>Here's hoping you prove that instinct to be wrong.
I've had plenty of Stewies myself so I accept your challenge.
Lately I've taken on the practice of hand auditing my test trades which is a very painstaking process. The last 3 or 4 issues have been mostly precision errors so I think I've got all the bugs worked out. The audit I did tonight I asked myself, 'If this order went to the broker would these values be correct. Are they reasonable for each line item?'
Some exciting news...
The extra cash I talked about last night, I calculated as a lump sum at the end of 4 cycles. But I realized that this cash comes back to the portfolio every time stock is sold so I added a column to include it with every trade. This tends to have a compounding effect that ripples through the rest of the portfolio.
And the total is...
On page 65 of Lichello's book where the portfolio comes to $32,534 after just shy of 4 cycles, you can now put $2,175,584.00 starting with the same $10,000 dollars using AIM II.
That should set the record for compounding.
Another thing I noticed with this recent version of AIM II. On page 64, line 4 where AIM dips to $6,322, AIM II now reads $10,517. It's a positive drawdown. Also due to the extra cash that comes to the portfolio on the sale of stock.
I also noticed when applying AIM II to real stocks it worked quite well. Stocks such as NSM, URBN, etc. etc. consistently returned 700 percent returns over a 5 year period (which comes to 179 percent compounded yearly) without having to hit the tops or bottoms. Just casual trades at regular price points like you'd expect with the original AIM.
So as far as the algorithm is concerned, it's now done. I'm mentally exhausted to the point where songs are playing over and over in my head.
The results will be easy to prove once you get the software in your hands. I started working on cleaning it up but there's a lot of polishing to do. So other than casual conversation I might be quiet for a few weeks.
Hope your investing is blessed,
Ryan