Further, being too restrictive will cause the AIM program to miss out on those buys near the sustained lows - during those long flat bottoms that lead to a turn around in price and recovery. It appears that it is not the first Buy of the declining stock the really drains and kills the Cash balance. It is consecutive Buy number 3, 4, 5, 6 that eventually suck assets into the unrecoverable black hole.

I have not been able to alter the AIM spreadsheet to accept the Safe Numbers generated by divergance from a series of moving averages. As I continue to think about it, and about the powerful effect of the Safe component of the AIM formula, I wonder if anyone else has previously attempted to use Variable Safe in building a Spreadsheet to test.

I want to capture as much of the "normal" bounces as possible. So suppose I use a Safe Value of 0 with a $1,000 minimum trade size. After a trade in a particular direction, suppose a Buy, I adjust the Buy Safe to 5%, leaving the Sell Safe at 0. Another Buy - adjust the Buy Safe to 10%, without any adjustment to the Sell - still 0. Continuing to build some very large hurdles for additional Buys.

A recent post included the idea that AIM was not interested in price trend. And that AIM gave no indication of price trend. I guess there are so many difinitions of what constitutes a price trend that it is hard to argue about this. However, everyone should agree that the only reason AIM gives a BUY Advice is because the price has Declined. It is must be Lower for there to be a BUY. A series of Buys, without an interviening Sell, certainly would indicate a down trend - at least so far as the AIM parameters themselves define the ranges of reversal of trend.

I recall several threads on SI about avoiding declines and deep divers. Has an Increasing Safe been investigated to see if this approach could be employed to increase returns or avoid catastrophic loss?

Regards
Charley

Re Demo:

Conrad, in looking at your last post, with the Unilever details, I cannot understand the following:

If the Return On Capital At Risk is positive, as you show, how can the ROI become negative? That would imply that the Return on the Capital NOT At Risk would have to be negative to offset the positive return.


Further, I saw the post on the Regular AIM board about the Options strategy. I certainly would be interested in reading how that strategy is employed. Any notes you would have on it would be helpful to consider.

Regards
Charley

TooFuzzy,

I guess some people like to be able to buy cut flowers. Those who cannot afford that can go for potted plants that, with care, will bloom for a season. Some are only able to afford a packet of seeds that they nurture to get their blooms.

I would rather nurture the stock portfolio than the petunia or tomato seeds. Further, the outcome may not be as much determined by the weather as the gardening pursuit. If you find digging rocks satisfying, may I suggest that Vermont would be an ideal location to enjoy life.

I'm glad to read that you avoided the Qualcom meltdown. Were you able to buy something that has not declined - instead of Qualcom? Maybe a big gas company such as Enron?

I see no reason to be sanguine about a reduced portfolio - even if it has not been a disaster because I employed AIM or because of fortuitous stock selection. Any more than you would be about the deer eating most of your garden.

Regards
Charley

Help with Logic test on this idea please.

Before I go through the exercise of setting up spreadsheets and running them for five years of data, I need help with the logic of this to see if it could make sense.

The general idea was to buy enough of the QQQ Inverse fund and AIM that as a hedge against price drops. That would still be necessary for IRA accounts as they cannot go short.

However, since the top 10 or so stocks make up the real value of the Nasdaq 100 - which the QQQ tracks - I should be able to set up those 10 or so stocks in AIM. With their percentages roughly in line with the % of the QQQ they epresent. Then Sell Short a similar dollar amount of QQQ. The problem is how do I AIM a Short Sale?

I recall that the AIM accounts were badly underperforming the market when the NASDAQ went on a tear to the bubble heights. Because the AIM program had the accounts selling out way before the Top. Not bad in retrospect. But it would sure screw up the hedge.

Need some help on that part. One solution could be to maintain the value of the QQQ's sold short to be somewhat in line with the value of the shares owned. If the individual stocks rose a great deal, teling AIM to Sell, then I would cover enough QQQ to restore the balance with the actual holdings. Of course, in a declining market, I would not be hurt by being "Over Hedged."

I'm reminded of the recent post where the AIMer had selected SUNW as the stock to employ. The stock was down about 80% but he was only down 50%. A 30% gain against the market because of AIM.

Regards
Charley

Regards
Charley

devron:

The problem with what you are suggesting is that they will both wiggle at the same time. In the same amplitude. You will be just buying and selling to yourself.

I guess my thought was more on the lines of:

IBM can go up and MMM can go down. Both could be AIMed to profit over time. But simply because IBM goes Up and MMM goes down, they can cancel out as it is reflected in the Dow Average. No change required in the Hedge.

BTW, This is my Third and Last Free Post of the day.

Here are a couple of RYDEX trackers:

RYOCX - 100% match NASDAQ
3 Yrs. compared to QQQ
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/charting.asp?Symbol=ryocx

http://www.rydexfunds.com/website/fund_info_fset.cfm?rydexfundid=18

RYAIX - 100% Inverse of Nasdaq
1 Year Comapred to QQQ
3 Years does not really show properly at MSN
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/charting.asp?Symbol=ryaix

http://www.rydexfunds.com/website/fund_info_fset.cfm?rydexfundid=20

Volatility Capture and Hedging

So many avenues have been explored by different AIM users to try to avoid the big Whack that I thought I would ask here about another idea I have been trying to get logically straight in my mind.

The idea of the Low Down AIM is to only own the portion of the AIM shares that will be traded by a normal AIM program. In general, the AIM system does not sell you out of the bottom 50% of the shares. So, the only way to make any money on those is for the share price to increase over time. The Top 30% to 50% are subject to a lot of activity however. Attempting to capture profits from the volatility of the stock price. The only problem I see with LD AIM is that it "could" sell you completely out if the price goes up without any corrections. And leave you on the dock with cash as the boat seemingly sails farther away. Consoled by the fact that that cash includes some nice profits. Just not as nice as Buy and Hold. That is a general problem with AIM - magnified by LD AIM. But the REAL advantage is that it does a much better job of capturing more of the volatility.

The other baggage of AIM is the cash reserve. It earns very little compared to that portion that is capturing the volatility - even when rates are at normal levels. Except that it is great in downturns when it does not decline in value and is available for those additional purchases.

As an additional concet to add to this mix, consider that we should be able to assume that the volatility of individual stocks will be greater than for the market index as a whole. But also, the general direction of value for the basket of stocks will be the same as for the index. Trying to say that the value of your 10 stocks may not have declined as much as the index over the past two years - but that value has still declined as the index has declined.

Now, to the main idea and question:

Suppose I set up AIM accounts with 10 stocks. Suppose I start with 33% cash and the balance in shares. Then, instead of keeping the cash, I use most of it to buy the SPX Inverse fund. As I run tthe individual stock accounts - buying, selling, generating cash, and using cash,- I am also doing the same with the wiggles of the Inverse fund. So that, in a general market decline, as we have suffered in the past four years or so, the Inverse fund is generating some cash from sales to allow funding buying more shares at the lower levels. Helping to keep me from running dry of cash.

Possibly, the end result is that I end up with the gains from more wiggles - volatility. And the question is - "Has anyone tried to model anything such as this with your spreadsheets?" It would be a little more complicated than some of the samle spreadsheets I have looked at, as it would require combining the cash accounts to really track it.

Regards
Charley

Interesting to hear about Hillsdale receiving his library.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is in Auburn, Alabama. Wonder how that was located there?

Charley

Yes,

That Setup would seem to do the job.

Too bad we cannot tell in advance what Setup to use to get those returns in only 7 months.

Thanks for the information.

Regards
Charley

Almost all investors have had a great deal of pain in the past couple of years. That does not make yours any less, of course.

I've never seen any investment program (from the Long Side) that will overcome an 80% drop in the value of the shares - your SUNW situation. However, the fact that you are "only" down 50% - 30% better than the underlying stock - is a pretty good achievement.

This does point out that even with something such as AIM, the selection of the underlying stock is important for positive returns. And the value of diversification among different stocks and asset classes.

Thanks for the good real life example.

Charley

Grabber,

It is certainly true that no one can "Sell High" without inventory. The retailers' phrase is "You can't sell from an empty wagon."

Having the wagon become empty from too many sells would be profitable. Having the wagon become empty because the merchandise becomes worthless is a hard to overcome and it becomes difficult to replace that inventory.

I'll try to focus a little more on the idea of Variable Safe in the next few days.

Thanks for the Spreadsheet and the good idea.

Regards
Charley

Grabber,

I got the spreadsheet. Thanks for the speedy e-mail reply.

I have a few thoughts on trying to improve upon the basic Lichello method. But haven't put the time into working on a spreadsheet. Perhaps a brief explanation would trigger some ideas on the part of the XL masters that may read these posts.

One thought - and it could be incorporated with the Low Down AIM idea - would be to write some calls on part of the holdings. Use the call premiium to buy more shares. We plan to let them go anyway when the price improves - nothing gets ridden to the sky because we continually reduce position in an up market. I had thought about doing it on up to 50% with regular AIM as that seems to be about as low as the selling ever gets. Not sure about a Percentage for Low Down Aim.

Second thought is to try to incorporate some type of Moving Average indicator to avoid buying all the way to Zero. And to avoid selling out of the Rockets before the ride is over. I understand Aptus has included something for a technical signal into his recent product upgrade.

My thought would be to measure Current Price by a very short (3 Da?) EMA. Then compare that to several other Simple Moving Averages to develop a Percentage of some sort that would adjust the Safe factor. If price is substantially below the 50 Da, 20 Da, 10 Da, and 5 Da, I probably don't want to buy so the increase in Safe would be a good thing. As price increases above 5 Da and 10 Da, it would indicate that price is improving and Go to Zero threat may be passed. Also, it would offset some of the distance below the Longer term Moving Averages. By combining these, I would be reducing the Safe level again and trigger the Buys. But in a more gradual fashion than a single Yes or No.

My stumbling block in programming XL is that I would also like to take the first Buy or Sell in the series - benefit from "normal" volitility. Just be more cautious to avoid the deeper divers until the dive is over.

If you have any ideas on how these could work (or NOT work) I'd certainly be glad to read them.

regards
Charley

Grabber,

I read the book about 25 years ago. Have not used the method. I'm still concerned by the stocks that will take you all the way to zero. and, it does not seem to have much OOMPH to it for aiming spyders.

However, possibly using something such as LD Aim will bump up the returns. I have a few other ideas, just have not tried to make XL give me the answers yet.

If you would be so kind, please forward a copy of the spreadsheet to cmeng@yahoo.com

Regards
Charley

Grabber,

Is there a link for a Download of the Low Down AIM spreadsheet. I would certainly like to study it for a bit.

Regards
Charley

Myst,

Your original variation on the AIM method was to look at the 13 da Moving Average for making adjustments. Now you have developed this method of buying and selling by using Volatility bands. However, the volatility bands have to be "retuned" occasionally to adjust for different market conditions.

My question is aboout combining these so that the there is more self adjustment. Using the relationship to some indicator (13 da MA) or several combined (avg. of RSI and Stoc), shouldn't the bands be able to shift from below the normal volatility bounds for buy to slightly above. Similar adjustments on the sells in an uptrend - so that sells are delayed until the price spikes above the bounds - which are greater than the MA of expected range.

Just a suggestion. And possibly this relationship could be incorporated into the quantity bought or sold, helping to avoid the buy to oblivion trap.

Regards
Charley Meng