Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
RE starting with the 50/50 ratio one wouldn't do just as well using Synchrovest - a possible iWave replacement AIMster - I like it!
More thoughts re MPT...
We know that MPT and the so-called 'efficient frontier' are based on changing relationships between asset classes. Ideally one will have an optimum allocation going forward that will provide the best return with the least risk.
But, like you, I feel that the best prognostications as to finding where the efficient frontier might lie at any given moment is somewhat akin to trying to grab a snake made of jell-o in a room full of Wesson oil. Pretty slick on the software and not easily done, in other words.
So, what can we do as an alternative? One idea I've got working is to simply distill the various asset classes down to a reasonable minimum number of holdings and either Synchrovest or AIM each one - letting the market govern asset allocation as the various components move relative to each other, rather than trying to second-guess how each one is supposed to be, relative to each other according to MPT.
My distilled list: you can get the particulars for each on http://www.etfconnect.com
ZF - Zweig Fund - largecap US
RMT - Royce Microcap - smallcap US
RAS - RAIT Financial Trust (Real Estate)
EFA - EAFE Foreign (mainly largecap)
EMF - Templeton Emerging Markets
EAD - Evergreen Income Advantage Fund
DHY - Credit Suisse High Income Fund
DBC - Powershares Commodity ETF (metals, oil, etc.)
Performance analysis (hypothetical as this is a watchlist, not real invested positions, but should be in the ballpark):
Avg Vital
Statistics Your Holdings * S&P 500 (NO DIVIDENDS)
Price/Earnings 6.98 1 16.10
Price/Sales 10.82 1 1.57
Price/Book 0.41 1 2.89
Market Cap(m) 517 4 105,410
Volatility 13.20 8 13.25
Beta 1.05 5 1.00
Daily Volume 483,031 4 12,262,212
Dividend Yield 8.25 8 1.84
]i\Part of the AIM mechanics involve choosing levels of minimum trade size, a typical level being 10% of the stock value. So assuming broker fees of perhaps $10 you wouldn't really want to be trading much below $1000 at each AIM buy or sell signal - keeping brokers costs as proportion of the amount traded down to around the 1% levels. Which amounts to a $20,000 account based on a 50/50 stock/cash AIM initial blend.
You could reduce that down - but would see brokers fees becoming an increasingly greater proportion of the trade size.
Here in the US there are some alternatives. Jersey Al and I use FOLIOfn ( http://www.foliofn.com ) that takes a different approach and offers an annual membership charge in exchange for no-commission trades made in twice-daily "windows." A discount broker like Scottrade offers trades for around $7 each I think. The membership at FOLIOfn is $19.95/month (or $16.58 per month if paid annually at $199) for the lowest level (one folio of up to 50 holdings and 200 Window trades/month) one only needs to make 3 trades per month to start realizing a cost benefit compared to a discount broker. So one can tune one's parameters a bit. Of course there are some tradeoffs but I think we've found this service to be worthwhile.
Best,
AIMster
Hi, Clive,
You've been doing some serious pondering here. Your input's quite good to keep the rest of us stretching our grey-matter stuff too.
The more I consider Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) the worse it seems to get...In each case however the fundamentals - correlation, standard deviation, mean and CAGR are all variables - so the inputs are all typically either based on historical levels or predictions of potential future levels. In both the historical and predictive cases the actual future levels are likely to deviate from those levels - the efficient frontier is dynamic - a moving target.
And a target at that has one driving forward by looking into the rear-view mirror mainly. Yes, history is all we've got to go by. but how many times do we get the mailings from newsletters telling us, for example if we'd invested $1,000 in Wal Mart in 1980 or so it would be worth $1,000,000 or so now. But who knew and was recommending it that way IN 1980?
In reading the rest of your posting, you proffer good evidence for AIM to outperform B&H, but only in some circumstances, declines and very moderate price increases. Which makes me wonder if, starting with the 50/50 ratio one wouldn't do just as well using Synchrovest or Twinvest in a "termvest" type fashion? This would let you opportunely increase a position in an equity, giving you possibly the same benefit of B&H, but segueing into it as opportunities arise, instead of taking a lump-sum approach. Synchrovest does allow you to cash out and move on to something else, maybe ahead of B&H long-term or not. Using Synchrovest would have you regularly commit money, whereas AIM might keep one in the hold zone doldrums for a long time.
Do others see this reaction also or is it just me?
Best,
AIMster
Anybody watch the late day reversal on CHY? Popped back to $14.61 in the last half hour.
I didn't see that one specifically but I have seen a slight pullback up - could be some things are going to be considered short-term, at least, to be oversold, which may give something of a bounce. We'll see how it plays out tomorrow. All-in-all, though I think we're generally getting through the summer okay so far...
Everything I own is down (again)My worst day ever!
Hi, TF,
I hear ya! Right now around 3 PM my average decline today since yesterday's close for the day across all the holdings is -3.64%, with DHY off -5.99% and PHK the best of the lot at only -1.82%. Pretty freakin' brutal out there, that's for sure.
Cheaper prices, we gotta love 'em... later on when we can sell at a profit!
Best,
AIMster
Got a question about CEFs premiums/discounts in general.
Hi, Ray,
What you said on the fees making a premium if the NAV=market price makes sense, though the people at ETFconnect think it's more strictly a supply-and-demand issue over a relatively static number of shares.
A good CEF overview from them can be found here:
http://www.etfconnect.com/education/fundamentals_cef.asp
Best,
AIMster
Discounted premium.
I had the thought this morning about buying CEF's at a premium. For example, say one's first buy is on one at a premium- perhaps avoided in the first place, but, hey, sometimes you just like the fund. Good payout or whatever. Anyway, the market goes down as it has lately and say said fund drops about 15% or so, triggering another AIM buy. So, following the program, you buy. Now, whilst the fund may still be at a premium, you've actually made your next purchase at a 15% discount to the original price. So perhaps there is some offsetting value relative to your own AIM program when following a holding in this situation.
From the "if you were ever curious about it" department I noticed in the back of Superpower Investing it says, "Robert Lichello is a freelance author who lives in Summit, NY."
So, you ask, where the heck is that? What I should have the answer!
http://www.google.com/maps?q=Summit,+NY,+USA&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title
Zoom out a bit and you'll see it's northeast of Binghamton before Schenectady. I doubt if you'd find any trace of him now, but that's where he hung his hat, at least for some part of his life.
Now you know.
Missed it by thaaaat much again!! Must be my day.
Sorry, MM,
Usually I found I've just missed it by a half-hour or so - "drat Red Baron!" indeed, to echo Snoopy! Seldom do I get into an actual grubbing contest with someone else, this being only my 2nd win. But I'll hold off next time around if I see you're in there too!
Best,
AIMster
GRUB!!
Whew! Thought I lost that one. Narf!
AIMster re: "where P.T. Barnum reigns supreme!..."
Hey! Let's watch who we're knockin' here :)
Seriously, as a fellow Unitarian Universalist, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Barnum. However the attribution to him of the line about "a sucker being born every minute" was more my intention being used in the case of the Wall Street crowd!
Best,
AIMster
p.s. since I am in forced retirement it will be some time b4 I can invest again. My main goal right now is to reduce and get rid of credit card debit.
GOOD thing to do! We're also trying to get the mortgage taken care of so in about 2 years we'll have it paid off, effectively converting a 30 year into a 15. I suppose I should have simply opted for the 15 in the first place - hindsight and all that...
Best,
AIMster
There is a time to sow and a time to reap, try to force either activity out of season is doomed to failure. Wait for the market to come to you whether you want to buy or sell. Kind of the AIM philosophy, isn't it?
Quite. I think several things conspire against us to thwart most people from taking full advantage. First is the pace of our modern culture where we need everything now! Patience is a lost art. "Road rage" is another manifestation of this.
Second and symptomatically related is the near constant din from Wall Street, where there are the hundreds, if not thousands of "investment gurus" who purport with their newsletters and subscription products that they'll give you listings of stocks which are ready to "explode upward" in value, with some reaching quadruple-digit gains in a matter of months. You'd be a fool not to subscribe today! Even more insidious than these are those who proffer even more heftier percentages - but with less risk, they claim, using options. The first question to ask oneself is if these guys and a few gals are so good, why don't they just trade for themselves. One has to wonder how much money they make trading by their formulae versus selling subscriptions!
In the thousands are the internet zombie bots that hurl voluminous spam emails touting the advantage of this or that barely-listed penny stock. How much internet bandwidth is being wasted on nonsense such as this one can only imagine. Then there are the various chat rooms and boards where wearing an asbestos suit and carrying a humungous grain of salt is the only way to block the siren-songs of instant investment nirvana, so called, where P.T. Barnum reigns supreme!
Nevermind the talking heads of CNBC and the slick infomercials, they are another form of parasite unto themselves.
Did I cover the lot? Most of them, I think.
One can only be drawn by the concluding pages of Lichello's 4th edition when he's found AIM-HI to produce a genuinely spiritual, transformative experience, freeing himself, and those of us followers of his Tao from all the distractions and mental confusion. It does require patience and clarity of thought to walk this Path, but in the end, the Journey is worth it.
Best,
AIMster
Well at the rate CHI's been falling off today, down to $16.82 around the close today or off some 4.43% it might be trading at a discount rather than a premium sooner than we think!
agree that this would not be a good concept with some funds that represent the broadly diversified overall 'stock market'. However, my original post was concerned with some ultra long/short 'sector' funds.....REITs.I could be wrong, but I think that 'cyclical sector' funds could give the AIM concept of the fall, rise, fall, rise, fall, rise, etc. motion that enabled Mr. Lichello to develop his AIM formula in the first place.
Hmmm! I may be pondering what you're pondering. Some time ago I mentioned David Vormund's book on ETF trading and how he developed a system of always rotating into the best performing ETF's. Don Carlson did an analysis and found that he'd have done much better had he gone with the worst ones and waited for them to come back up.
I just mentioned in a post to forexdude about our zero-sum attempts as have just been re-discussed but the idea that I'll try and look at more closely is one where you take a position in both the currently best performing and worst performing sector ETF and say use one or the other (not sure which side yet) as the cash reserve, the other as the variable investment. The idea here being that instead of a perfect correlation, i.e, trying to play both sides, instead you're playing the extremes in the market performance against each other. My initial thought would be to use the worst performing one for the cash as it's already fallen in value, the best as the variable - if the best falls you've got the cash in the worst to buy more with - and being the worst it may well start to rise in performance and value, and if the best keeps going on the upward path one may well start to sell off some - adding to the worst if it keeps going down instead.
More analysis at hand!
Best,
AIMster
Still trying to find the clue to AIMing in Forex
Hi, FD,
I think there's been some discussion on this before. The best way to understand the AIM algorithm is to view it as a variable-value investment paired against a relatively constant value investment. In other words, a stock or group of stocks will change more rapidly in value, up or down when compared to the near constant value of say, $10,000 invested in a money-market fund that trades for a constant $1 per share. Of course the fund increases by dividends added to it, but this will be at a slower rate than the change in the stock value (usually) and with the lower interest and dividends a couple years back, almost a certainty!
AIM will use the cash reserve in the money market fund in a way that allows it to draw on it when the stocks decline in value, then replenishes it by selling stocks later on as they increase in value. It is the cyclic repetition of this action, plus the increase in trade size as directed by Portfolio Control on subsequent buys that allows for a compounding effect to take place.
As I understand FOREX (which admittedly is scant, so please correct me if I'm too far off), you're holding an offset of two variable items and are looking to profit in an arbitrage type manner as the spread between them changes. Thus, it's an entirely different principle which may well explain why AIM is not so adaptable.
We've also experimented with a zero-sum type situation where you have one fund giving 2x the S&P 500 return paired against another fund that gives an inverse 2x return. In theory they should offset each other perfectly, creating a zero sum situation and whilst a couple of testings held some promise, the idea kinda died on the vine.
AIM is what AIM is - one can certainly use it as a starting point but you may do well to create something specific to FOREX instead of trying to adapt a stock market tool for another type of investment altogether. Of course, we'll be glad to help and offer suggestions and comments - you may have noticed we're good for that!
Best,
AIMster
Synchrovest in all detail can be found in Lichello's book Super Power Investing There's one copy on Amazon.com right now for $1.75 and $3.99 postage!
I see by this AM that someone's gotten the copy I mentioned last night as being available on Amazon.com. Hopefully it was the recipient of my original posting or at the very least, another member of this fine board! Keep checking is all I can suggest if you want a copy. Other copies may be found via http://www.bookfinder.com
The prices returned by that service are a bit more - up to $114.95 for an original cloth (hardcover) version!
Good luck and congratulations to whomever got the one that was up for sale last night!
will go over your explanation of synchrovest this weekend. looks very interesting
Synchrovest in all detail can be found in Lichello's book Super Power Investing There's one copy on Amazon.com right now for $1.75 and $3.99 postage! Surprisingly that's the cover price on the 1975 edition I picked up from another Amazon.com seller some time back. No inflation of price in over 30 years, such a deal!! The inflation's in the postage!
Best,
AIMster
Interesting article on possible negative aspects of ETF's as another Wall St. "ploy". Now this is getting contrarian to being a contrarian to use index funds instead of individual stocks. Are we going in circles yet?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=32552
Points to ponder...
Best,
AIMster
Does anyone have a 3.5 floppy?
http://www.gummy-stuff.org/technology.jpg
Wow, Clive,
Where'd you find that one??
I remember it when it first came out! Okay, so I date myself now and then...
Thanks for the humor break!
Best,
AIMster
No doubt in my mind that a jet airplane driven
into a high rise can bring the whole building
down. Why does every thing have to be a conspiracy?
It's the consequences and fallout after the event that have fueled the ideas that there's been something more insidious afoot than the mere act of taking down the buildings. The clampdown on civil liberties, the excuse to start a seemingly open-ended war, especially in a country (Iraq) that had no involvement with the terrorist act committed, nor the WMD's which were the "official" excuse to start this war, [nevermind that any WMD's that might have existed at one time or another may well have been stamped: MADE IN USA from the time when we practiced the political art of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The picture of Donald Rumsfeld as Reagan's envoy to Saddam is quite telling. At least so far it is only speculation at least, of extending this war to Iran. Further, the pervasive attitude that any questioning or deviance from the "party line" automatically brands you as being "un-American" or "un-Patriotic" and therefore suspect. All the fine-print details in the so called PATRIOT act have people concerned. Nevermind the legal-limbo status of people at Guantanamo, surveillance pushing the envelope of legality, and so on.
One effect of this, imho, is that it was done, or allowed to happen, was to legitimize the Bush presidency. Go back to the 2000 campaign and election and all of the belief present at that time that he "stole" the election from Al Gore who had won the popular vote. Shortly after The Comedy Channel was airing a program That's my Bush which lampooned the President and made his foibles a laughingstock. Up until 10 September 2001 Bush was considered a real lightweight and maybe not so articulate. After 9/11 the whole attitude changed, he was the commander-in-chief at a time of national crisis. Merely an observation...
Best,
AIMster
I forget who did the poll but the majority said they are muslim first...That tells me all I need top know
Which is a correct response from their perspective. After all, the word Muslim is defined as "literally, the word means "one who submits to God" - Wikipedia. Adherence to the Divine for many people transcends their nationality. If one were to poll Christians I'd think a fair number would say that they are Christian first, then whatever nationality second. Same with Orthodox Jews, devout Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Mixing church (or mosque or temple) and State can get into some very thorny areas, hence the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to encourage the separation of same. Granted in theocratic states one has both the civil and sharia law or talmudic in Israel, I much prefer the Western model where those things that pertain to Caesar are Caesar's and those pertaining to the Divine are left to the heart and soul of each individual.
Best,
AIMster
spent a good part of an hour this morning listening to a web site provided me that had a radio show concerning 9/11 and the other sides view on what happened. I am trying sooooooooo hard to have some level or respect for this position, and am trying with due diligence to be open about it as well, but besides there being absolutely no concrete evidence and only speculation and pure propoganda, I came away flummoxed on how a human mind can come away with these type thought processes. In a way, it is fascinating.
Agreed. The other big issue from the last Century that has spawned all sorts of speculation and hours of discussion with people having all sorts of views is the JFK assassination. The groups of people suspect range from Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone gunner, to rogue CIA operatives, to Castro in revenge for the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion. to the Mafia for RFK as attorney general coming after them when they allegedly threw the Illinois election so that Kennedy would be elected. And there may be even more that don't come into mind just now. The range of ideas on this one has been remarkable.
So perhaps it is merely a collective response to an event that is so overwhelming and has such a jarring impact on the psyche that these various ideas come up and are an attempt to put a rational explanation on the what is otherwise patently absurd and overly traumatic.
Best,
AIMster
Anyone here use ZECCO?
Hi, TF,
Hadn't heard of this one until your posting. Since they don't charge commissions up to 40 trades per calendar month, I'm not sure how they make any money - do they use a subscription model like FOLIOfn? If they offer a wider variety of stocks available for trade and/or more open trading available rather than designated "Window" trades they might be worth considering. Their website doesn't seem to offer this sort of general info - or if they do it's not too obvious.
Thanks for any additional info.
Best,
AIMster
But I DONT BELIEVE FOR A MINUTE THAT OUR COUNTRY WOULD BE AS EVIL AS THAT TO DESTROY OUR MOST FAMOUS LANDMARK AND KILL EVERYBODY IN THERE.That is pure crap
It's not altogether impossible an idea. Sometimes things are done with a larger objective in mind. Churchill, for example, had to allow the German bombing of Coventry, otherwise having an evacuation beforehand would have tipped the hand to the Germans that the Allies had broken their code. They would then have then likely changed it and history might well have had a different outcome. So, does this make Churchill evil? After all, innocent people were killed, much as in the WTC and Pentagon. We think not because we're in agreement with his larger objective, winning the war. Similarly, for those who favor a totalitarian destiny for the US, these incidents [WTC and Pentagon] are merely tactical battles in their larger war.
And, in truth, they've been effective, with relative minimal casualties. Had the planes hit about two hours or so later than they did, the loss of life would have been much greater than it was. But one life lost is one too many of course, so they set it to go with maximum psychological payout, as is the objective of any terrorist action.
Power corrupts as we well know - look how low the approval ratings are for BOTH the President AND Congress! It is more, to use your expression "pure crap," to think that all those serving do so with the idealism and vision of the Founding Fathers. The political establishment has largely become the Plutocracy of multimillionaire career politicians, and (god forbid, lawyers), in other words people so far removed from the realities of the average "Working Joe" that they'll do anything to keep their power and position once they've obtained it. Why else is there such an almost tenure-like return to Congress of incumbents?
It's a sordid mess we're living in right now and it will take men and women of principle to get this Country back on course. And, IMHO, I've yet to see a Presidential candidate from either party who really inspires me and whom I think will do a good job. Stay tuned is about the best we can do right now.
Best,
AIMster
i would say some liberals don't believe the hoax. as some conservatives do believe it was a set up
The general theory is such:
1) There's an elitist group of people, dating back to at least Adam Weishaupt's Order of the Illuminati (Organized 1 May 1776 hence the importance of "May Day" in totalitarian regimes) bent on world domination (Think "The Brain" of Pinky and The Brain on steroids). In their more modern counterparts these people are members of such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.
2) Their view of a New World Order is not too far removed from Orwell's 1984, with slavery and war for the masses as they exist in a rarefied atmosphere beyond such petty concerns - after all, THEY make the money financing the wars and gulags (See Antony Sutton's "Wall St. and the rise of Hitler") for example.
3)Knowing that rational people will not normally surrender their civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms in peacetime when all seems right with the world, they create a panic situation such as the demolition of the WTC ("collateral damage") for the greater victory of their long term purposes. Better to have the people trade freedom for the pottage of so-called "security" than to live as free men and women. Keeping people on edge and in measure of paranoia and mistrust of those around you helps with the overall destabilization of a functional society.
4) Bush has already started the process by moving the scope of the ongoing war from it's initial purpose of being "on terrorism" to a demoralizing "son of Viet Nam" exacerbating the body politic and making us losers once again. Indeed some six years later bin Laden and al Qaeda are very much alive and well. A true war on terrorism would have had us stay in Afghanistan until bin Laden and crew were rounded up and brought to justice. The shameless effort by the Senate which recently doubled the award for bin Laden's capture is another exercise in them wanting to look like they're doing something, when the reality is that no one will ever claim such an award - there's no place on the planet where you'd live long enough to enjoy it.
I'm not saying I agree with all of this - but such is the general view of such Rightist organizations as the John Birch Society - so that's how a fair number of conservative types would view the 9-11 incident.
From the shameless plug department:
If you've ever considered becoming a paid member of iHub this month they do have quite a deal on - a three year subscription for about $100 less than 3 annual renewals at the one year price! You also lock in a 3 year term in case they up the subscription prices in the future. Becoming a subscriber helps them pay for their servers, bandwidth, plus you get unlimited postings as well as an advert-free experience.
The normal cost is $89.95 per year, so 3x is $269.85,
their 3 year special is $169.95.
I believe this special runs through the end of July.
I'll be around as a paid member through December of 2010 at this rate!
Support our favorite investor posting place and this great board in particular.
Best,
AIMster
<OT>
BTW: I've been having trouble logging in here from Firefox due to the recent techincal whatevers from iHub. So I'm doing this through IE (which I hate). Anyway, anyone else having log in probs via Firefox?
I switched some time ago from Firefox to Opera and it's working fine with the new login. Occasionally I have to use IE for something or another, but like you I treat it as a browser of last resort! No rest for the paranoid, after all!!
Best,
AIMster
One more item on GAb vs ZF - GAB's expenses clock in at 1.43% vs 1.18% for ZF. I'd ideally like to get below 1% altogether but I'll take the lower cost.
s the dividend on ZF sustainable or is it a return of capital? Then there is the annual operating fee (I can look that up)
I checked over my records on ZF and from 2006-present it's all been dividends - no return of capital declarations. As to whether or not this will continue going forward I dunno but so far has been good for the last year 1/2.
Best,
AIMster
I have been using 10 ETFs by industry and have added a few small accounts of individual stocks. On the one hand I am drawn toward the individual stocks:... 20% of each and rebalance once / year or AIMing each separately. The plan here is to be diversified as LITTLE as possible.
Hi, TF,
You bring up some good issues here:
1) We know AIM works as a volatility capture mechanism. Therefore it works best with individual stocks as an individual stock will likely be more volatile than an ETF of which it is a component. The downside of course is a higher risk level. AIM encourages risk to a greater degree by buying more as the price goes lower, whereas the "conventional wisdom" suggests using stop losses to bail out early on. AIM requires the stock to sooner or later go back up. If it doesn't or flames out altogether (Enron, New Century, etc.), one can be out some money, perhaps even more so than someone who followed the stop loss idea as you've been betting against the flameout.
One can always bail out if one sees the handwriting on the wall, but I think more than not people will tend to ride the rocket all the way back into the ground.
2) I've read different arguments about diversification and whilst only the most daring or foolhardy would put all the proverbial eggs in one basket, I've heard it said that the real money is made by concentration, not so much diversification. Even my innocuous test a year or so back with the 5 "Puppies of the Dow" returned well over 27%! And these are big, mainstream corporations - nothing too on the speculative side - well, General Motors may well be the most speculative of the bunch.
1) GAB (large cap)
2) RMT (microcap)
3) EFA (foreign)
4) ICF (REIT)
5) CHY (bond)
I'd add a couple to your list:
EMF - emerging markets
DBC - Commodities
I'd also change GAB to ZF. ZF's trading at a 6%+ discount compared to the 0.3% discount of GAB. Also the yield on ZF is 11% to GAB's 8%. But this group of 7, giving you a slightly more than 14.28% position in each should give enough diversification as well as a lot more concentration.
As you suggest, either periodically rebalance or AIM each.
Sounds like a plan.
I'll need to thin things out a bit to get to this level, but I like the concept.
Best,
AIMster
re:PPC PRX
Back from a short trip down to NYC - other than HOT it was quite nice. That's why the line in the song goes, "I love New York in JUNE... Ah well, there you are then!
As for the stock symbols I was thinking more along the lines of Tom's racing interest:
His Power Performance Car winning the PR(i)X!!!
See, we can do "clean" humor too!
AIMster
Is 1% worth the time or effort? Yes if it's 1% of 1 million! ($10,000). That ain't chicken feed to me.
Point taken. Though, of course, that presumes that one has $1 million in the first place. Small detail there. Though we're all working on it.
As for self directed systems, I think Mark Hing (Automatic Investor) has mentioned Neural Network approaches to this. I believe there may be other products out there that purport to use NN. I don't know of any specifics, because the concept is beyond me other than I think that the software 'learns' and 'adapts'.
Ive seen some websites and like any other piece of technology it has it's own nomenclature and jargon, fine if you're versed in the concepts, I suppose - I guess what we need is "Neural Networks for Dummies."
In a somewhat humorous note, there's the NeuroShell trader program, with the company based in Maryland. I've often thought that their product's name would lend itself such for them to be located instead in New Rochelle, NY! (narf!) And for as low as a mere pittance (cough, cough) of $795 you too can join their "revolution" http://www.neuroshell.com/ in using AI technology for picking stocks, forex, and other such sundry financial instruments.
The also offer a free e-book explaining how AI can be applied to trading systems - link here: http://www.neuroshell.com/Successful%20Trading%20Using%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf
With Mr. Lichello's paperback going for $6.99 new I'd have to be demonstrated the ease-of-use and performance of such a system as this for me to fork over that kind of money into a software product. Now if any of us is affluent enogh and has time enough to investigate this sort of product and is willing to report back to the board on the efficacy of such - perhaps the company would be willing to give a discount based on referral sales - ha - but seriously - might be worth pondering...
Onward!!
AIMster
Was AIM first used in the 1630's in Holland?
Just finished reading an excerpted version of Charles Mackay's 1841 quite useful tome, Extraordinary Popular Delusions & The Madness of Crowds."
The book consists of three such human misadventures, the first, whom we may well consider an ancestor to the modern Federal Reserve, Scotsman John Law, who nearly took France to ruin in the early 1700's by replacing precious-metal coinage with fiat paper. In the end there was a run on it and he was nearly run out in the collapse. Indeed, he ended his days relatively impoverished in Italy, being in personality a rather generous person and did not succumb to the worst of the greed at the peak.
The second story is of the English South Sea corporation and the heights and depths to which that stock market bubble burst. The process, if not the particulars would repeat again in the late 20th century in the US .COM fiasco.
Finally, and of most interesting report is the 1630's tulip bulb madness which infected Holland. Mackay describes the fundamental AIM theorem in 1841 thus: "The tulip-jobbers speculated in the rise and fall of the tulip stocks, and made large profits by buying when prices fell, and selling out when they rose." Perhaps more LD-AIM than our "classic" version, but the contrarian idea is there nonetheless.
So it would take about another 136 years or so for Mr. Lichello to pick up where Mr. Mackay had pointed the direction, fine-tune the concept a bit and give us the initial version of AIM, which we've been using and improving upon ever since.
Thus endeth the history lesson for today!
AIMster