is retired now but still kicking like a horse!
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.
Rien,
For a cheapo advice you can't expect too much actual wisdom!
But I tell you that I bought a HP 35 Calculator for $ 305
and at that time it was 1/3 rd of my Gross monthly salary. I knew the proces were dropping fast(although that was not deflation) but I wanted it rhight then and there. Waiting was not an option!
"Some" time later I bought a calculator that could do anything the HP 35 could do for 10 US Dollar. My Gross salary at that time was aout $ 3000/month
If I would have waited I could have saved 295 bucks!
If I need something today, I will buy it today!
I still say if prices are dropping then this will be a good thing as long as wages don't drop as fast. In other words, if production systems and manufacturing efficiencies are improved then everybody has more as long and the criminal CEO's do not steal the profits.
Conrad
Karel,
Here is the dope on the 20/80 and the 50/50 Vortex Simulations for the SPY Jan 1, 1998-July 1, 2000. The figures tell their own story.
My observation is that if you consider the cash earnings there is a very significant advantage over the Buy and Hold investment gain. This supports my earlier argument that the B*H approache will almost never beat an AIM, and if you also consider the lower investment base for the AIM then the yield on the basis of invested capital will be the same for an AIM as B&H if the share price runs straigh up without cycling.
Anyway, investments that don't cycle are not interesting, so I claim that B&H will never beat a good AIM on cycling stock.
The tables below are screwed up! In the Editing/Preview Mode the data is lined up quite well but as soon as it goes in the Final Mode it gets out of wack a lot. If you want the data lined up(in a matrix) I will send it to you by e-mail. Just give the word!
Neutral Vortex Mode 20/80 Cash/Equity Ratio
Remarks for neutral parameters Start Capital =20 000
1 Buy & Hold Yield Profit 5,77%
2 Number of Trades 7 234,57143 days/trade 7,706659 Month/Trade
3 Annual Yield 2,7
4 Direct Yield Profit 12%
5 End capital $22.459
6 Cash/Stock Ratio 20/80
7 Lowest cash 4000
8 Highest cash 12282
9 End PF Value $22.459
10 Highest PF Value $28.476
11 Lowest PF Value 20000
12 Buy Aggression 0 ----Rw=Constant at $16000 !!
13 Sell Aggression 0
14 Minimum Buy % SV 10
15 Minimum Sell % SV 10
16 Interest of 4% added Yield 2,7 /yr
17 Interest Income @ 4% 0
18 Dividend added to Reserve 820
19 Note that with the high cash
reserve interest earnings would have been
approximately (at 4%/yr) 1740
This raises the Yield to 20,99 Percent vs Buy & Hold Investment
Neutral Vortex Mode 50/50 Cash/Equity Ratio
Remarks for neutral parameters Start Capital =20 000
1 Buy & Hold Yield Profit 5,77%
2 Number of Trades 7 234,57143 Days/Trade 7,706659 Months/Trade
3 Annual Yield 1,7
4 Direct Yield Profit 8%
5 End capital $21.537
6 Cash/Stock Ratio 20/80
7 Lowest cash 4000
8 Highest cash 15176
9 End PF Value $21.537
10 Highest PF Value $25.298
11 Lowest PF Value 20000
12 Buy Aggression 0 ----Rw=Constant at $16000 !!
13 Sell Aggression 0
14 Minimum Buy % SV 10
15 Minimum Sell % SV 10
16 Interest of 4% added Yield 1,7 /yr
17 Interest Income @ 4% 0
18 Dividend added to Reserve $512
19 Note that with the high cash
reserve interest earnings would have been
approximately (at 4%/yr) 2560
This raises the Yield to 20,5 Percent vs Buy & Hold Investment
Good Point Robo!
I did not realise that this 20/80 should have rung the bell ref. de 20/80 Rule of this... what's his name again?...Picorni or something like that?
In this case the 20/80 Cash/Equity Ratio came from our friend Bernie Goldberg!
As to you question on the deflation hedge: Let me think:
Inflation means that the value of money deflates. That being so we need to inflate the money. With the up-trend of the Market(eventually) we can inflate our money by going heavily into stocks right now. So if you start an AIM at this time I would go for 20/80 Cash/Equity rather than 80/20.
So if you expect a deflationary period(money being inflated)then you might expect stock prices to drop? However, that will not be the case because the economy will get stronger as people will buy more(prices were dropping) and companies doing good business and see their sales increase. Stock prices will rise! So again, you should go heavily into stocks with a 20/80 Cash/Equity Ratio.
If by chance you have no money right now then you are plain out of luck. If by chance you are already 100% in stock then simply buy the Vortex Package with the Turbovest Module. You can borrow 60-70 % on your stock equity and make killing.
That's $ 59,75 please
Conrad
Karel,
Certainly, I can do that, but I should mention that what I call optimised may not be absolutely optimised, as with the 5 variables I use there are various peaks in the Yield Surface.
For example if I set the Sell Resistance to ~ 70% I get a completely different combination of parameters and also a Yield in the neighbourhood of 15%-20% or so. I did not optimise that peak as I firsts found a peak with the Sell Resistance at 20%, which appeared more attractive(but will be more costly in trading fees!).
As I mentioned, I can select an operating mode that focuses on share accumulation rather than cash maximization. So, what does un-optimised mean? There are choices to make in this. If I choose a completely arbitrary set of parameters then I might choose a set that ends up with a 50% loss or so, by trading stock at a loss each time. So, un-optimised can not mean
arbitrary parameter selection.
On the other hand, I have experience in selecting parameters which will give excellent performance, as I am beginning to see the multiple variable relationships. So I could pick a set of parameters that will give probably 15 % to 20 Yield right of the bat with this stock, as I already know the high yield options.
Also the cash Equity Ration is very important. I can select the most effective one.
Instead, what I will do is this:
Minimum Buy/Sell = 10% of Stock Value(SAFE is not used)
Buy Aggression =0
Sell Aggression =0
Cash/Equity Start Ratio=50%
Or do you want to see this with the same 20/80 Cash/Equity Ratio as the result I showed before? What the hell, I do them both!
This Vortex Mode is more conservative than the English Conservatives. This Mode is for the Scared!
Actually, this is the Vortex Neutral Mode in that for the upside or the downside it has a symmetric buying/selling plan. For buying and selling: PC2=PC1.
In operation it sells off the profit and reinvests the profit as the price drops. It is nevertheless a Growth Mode! Perfect Symmetry in this case does not mean that there is no growth potential.
I will let you know the results soon.
Regards,
Conrad
Tom,
This information is a very close representation of What I had in mind. Maybe I will get some sleep now thanks to Lou Dina's effort!
However, I was thinking of a mathematical relationship stating the share accumulation as a function of the various variables that are typical for the standard AIM, which only has 3 parameters(as far as I can count):
Minimum Trade
Safe
Price Drop
Is a relationship as I envison worth losing sleep over?
For the Vortex Method this approach is not practical as I have between 6 and 8 parameters!
Conrad
Don, This simple conclusion appears wrong to me!
A reserve of 100% of the investment(50/50 Cash/Equity Ratio) allows a price drop of any arbitrary amount to exhaust the Reserve. It simply dedends on the how far you let the price drop before step-wise buying is initiated.
Even if you call my 100% Reserve 50% cash in the usual AIM sense then you obiously can let the price drop to 99 % before the cash is exhausted. That is purely a matter of choosing buy-levels, and this is a trivial case.
This is as trivial as asking how much equity you can buy with a certain Reserve. Extra Equity = Reserve-Costs.
The question you appeard to have asked is, IMO, much more interesting, as it will give an answer to the number of shares that one can buy at a prescribed buy-seqeunce. Why is this interesting? Well, simply because this gives a representation of the Portfolio Growth Potential based on initial cash and assumed price drops, before recovery resumes.
I shall not sleep until I figure this out!
Conrad
Karel. Ref Message #4107 from Bernie:
I finally got some time to run a Vortex Test on the SPY monthly stock prices from the source you gave to me. I still have different stock data as Bernie had, although it is for the same period.
Barnie's Results on SPY: Ref: Message # 4107
SPY price as of January 1, 1998 $98.313
SPY price as of July 1, 2002 $84.71
This would give Mr. B & H a net loss of 14%
Mr. AIM started with a portfolio of $20,000.
163 shares worth $16,000 and $4,000 in Cash Reserve.
As of July 1, 2002 Mr. AIM has 157 shares worth $13,278 and $5,785. Cash
Total Portfolio Value of $19,060 for a net loss of a little less than 5%.
Vortex Result SPY(maximised but possibly not optimised):
SPY price as of January 1, 1998=$90,69
SPY price as of July 1, 2002=$95,92
Notice that these Stock prices are quite different even though they are for the same Company. The Vortex Results include the Dividends payments, which are added to the Reserve as the are paid out. Total Dividend = $169 (Due to being low on stock much of the time).
In the 4,5 year run there are two positions with zero cash Reserve.
Stock price: Monthly. Day High/Low averaged.
This would give Mr. B & H a net gain of 5,8%
VORTEX started with a portfolio of $20,000.
175 shares worth $16.000 and $4.000 in Cash Reserve.
As of July 1, 2002 Mr. Vortex has 261 shares worth $25.074 and $91 Cash.
Total Portfolio Value of $25.165 for a net gain of a little less than 26%.
Period: 4,50 years
Number of Trades=18
Buy Aggression=0,978
Sell Aggression =0,864
Minimum Buy=14% Stock value
Minimum Sell=20% Stock value
No Interest was earned nor were trading costs added.
This run is almost out of cash at the end. With different parameters I can maximize the stock value as well and still get good gains figures.
With the 4 parameters in this Vortex Model there are various parameter combinations that give considerably better results than the Buy and Hold. It is easy to get a 15 % Yield with non aggressive non optimised parameter settings. To use the Vortex Methode in the high aggression mode one needs to do some experimentation to get a good feel for effective parameter settings!
There are several parameter combinations that give high yield results. It is therefor difficult to find the Optimum combination.
Regards,
Conrad
Tom, I was looking for an answer. Not another question!
At first I thought about Search and Rescue but that did not fit anything about stock price trends.
Then I thought it obviously meant Sticks and Rods but
decided to wait for the real answer.
Now I am ready to solve the problem!
Conrad
Hello Tom,
You spotted the same problem that there are various possibilities for this question and unless the buy-sequence is specified there is no closed answer. One could burn a secified amount of the reserve and end up with a vastly different number of total shares for that amount of cash.
I read the question as this.
How much reserve do I need to start out with if I want to end up with say 15 times(or 10 times) as many shares as I started with? We could only figure this out if we have one unknown variabe, or give the answer in terms of multiple variables.
Don has to provide more information!
Conrad
MM, Don, The Ordered Pair Problem:
I was trying to get Don's feedback as to what he meant as I did not quite understand the question.
In the first instance I am assuming that Don meant an AIM like buying scheme and then wanting to know how much money is required to buy an arbitrary number of multiple investments relative to the starting investment(of course, I am talking about the number of initial shares, or otherwise the question is a trivial one).
It is easy to assume that one would buy at predetermined Buy Resistance levels of say 10%(this would give me the Xi's). With this you can set the question for the magnitude of the Reserve at any desirable multiple of the initial investment. This makes the Xi the independent variable and the required reserve the dependent variable.
The equation for this should be easy to formulate, but I suspect that Don might mean something else. That's what I want to find out.
I have two interpretations: 1) The mentioned 3, 5, 10 figures are preset multiples of the original share quantity that have to be bought in sequence(this gives a total of 18 multiples) or 2) that only the end multiple is specified(3 or 5 or 10 or whatever).
It's an interesting problem to solve in general with the price drop function per buy an unknown and then to solve the problem for a given Buy Sequence.
As I see it the specification of 3,5,10 would result in a different problem then only to specify the end quantity.
So Don, Pull the Lead Out an let us know what you meant
Conrad
But wat does SAR mean?
MM, I was just getting warmed up. Still want to know what I think of it?
Conrad
Don,
Do you mean that if you start with stock at say 1 unit and the stock proce went down you would want to buy Z units at each progressive drop ?
Then you have to specify at which prices the stock is to be bought as these are the free variables.
So you have to give the stock prices and units as ordered pairs:
(1,Y) + Reserve = staring consition y=start price buy Y does not have to be known. Then prices are Xi:
(3,X1)
(5,X2)
(10,X3)
etc.----->(Zn,Xn) and if you can give a functional relationship for the Xi's then I will give it a try.
Or did you mean something else?
Regards,
Conrad
Irwin, All the Fuzzies,
After the drinking I needed for post # 4376 I was planning to have one more to try to figure out about this chicken business,
but the bottle was already empty.
You are not playing fair on this! How can I figure out the problem if you do not tell me whether the eggs were first or the chickens!
Without that information I have to use Fuzzy Mathematichs and Riemann Geometry. I think TooFuzzy may have an answer on this as well!
But I have short cut:
A kilo of butter weights 9,81 Newtons, approximately.
Conrad
MM. This requires some heavy drinking while thinking about it. I will start right away!
Can you define range bound a little clearer. I am not quite familiar with many of the terminologies that are used on this Board. If I were a Bull on the Range I would know!
Also, stop and reverse needs clarification for me. I understand a train stopping and reversing but for stocks buying I need to interpret this a little more. Do you mean if I am selling on the rise and I get close to the top of the range that I would stop selling and start buying? That's a very unAIMisch thing to do. Are you sure this sort of talk is allowed here?
On the way down close to the end of the range I would have to stop buying and start selling?
OK, you say at the top I buy a bunch and then sell two bunches so that the sell is one bunch short(shares I do not have). Is that what you mean?
Now, near the bottom: I reverse the Buy Order to a sell and then I buy twice as much.
Before I go out on a limb I want to know: What the heck is a SAR ???
Now two questions:
On the top: Buy 1 + Sell 2= Sell 1 (short): I interpret this as selling shares I don't have. Why not just sell 1 short instead of what you suggest?
On the bottom: Sell 1 + Buy 2=Buy 1(long): I interpret this
as buying shares without money. Why not just buy 1 long instead of what you suggest?
When I get your reply I start think more heavy thinking and then perhaps I can interpret the puzzle and find the effect of this technique.
Mmmmmm. Interesting.
At the top it appears to me as an Inverse TurboVest Technique! which I will call a MM ITT for now!
Conrad
Irwin,
This gets interestingly confusing. Are you asking me if you do not know what I am talking about or is it that you asked if I... heck I have no idea anymore what you or I were talking about!
May be I coud explain it again if...
Conrad
Right Tom!
We have to read between the lines to "see" the winner.
Conrad
MM,
Good Choice! You pass!
Conrad
Optimization on AIM,
Optimisation of parameters on a period of past share prices, makes sense. There is no disagreement on that. Suppose now that we have an pattern or trend recognition subroutine and get warning that the latest share rice falls out of the pattern by a significant degree. This signal indicated that maybe the pattern is changing.
I see two options for interpreting this:
1) The pattern(trend) is changing;
2) The pattern(trend) is not changing:
The choice for this must come from other signals if you want to choose between them. I see at least two options as a possible course of action:
A) You act on the buy/sell Advice as you always. You decide to optimise your AIM as the out of trend price may be part of a trend change. The new AIM parameters will then include the latest price.
B) You act on the buy as usual but decide that the latest price is a fluke and you do not optimise.
With the next entries of the new prices it will become evident in which direction the price trend is going and it will be possible to identify if the price under cases A) or B) are flukes or not. If the price under A) was not a fluke the optimisation was effective. If the price under A) was a fluke the optimisation was not effective and Case B) was the better option. OK, that are the breaks, either way could have occurred.
The question arises that if you are going to optimise again you might know that the previous optimisation was not effective(the price in case A) was fluke) and you want to do the optimisation now for other reasons, you are stuck with stock data in which a price is included that is a fluke. In order to prevent this from affecting the optimisation you would want to adjust the fluky price to conform to the trend that was present then.
There is of course noting wrong with such a procedure, but it requires that all the data points that are considered as fluky in relation to the trend are identified and adjusted so that the latest optimisation is done with adjusted stock prices. This would, in my opinion, much give better parameter settings as long as the trend continues.
Has anyone thought about such a procedure for optimising the optimisation procedure?
I am addressing this from a technical perspective of data interpretation. It is not uncommon to remove data points from a Test Case data set if it is believed that these points are out of character. This is of course quite legitimate. For stock data this argument is no different.
The problem with stock data it is not always possible to recognize this from individual points, and this would require identifying particular data points at the time they occur. This means flagging questionable data so that later these points can be traced and modified as required when the optimisation is done.
Obviously this requires more work but as long as this improves yield for well behaved stocks it could be worth the trouble.
As part of this procedure I would think of using only the stock history period that shows characteristics of the recent trend and reject large deviated data sets that do not support the latest trends.
Are there any problematic aspects in what I propose?
Conrad
Just catching up on some messages I mist.
It may be funny, but it will tell you also what your friend are like after the market is down like it is now and they no longer believe it will recover, if you have any friends left over!
Cio,
Conrad
Expert Pundits. Jennie quoted one of them:
He said that at market bottoms, the first marker is that the market simply stops dropping-(is that a DUH?)
It's a DUH^2"
A friend told me some time ago that when he was listening to a soccer match journalist on radio, giving a second-by-second account on what was happening:
"The game is fierce! The grass is drenched with blood....The score is tied at 3-3....The Jackson Blood Hound are attacking with a vengeance...Should they score then they'll be ahead by one point..."
The market will go up
The market will go down...
Sometimes it happens that nothing happens.
Conrad
Being There!
Will said Coach.
You're an optimist too!
Conrad
Riding the MM Freight Train......
Either way these lights prove that it's not a Black Hole we are slidng into: We can boldly go there where the light is beckonning us, or hitch a ride on that train and start an new journey.
Conrad
PS:
I am an optimist.
Tom,
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Don't let the patient die!
Conrad
Tom,
Amen!
Conrad
Right Karw,
I'll wait and see what happens. Can't do much else anyway.
some things that are legal may still be unfair. Sighhhh.
Cio,
Conrad
Tom, Thanks for your thoughts on Equity Credit.
You got it Right on TurboVest. That's exactly the thinking I went through when I designed it: A Natural Partner for AIM on the down side. I fell into it in a natural way. I had a good job, good salary, making overtime frequently, and a Revolving Credit line. Buying some extra shares was a good way of using my credit. During the life of the Vortex Investment Club I frequently used it with a diversified portfolio I ran on 50% Margin for years on end, using the strong leverage of the Turbovest seed. I called it Vortex Turbo Credit then, or something like that!
As far as debt in general is concerned, I compare it to alcohol, or oxygen(Which acts like a poison in some cases if we get too much of it). Using credit is a natural human thing to do, but it can be a poison! The banks are to some considerable measure guilty of providing too much credit, too easily, to young people(My 18 year son got an equivalent of $ 5000 bank credit(without proper back-checking)too easily and now he is in trouble! But in general progress and development thrives on credit. Without credit I would have never been able to buy a house in 1987).
Anybody that uses credit wisely will benefit from it.
Conrad
Karel, I agree that honesty, in an absolute sense, is to some significant degree---I like the ambiguous way I put it---a matter of perception or cultural interpretation, still I think that when we talk about 'honesty' we mean something more than the type of honesty the Nazi's displayed when they comitted their crimes...Personally I like to confuse honesty with inegrity...sometimes its good to be Fuzzy!
As for TurboVest, you got it for 100% right that it was desigend for using on the down side.
I hope you can benefit from it as I fave done in the past.
Conrad
Tom, Don't worry!
I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about!
:-I
Conrad
Karw, Honest CEO's?
Do they still exist?
Are some books not cooked?
By the way, TurboVest in a rising market is contradictory to its intent and purpose. Its OK to borrow at the botom but as you sell off in a AIM fashion you do not need to borrow! The TurboVest is the most powerfull(and safe) if you start it if prices are already on their way down. So, Its OK to start it right now and buy extra stock on this dip.
Conrad
Hi Karw, Amsterdam AEX at 319 right now.
What's the secret on August 1 for the re-bounce?
All through August most people will be counting pennies as they have spend the cash on holidays and new school supplies for the kids.
I think everything will rebound like a kangaroo on September 11th. Right now the Market is slowing its dive and getting its muscles ready for a huge quantum leap. On September 11 there will be a huge WTC Remembrance Ceremoney and the many speeches will pump new energy into the American people. Everybody else except Bin Laden and sorts like that will follow this impetus.
That's also because all the people went away in May and will be back in September. Only this time they will be back twice as fierce as usual. George Bush will see to it.
Read his Lips.
Conrad
Jennie,
Vealies are made from calves.
Conrad
Tom. To make it easy with your dilemma:
It won't be much longer until VIEW is 100% invested. I'm trying to sort out where the money should go.
Put all your money in one account and buy stocks in deserving companies. Put some of the money in Quickies. Quickies are funds that that you can liquidate very quickly to liberate cash. This way the cash is invested 100%. Bundle all your stock together and call it the Veale Mutual Fund--VMF
Now you sell participations in the VMF to all over the world. AIMers may like to joint the VMF on a participatory basis. I have seen a question to this effect on this Board. Entry Fee =5% of investment. This creates more cash. You will reel in this cash for we all think you are the best AIMer on the Board. You might even be a goof AIM Fund Manager as well.
With the cash so reeled in you buy more of your favourite stock and funds and this will make the VMF Grow. This will require a name change. The Veale AIM Growth Fund. The VAGF will have a lot of equity credit at your local bank.
Now you get Turbovest Package from Vortex Investment Services at a discount...well I guess this one is out: The Turbovest secret is already public property as I send all of you a description of it already! Anyway, you borrow on the Big Dip like we have now and buy more of your favourite stocks, nicely diversified in the companies that will survive the current depression. Don’t worry about a 3-digit Dow.
All of us will make a bundle and you as Manager as well, but don't hire the Anderson crowd to do the books. Keep it straight, but that might be difficult as big money beckons.
That's what I think is a neat Vortex Solution. It goes without saying that for various stocks you will use the Vortex AIM, X-DEV and the Don Carlson AIM and for good measure also an AIM BTB or two to honour Lichello a bit.
There maybe there is a slight problem with my plan: AIMers want to do it all themselves and hate see other people to manage their money. So, you have to get hold of all the scared and al of the greedy and get them to join this scheme.
Conrad
Dividends! Sorry I asked about it.
The Dividend Traffic baffeld me. So many views!
In the past I received some dividends. Taxes were automatically deducted. The money appeard automatically on the bank account an that was it. Nothing to think about. The dividend simply figured in the investment profit eqaution and this determined the Yield.
Of course, every cent I paid on costs was added as expense, and that's the way I calculated the Yield.
I have heard all I ever want to know about dividends!
Conrad
Hi Gut Wrench LemonHead.
Hi Gang, The ole "Gut Wrench" got a hold of me today.
Somehow this struck a chord in me. Made me think where the heck I heard this expression before. Then another chord was struck: My little niece Tallulah Winkelman grew up to an actress in Vancouver, Canada:
http://home.earthlink.net/~gutwrenchcomedy/westender.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~gutwrenchcomedy/whatis.html
Now I have to find out what the hell a Gut Wrench is. Well, I suppose the +5000 websites I found on Google should give me a hint.
After I read some of them!
Conrad
Thanks Bernie.
I will give the link a tryout!
Conrad
Bernie,
How about mess. # 4193 on dividend plays?
Conrad
Thanks Karel,
The link I gave you was for SPY, an ETF that follows the SP500 index. The prices may not compare to Bernie's, as Yahoo, the data source, gives the historical prices adjusted for dividends. Stocks with dividends then show lower prices before the dividend. Bernie's value of 84.71 is the closing price of 7-19.
Is it not an unreasonable method to fiddle with stock prices afterwards? How does Yahoo(retroactively) know at which point to start dropping the price before the divdend payout date?
I mean, before the dividend is declared the stock is pregnant, and the market buzz inflates the stock price. Many people might expect a healhy 4,537 kg baby and buy the stock because of that(Only the 'mother'and the 'doctor' know ahead of time if the baby is already dead). When the price dives after the afterbirth and the baby are sluiced away the recent buyers take heir profit, the dividend being peanuts or less, means then nothing, and the price rise and diving will then have been for nought. How does Yahoo adjust for that, afterwards?
Conrad
Karek,
The sea lies waiting
Lemmings hasten towards it
Stocks overtake them
Stocks?
How about this:
Investors overtake them...
The lemmings think twice, and go home
Conrad
Karel, you are correct with your conclusions on the Vortex Results.
First, the table on the link you provided to me was, IMO, not a SPY run but something else. See My message:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=949&NextStart=4179
Next, the data I used was purely a stock price list without any indication of reinvested dividends. So my results are purely based on bare data. Reinvested Div. would increase the Vortex yield of course. This would amount to allowing some negative cash positions equal to the dividend payments, or simply adding the extra cash manually t the spreadsheet after a simulation would be finished.
Also I agree that the Optimised Simulation is not fully realistic and obviously this optimised result would not be realised if one would do the VORTEXing with daily live stock data. The point that I made is that With the Vortex flexibility one can achieve results much, much better than the AIM BTB. If one starts modifying the Lichello AIM to do the same thing as Vortex does then you are proving my point that by removing the limitation of the AIM BTB you create something that works much better, and if you do it then we can call it a KAREL AIM!
I also stated that with the standard Min Buys/Sells @ 10% and non-optimised non-aggressive settings VORTEX still get good results, or better, than the typical AIM BTB might get. With the non-aggressive approach the Vortex at least gives right-away the opportunity to start with approximately optimised settings from a trial optimisation. You can then re-optimise manually if the stock price pattern changes appreciably.
AN important point here is that there is no such thing as a Standard VORTEX AIM. The way I defined the Neutral VORTEX with BA=SA=0 should not be compared with the AIM BTB. It simply defines the condition from which I developed the VORTEX AIM, and that is based on an important Lichello concept: to systematically replenish the stock value if prices drop and to cream off the profits as prices rise. For this the VORTEX AIM is an Ode to Lichello. In many ways I give lichello the credit for my ability to escape from his AIM BTB.
Also, with only 12 trades in 4,52 years I can conclude that VORTEX is not exceptionally active, in the optimised condition.
Another important point is (I think) that Flatliners are typically very stable and the risk of the capital being lost is very low. We can therefore afford to use a very aggressive attack on the low volatility.
Conrad
Karel, Berbie
Bernie wrote:
Here's what I found starting in January of 1998.
SPY price as of January 1, 1998 $98.313
SPY price as of July 1, 2002 $84.71
This would give Mr. B & H a net loss of 14%
Mr. AIM started with a portfolio of $20,000.
163 shares worth $16,000 and $4,000 in Cash Reserve.
As of July 1, 2002 Mr. AIM has 157 shares worth $13,278 and $5,785. Total Portfolio Value of $19,060 for a net loss of a little less than 5%.
In relation to my Vortex Simulation with the download from the link that Karel gave me I get different prices for the dates that Bernie mentioned for SPY:
02-01-1998 gives me a price of $ 92,91
01-07-2002 gives me a price of $ 97,03
These prices are so different that I doubt that we are dealing with the same stock data.
Karel, can you find out the name of the company for which you gave me the link for the daily data that ran from 2/Jan/98 till 10/Jul/2002?
Your link was given as:
You can download all data easily via the link Download Spreadsheet Format on that page, which points to
http://table.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?a=1&b=1&c=1998&d=7&e=10&f=2002&s=sp...
It is important that I use the correct name reference for that run.
Bernie, could you please give the link for the data you used? Then I want to compare my results with yours. You may have used monthly prices instead of daily prices.
Regards,
Conrad