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.
Karw, spreadsheets are also my favorite way, although I am struggling with the complex Ifs, Ands, Nors, But, Do's. Don'ts and God know what else the Excel people have created. The problem is that when I find out a way of doing something then after a while I lose it. Math I can remember. But this Excel logic stuff escapes from me.
I keep you upto date on what develops in Dutchland on the discussion forum.
Struggler,
Conrad
Hi Karw, this way I get to connect with Dutchmen!
I have no objection to this interpretation. In Fact I can agree with it. I have been active with the AIM structure for quite a number of years now and I feel that I am beginning to understand the nitty gritty stuff under the skin if it. Also, the discusssions on the AIM Boards have given me quite a bit additional insight into the differences between simple AIMs and complex AIMs.
This makes it also very evident to me that AIM no longer can be used as if it is one thing only. If you go to a car dealer then the thing called Car has no longer the meaning it had when only one model could be bought from a dealer.
That is what I want to make very clear. I think we as AIMers need to present to the readers that AIM is more than the Lichello AIM.
I am developing a means to get an AIM-discussion going in Holland for Dutch readers. This would include a discussion platform and a vehicle to specifically address Vortex AIM features and examples. Naturally this is ultimately geared to sell the program VORTEX.
Any suggestions from Dutch readers?
Conrad
Myst, on the AIM vs X_DEV,
I have no bones to pick with what you say in your response. A million charts on the AIM-BTB could not illustrate the Better AIMs that exist!!
The issue was the inherrent poor performance of the AIM that was used. It highlights the inferiority of the Basic AIM and by using it in comparison to X-DEV you might, implicitly, create the impression that AIM is incapable of doing better.
The fact that this AIM BTB could not be optimised anymore than I did(1,13% loss)shows my point. The fact that without trying I got a 15% Yield on the Vortex AIM for SYMC shows that there are better AIMs available!
The other point I made elswehere was that with a bit of tuning the AIM you send me performed 19% better by reducing the loss from 1,4% to 1,13%.
That is the point I wanted to make.
Conrad
Karel, on the Poor SYMC-AIM results:
Ha! I covered my but by saying that it could almost not be correct.
The 1,4% loss on the SYMC-AIM spreadsheet that Myst send me baffled me, so I questioned of there was an error in it. I checked for flaws but could find only one! The Lichello Flaw.
Hahahaha!
On a serious note, I could hardly believe the poor result for that SYMC-run. I had seen other poor results, so I questioned them. When I plugged in the data on my Vortex AIM that I used for a different stock I got a 16% yield without even touching the parameters. After optimisation I got a 49 % profit.
You might note that in my Vortex AIM I have absolutely no means for reading the stock history like the subroutine Don Carlson had or Myst has with the running average approach.
More than anything else, the poor AIM BTB-results shows the inferiority of the basic AIM. With a little improvement such as Split SAFES, Split Min Trades, and a flexible PC-corrector one can do a lot better than basic-AIMing by the Book. The added feature in the Vortex AIM in the form of the two buy/sell aggression factors shows how the performance can be jacked up very considerably. Therefore, I believe that comparing X_DEV to AIM BTB does no justice to AIM in general!
AIM deserves more!
Conrad
Jibes, Day, or Month Updating,
This discussion is, of course, as old as the day Lichello showed his Trading System(LAIM) to the next man or woman who thought: “Gee, Whizz, I can do better than THAT!”
The first thing that you encounter with the LAIM is the Residual Buy Advice. If you feed-in stock prices every day you get a substantial Buy Advice almost every day, except when the stock price has risen by an amount to make the Residual Advice=0. For Day Trading this is very annoying as you know the price may not have changed enough anyway. If you feed in prices only once every month the Residual Advice will not bother you(If you did not know about the Residual Advice!).
The Residual Advice has been discussed in depth already and is not an issue in itself anymore for me(the Vortex AIM does not have it), but newcomers to LAIM still will be confronted with this flaw, or feature. For this reason it appears better to update LAIM less frequently so that with the changing stock price the Residual Advice is not even noticed. This awareness of betteris mostly a psychological effect.
As to the real issue of daily or monthly or yearly Updating: The longer you wait and ignore the market the worse it is for you, unless you use GTC Orders, as then you can trade the stock at intervals that you have selected in advance. In this case you need to update only if a trade is executed. The Residual Advice is then not important.
So, from the point of view that AIM is a price driven engine the frequency of updating cannot affect the performance. Its impossible! As the date is not a part of the calculations! With any updating frequency you might hit unfortunate prices and never find the peaks and valleys you hope to hit. If you update very frequently you are very likely to hit the peaks and valleys because you are riding the market and know if the horse is bucking or not: You will be aware of the peaks and valleys.
The only thing that could help you by not looking at the market for a long time is in the case prices have drastically changed so that you missed the Regular Buy/Sell Advice. This is the same as if you consciously use an construction to increase the stock price interval for trading. Anybody can do that by waiting for big price changes or by using a mechanism(We call it IMPROVED AIM).
So, the real guts of the issue is this: Should AIMers hope for better AIM performance via advised ignorance(not looking at the market for a full month or more), or should AIMers invent better structures for their AIMs and take advantage of Market Information so that they can optimise Yield intelligently?
I choose the latter.
This approach had given birth to intelligent AIMs such as the various AIM Variants that have been discussed on this Board.
The frequency of updating any AIM is purely a personal matter. Just like the frequency of love making or sky diving... I am told that either one beats AIM-updating any day!
Conrad
Myst, Anybody, On SYMC , AIM or not to AIM?
I have made the check on that AIM spread sheet you send me. As I mentioned in my e-mail, I can not determine if it contains an error or not, but the yield of -1,4% for the 191 day run could almost not be right.
Myst wrote:
Example parameters
Total Port value of $30,000
66% - 33% split (Stock Value - Cash)
Starting Date 1/2/02 - 7/13/02
Here are the results:
X_DEV = +51.77%
AIM = (-1.4%)
I even tried to tweak AIM as best I could to yield the best return. I set the SAFE to 5% instead of the BTB 10% and also raised the minimum buy shares to 40 and sell shares to 30 so that AIM could get the best buy and sell prices. Didn't help much as you can see below:
I have run the SYMC data through a Vortex AIM spread sheet and the yield is 49 percent for the optimised parameters, for the 191 day run. For the parameter settings that were optimised for another stock the yield was about 16 %. This shows how important it is that AIM structures are optimised for each stock.
Somebody suggested that AIM is not good for daily stock prices. I do not agree with that. The Daily Prices are no problem for AIM. The frequency of entering data in an AIM has no effect on its performance. The AIM does not react to dates! It reacts to prices. If the prices swing wildly enough AIM would make a deal every day!!! The performance on the SYMC proves that: very few trades are generated.
The results that are shown by Myst for the AIM performance might not be representative for AIM structures in general as many AIMers have adapted their system, as I have done. Perhaps it is more appropriate that X_DEV is compared to the Buy and Hold method only, because this reference has a standard interpretation.
There many AIM Variants, and to compare X_DEV the most basic of all AIMs does no justice to the AIMs that exist. I suggest also that X_DEV can best be compared to the B and H method only: The difference is then the greatest and the most effective for marketing purposes.
Conrad
Hi Myst,
It's not so much a doubt as a wondering, as I feel that typically an AIM does much better than Buy and Hold. Even so, if I set my Aim parameters wrong then it can happen that very little action is generated.
I would like to receive the spreads you mentioned(the ones that give about the same performance for AIM as for B and H.
My e-mail address is: eng@vortex.demon.nl
I will run de data through my AIM and see what happens. I will let you know asap.
Conrad
Mysterious: AIM vs Buy & Hold.
Myst, I have seen many of your charts in which the difference between Buy and Hold and AIM is almost nothing. This is Mysterious!. For all cases with volatility the AIM should outperform the B&H significantly, unless the AIM parameters are so out of wack that there is almost no trading action.
In cases of low volatility one can still get action by modifying the AIM parameters and still beat the BH significantly.
I wonder if these charts, showing little or no advantage of the AIM over the BH, are meaningfull?
Conrad
The Devil Question...
I have to think about that one:
If the devil does not exist then I do not have to think more about it.
If the Devil does exist then I have to think some more, and I have no time right now.
The Devil's got to wait!
Conrad
Pragmatico, anyone, To leaven the bread:
(This turned out longer than I intended!!!!)
In the AIM discussions of the last 5 months there has been plenty of thinking done on all sides of the oceans about optimising AIM. A number of techniques have been discussed en various schemes have been disclosed, and some have been discussed only from a conceptual point of view. I see two methods for which I am not immediately ready to get into myself but may be done when VORTEX is fully debugged:
1 Auto Optimisation of parameters on historical data. This will set up a new portfolio with the best parameters set.
2 Life Optimisation. This is like 1) but is intended to update the parameters as the share prices are entered. If the stock price pattern changes then every blue Moon or blue Monday the optimisation 1) is redone. For this I need to read the stock pattern in order to notice that it is changing.
The idea of this is not new and some of you already may be doing it. For me this is on the back burner. The idea is fixed in my head and when needed I will dive into it. I may be too ignorant of the pitfalls in this effort but I may just be ignorant enough to be sidestep these pitfalls and get the job done. Suggestions and warnings are welcome!
The next thing is a new idea but ties in with parameter optimisation for the VORTEX program. It is how to connect market information to my AIM parameters. I'll explain:
As you know, the principal VORTEX parameters are the two Aggression Factors for buying and selling:
Buy Aggression= Fb
Sell Aggression = Fs
These are more or less identical to the Con Carlson Factors although they are calculated differently.
My objective is now to relate standard indicators to these Aggression Factors. The thinking is this:
A) When the market is very risky I want to tune down the Buying---Lower Fb and increase the Selling---Higher Fs.
B) When the market is very confident I want to do just the opposite.
I am addressing here only the Growth Mode for the investing, so in both cases optimisation is to maximize yield. I also have an operational mode for turning the portfolio into cash over a period of time. This is an accelerated liquidation mode, as for example if it is intended to pay monthly bills from the portfolio. For this I have not yet any idea for optimisation as I do not know yet what the optimisation objective should be. So I look only for clues for maximizing Yield.
I suppose that some standard indicators can be consulted to give a Risk Index. Lets call it RI. On the other hand I need a Confidence Index called CI. These two should be definable as numbers, or if required as a set of numbers. Lets call them market sentiment indicators- MSI.
Then I will make a function for connecting them to the VORTEX aggression factors Fb=Fb(MSI), Fs=Fs(MSI) so that market sentiment automatically will modify the behaviour of my AIM. I see this as a sort of Feed Forward Sentimental Set Point Driver(FFSSPD)!!
The problem I now see is this: The feed forward modification(anticipatory) will conflict with the Auto Tuning as this is based on the current share price and immediate historical share price.
How can I resolve this conflict?
Any Ideas?
Conrad
Still alive?
Yep, we are hibernating, incubating, thinking of a better way to slice the bread!
Conrad
Irwin,
I am pointing out the dualities that people fall victim to and the double standards that we encounter left right and center.
Im most cases creative effort is positive. When criminal accountans are cooking the books it is called creative accounting bij all sorts of people, in the media, the government, etc., while creative accounting should actually be a positive thing in the same sense as creative problem solving in engineering is a positive thing. I am trying to say that children can't make any sense out of this double speak.
I am holding a mirror up!
I run into many people who cheat on their income tax declaration because they learned it from their parrents. They cheat in any which way they can because the learned it from their parents and friends! These people complain about white collar crime but do not blink an eye when they steal from their employer. They excuse that because: "They have plenty of it! They won't miss it".
I am still holding the mirror up!
Conrad
Creativity
In grade schools we try to teach the kids to be creative and make things nobody else made.
Art is defined as something that has not been made before and all sorts of subsidies are provided to promote creative activities and creative learning opportunities.
If I am doing something that doesn't work out as I intended it then people stand in line to tell me that I was not creative enough.
Now there are a few accountants that use creative accounting and the whole world comes down on them like ton of heavy metal.
Why is everybody complaining? These guys did just what they have been taught ever since Grade School! They thought being creative would be appreciated!
What kind of negative message are we giving to our kids now?
Conrad
That's Mysterious!
Conrad
Hi Bernie, On AIM,
I heared a lot of discussions on this frequncy of stock prive updating for AIM. It is of course a personal thing as to how often one will update, but to blame the buying-into-the-bottom-of-the-money-bin on the updating frequency is unfair. It has nothing to do with the frequency of updating the stock price! It has something to do with bying stock too often!
There is nothing to stop one from ignoring the AIM Advice as often as he likes to, and one could update every three seconds on an hot-line from the stock exchange as well. This not buying is of course easily solved with the GTC Orders that you want...you can set these at any level below or above the actual AIM Advice. The AIM Advice will simply keep increasing, as we hold the purse closed, if the stock keeps diving.
Lets be honest, the thing is that we should not be slave-controllers to our AIM, or to anything else.
Conrad
Nimbus:
Acronyms (2)
EYPBIIGWTW = Eat your Portfolio Before It Is Gone With The Wind
Conrad
Suggestion on Stocks for Irwin,
All of them!
Conrad
Irwin, I copied it for later reading. I lost already a whole night sleep. I sit here with beedy eyes.
I looked quickly at some of the FAQ and saw an interesting story:
How to Eat your Portfolio. Sounds interesting!
Must be a cinch with portfolios down down down today. America will follow in about 2,5 hrs. Hold on to your pants!
Good AIMing times.
By the way, if them are ex-wives then I won't fix my computer!
Conrad
Hey yah all,
Hot news on the AIM Board:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=411385
No pushing in the queue!
Conrad
Hello, I have an important message for everyone!
The Dutch have done it again!
First we discovered how to plug holes in the dykes, so we could save the Country(Lucky for you guys!)
Then I invented VORTEX.
Now we have discovered how to prevent you from loosing you shirt!
If I am correct I have heard some you you ask, on your knees, for a method to tell if a company was going broke or not.
You heard the following from me:
The OK Analysis Method is fresh from the press! The Dutchman W. Okkerse has built a new Fundamental Analysis Engine that will spot the ENRONS, The Quests, KPN's, Baans, and the WordlComs long before they are going broke(provided he gets honest data(That's the hitch!). So to hear, it will spot every company that has something wrong with it(Is there anything new under the Sun? By defintion every company has something wrong with it).
The information was brought to me via
http://www.rtlz.nl
This is the Business Channel of RTL News Broadcasting. The OK System will be avaible to private investors in September(2002, I presume), so the Man Okkerse said.
Remember, yah all got it from me.
If it does not work, I am not HOME.
Enjoy!
Conrad
Irwin, I have stored the article on Adaptive Analysis for reading later.
Right now I am loosing sleep as it is on many other things(Mac problems and an unreadable disc(MacWrite)).Must recover 6 chapters of the boek I wrote. Maybe I can send the disc to the FAA for Data Recovery!
Must take things as they rear up their head!
Conrad
Grabber, I know what you mean.
theharderItrythebehinderIget
That is the Entropy Law.
Conrad
Hi Irwin,
Maybe you are right, but after we get the method we want, how do we make it fit?
Maybe we should use method fitting?
Conrad
Grabber, Now you are even more messages behind!
Conrad
Hi grabber,
I do not know what your comment is but I thought: Let me Grab Post # 3800 first and then figure out what Grabber has to say!
Strange that I did this! I have always ridiculed the the market talk that there were magic Index Values like 10000. What is so important about the number 3800?
I have no idea! I will think of something!
Read my lips.
Conrad
Karel and AnyAIMer,
You wrote:
With almost purely trending inputs, AIM loses from B&H in an up trend (but still gets a positive result) and....
This statement is a generalizes many of the statements other AIMers have made. Although Karel's statement is not untrue I definitely think that it does no justice to the power of all the AIM Methods that have been discussed here, and elsewhere. I propose to let you think about the cases that the statement will be untrue.
The generalized statement that Buy and Hold will beat AIM in an up trend marked is false in many cases. Without exhaustively detailing all the possibilities consider this:
1) The up trend is weak and exhibits strong volatility. It is quite certain that in the long run the AIMer will beat the B & H strategist;
2) The up trend is linear so that the AIMer sells off part of his stock. For the B & H strategist to beat the AIMer he must keep his stock as long as the AImer does.
More likely than not the B & H strategist might get jittery from the volatility and will sell all his stock a long time before the AIMer does, and if he does, the AIMer will still beat him in many cases!
3) Another way of analysing this(and I have not yet done that numerically but I have good hunch on this) is to look at the net invested capital vs the profit that is made. Here I think it is very interesting as to what we will find.
As the B & H strategist sees his stock value rise(linear price rise) he has at all times his liquidity fully invested(tied up) and his profit is a paper profit(and is at risk for a sudden dip). Compare this with the AIMer's situation:
As the AIMer sells off his winning stock he has less liquidity invested, plus he still has some stock left that increases in value steadily while the net investment shrinks as he sells of the stock. Now, if one calculates at the Profit/(Net Investment) Ratio it might well be that the AIMer is ahead with respect to investment yield. Any other way of comparing is not relevant. Combine this with the fact that some B & H Strategists will sell off before the AIMer does then I see that in a lot of cases the AIM Strategy, in an up trend, will still beat the B & H strategist.
4) Consider also that an AIMer is loath to sit on a lot of cash and that after cashing out the winning stock he already may have invested it in another volatile stock with which he is raking in the profits, with an attractive Profit/(Net Investment) Ratio.
I believe that there are many more AIM investors that made big profits than B & H Investors that made big profits. B & H Investors that lose money don't want to tell anyone about it(they feel stupid that their holding strategy backfired on them). AIM Investors know they can lose a few here and there, and they do not mind admitting it if it happens. The winnings outscore the losses anyway...usually.
Conrad
Robo. I agree.
I was there.
Conrad
Hi Robo, interesting question.
It reminds me of things we say as cliche's and even sometimes believe in.
For example: We are what we eat.
If I look at the food I eat I get worried!
This is the one I like: We are what we think.
From which we can conclude as a warning: Be careful what you think.
But also we can take it in a positive way if we have postive thoughts. This is the essence of the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
As I remember it, for me it was the most beautiful book I read.
I will keep an eye out for the books you mentioned.
Conrad
Right you are Tim.
I am formulating the basic requirements for parameter optimisation and pattern recognition as I see it. This gives a basic starting point to chew on. I have to develop the thinking from scratch on the methodology rather than define the technical details.
At the moment I can not deal with the complexities you mention for all sorts of ifs and buts for actuating non-AIM decisions.
These questions have been, and still are, discussed on the AIM Board. Each person deals with these issues in his own way. I have not yet seen a worked out concept for making AIM foolproof for all external events...I suspect we never will either.
I am plodding along and have written my ideas up already but it has not yet been edited. I need to get it straight for myself first. In due time I will present it for review.
Conrad
Hello Tim,
The AIM Test Result and one Vortex AIM spread sheet with PC=Stock Value is on the way to your e-mail address.
You also wrote on testing/optimization:
This could also include rules for allowing or calling for judgement and intervention, ie when to bail, when to reset, etc.
Well, that is only so if you have a working model for judgement etc. Bailing out is not a part of AIM but I could accept that it might be added to the package as a subroutine. However I would think that it is too complex to include all that.
At least at the start.
Conrad
OT Aurora Borealis.
Irwin, the Aurora picture was taken in Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada, in about 1979/80 or so. I had several pictures but the one behind the tree was the best.
I am not sure if my imagination was playig tricks on me that night but I swear I could hear the plasma crackle in the absolutely wind still atmosphere. It was as if I could reach out my hand and touch the moving waves. The coulors were far more intense(purple and green etc.) than they are shown on the picture.
Conrad
Hello Tim, Anybody,
I have copied the article you referred to but have not yet digested it fully.
In March this year I organised a test(This AIM Board) on the various AIM Structures that people had been using. With the Vortex AIM I can invoke several different modes and use different PC update algorithms. These(informal) test show a distinct sensitivity to optimisation(tweaking) of the parameters. We used an approximately random stock price wave pattern.
The results showed that there were significant differences between the models, indicating that for the given price structure some models were much better than others. All of them appeard to score higher than the basic Lichello AIM, inficating that various alternatives were indeed superior than the bare bones AIM By The Book. So I am somewhat puzzled that you say the testing you referred to gave disappinting results.
Look at messages # 1696, 1704 and 1754
If you are interested in receiving the Summary of these tests then give me you e-mail address and I will send it to you(if I can find it). Also, I have various Excel spread sheet of the Vortex AIM variants.
In regards to available stock data for testing AIMs I am sure there is. Various members have used such data but I do not have the sources. Someone will probably refer you to them.
The next stage of testing is what we are discussing now, but it should be done formally by experienced testers. In my opinion the objective is not so much testing the effectivities of different AIM Structures but the idea of automatic optimisation(various ideas can be incorporated into this goal. As I see it we should define exactly what it is we want to optimise and how we are going to do it, if we are going to do it. At the moment
I think we are still beating the bushes the get interesting people to sit up and notice and
participate. I hope you will stick around in this effort.
I am formulating my thoughts on this effort and in a few days I will make the ideas I have available in a structured format
Conrad
Lost Cowboy,
Some time ago I said that for real data curve fitting is not needed, as it destroys the orginal data. Later, on account what Aptus said, I agreed that the use of curve fitting on real data may well be useful in various ways. You asked about errors in real data. Yes, it is certainly possible. Aside form publication errors there is for stock prices the possibility that the price gets accidentally depressed. It happend to me!.
ASMI(Nasdaq) was trading at about $ 2.85 and I issued a partial sale via the Vortex AIM method but I neglected to enter as limit. The sale went throug at $ 1.60 or so(~1993). So, the low price, although real, was an error. If I had entered the limit the price would not have dropped(it was in a rising mode). Somebody made money on it as the stock kept rising, hitting $ 59 about 4 years later! I had already sold all of what I held at about $7(bought at between $ 0,80 and $1,25)
Stock value is determined by fools(now and then. I was one then). So, as an afterthought, the utility of using curve fitting or not on stock prices depends on the purpose we have in mind for what we are going to do with the smoothed curve.
I can foresee, Various answers. One of these is that if you are selling stock then you would want to sell at the real peak and not on the fitted curve price on that moment. The same goes for buying: the fitted curve woud not be useful. For analysis purposes the fitted curve could simplify the work.
In retrospect I think that it not usefull to formulate a standard answers as to the unitlity of curve fitting. It should be determined on a case-by-case issue.
I think I have, to some extent, avoided your question, or the point you made.
Conrad
Thanks Tim for the added explanations.
The use of randomly generated prices would certainly be helpful for testing purposes.
With my current Vortex AIM I am not yet in need of formal testing. I am more concerned with debugging the program!
Conrad
Shawn,
So noted. Thanks.
Conrad
Hi MM,
Point 1:
90 degrees for the angle is not what I proposed. I proposed an angle of ABC= i90 degrees(complex angle). That's a different kettle of fish.
Point 2:
In your statement with ABC=90. OK, Then BAC+BCA= 90 has an infinite number of solutions. What does your solution of 89*2=178 refer to?
Interesting you should mention Escher in one breath with hyperbolic geometry. The solution to sin(ix+y)is related to hyberbolic functions, but I do not know how to plot it!. Thanks anyway.
Conrad
Shawn, Chemistry is Beautiful but Off Topic.
Yeah, I know. My mouth is filled with some systerious substance called an amalgam. When we mix copper and zink we call it an alloy. Why do we not call an amalgam an alloy as well?
Conrad
Myst,
Naw, only 80% of the people believe that!
Conrad
Robo,
We are on the road less travelled, but simply in a different lane.
Conrad
TooFuzzy.
This board is a chat board now. A lot of traffic. I am going to take rest, but you wrote this and will reply in shorthand:
Maybe with a lot of head scratching you will be able to simplify it so it will be as understandable as E=MC(squared)
I am sure a lot of unintelligible calculations took place before Einstein hit upon that formula!
1) As I have outlined my thoughts on formalizing the AIM mathematics, it amounts to a rather simple set of linear equations that are treated mathematically between the trading points. Between these points the mathematics are simple. This means that the functions can be differentiated or integrated(if that was desirable). I shall make up an example of what I mean.
2) You say that E=MC^2 is understandable. OK, if you simply see it as a quadratic equation I agree. What it means is profound and mysterious, even for the extend that it may not be true exactly. The works leading up to that were not unintelligible at all. The work of Lorentz and Maxwell, and many others, being faulty in some ways, was the cornerstone of this final equation. Einstein brought the bits and pieces together and added his own unique elements. It's a simple representation of what is measured, at least to within the accuracies of what can be measured.
Zzzzzzzz
Conrad