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.
Hello Banjanxed,
Today I read your idea about accelerating Buys and Sells if more than one buy or sell occurs. This method is more or less similar to what I suggested in message # 1159. In a discussion with Mark(Aptus) the idea you explained created two opposed views:
1 Mark stated that accelerating the buys would cause cash depletion and then you would be caught with your pants down(my words) if the stock price keeps falling. Without the acceleration there would still be some cash left to buy at a lower price.
2 I stated that with my method this might happen with sustained price drops but on the average my investment would be more effective as I disbursed more cash at a lower price...depending on the acceleration function.
The key to the superior average performance of (2) over (1) is that with the increased buy rate at lower prices you as to why this is so is that without the acceleration you spend more cash too early...most of the discussions on his board focus on preventing such an early cash disbursement...and then you have only little cash left to buy at the low price...and if the stock price keeps dropping that you have no more cash with either method. So, on the average I would say that both methods will run out of cash at the same time, and then method (2) would perform better. Keep in mind however that I would, with method (2), at first sell buy less shares that the amount of the unmodified buy-signal. This would mean that for stocks with low volatility method (2) might not work very well, and method (1) may be superior.
Now for the selling case: The result would be the same but the question is if it is effective.... generally in a rising market it is more effective To Let The Profit Ride. It is therefore more effective to do some selling but a) in a retarded manner and 2) not too much. Again, if the stock has low volatility then it is not effective to do retard the selling.
Now, this acceleration idea of yours is a good one, but I do not understand why you would return the acceleration to zero after four buy-signals. It would be better, I think, to moderate the acceleration for a particular range of price drop and then run out of cash.
Regards,
Conrad
Mark,
The midnight oil is already burning, and I have not yet run out of oil (I did not burn it early in the evening).
Joking aside, I do not quite accept yet that you are right. In most cases when stock prices fall much more than expected we al run out of cash, except Aimers that use the percentage decay: They will never run out of cash.
Now, all other things being equal (which is never the case), if we start 2 AIMs and you make bigger buys that I do early in the game and I make bigger buys that you do later in the game then (eliminating other possibilities) there are two extremes that we consider:
1 The stock rebounds "early" and you have invested more cash than I have. In this case your have invested more effectively than I have, but only little more effectively as the share price has dropped only a "little".
2 The stock rebounds "late" and both of us have invested all the cash we had (the same amount). You ran out of cash probably earlier than I did because I retarded the buys at the beginning. It is possible that I ran out of cash earlier than you did, but this depends on the specific rate at which I retarded the spending at the beginning and accelerated the buying as the price dropped. As this situation can go both ways I assume for the sake of averages that with this strategy we both run out of cash at the same stock price. So the last batch I bought is bigger than your last batch. In this option my cash is spend more effectively than yours.
Now consider that some of the times this strategy will result in a case that I will sell my last batch much later than you. This means that I will buy my biggest package at a lower price and this results in a disproportionate larger number of cheap shares. This non-linear function of the number of shares acquired at low prices will provide disproportionate larger gains as the stock rises. This non-linear effect of buying many shares at low prices is the power if the AIM in the first place. If you manage to skew your buys to the bottom then you automatically reap the benefits of this AIM-feature.
This non-linear feature of the increasing number of shares that are acquired at low prices overpowers the simple effect of repetitive buy/sell/buy/sell...etc.
Therefore, any effective method of delaying the buying on the downside will produce significant gains relative to depleting the cash early.
So, my AIM to delay the buying on the downside and conserving cash to spend it effectively at the bottom is in itself, by definition, not open to debate...it has been a central topic for AIMers to achieve exactly that goal.
I state categorically that instead of a decay-method of cash disbeursement that an exponential-method is the most effective. Correct use of such a method is, as a matter of course, necessary.
Regards,
Conrad.
Mark,
Thanks for the details. I get the idea a lot better now. But if I would be raising the pc-value without selling the stock per the Sell Signal, that would be identical of having sold the stock and then re-invested it again for that amount(ignoring trading costs).
This means that pulling a Vealie is like saying: "I have faith that this stock(the goose that lays golden egg) will move higher, so with the cash that it created for me I will buy some more shares."
OK, having gone that far(having internally re-invested the last Sell), I might as well invest more of my cash rather than sitting on it.
Right. I understand it. Having extra cash also allows me to think of starting a new Aim...think...evaluate... think...Say this stock I have is laying golden eggs for me....I think I will invest in it some more.... Some stocks keep rising and rising and not to invest in it would be foolish.
I agree that the statistical risk for a sudden drop will rise as the stock reaches to heaven, but if you know the company a bit it may well be so that the real risk of a price dump is very low.
So, essentially, a Vealie, therefore is in effect a go- ahead signal to re-invest the cash the stock is generating. I say then that instead of pulling a Vealie I might as wel plow the cash it has generated back into the stock and increase the equity(using a stop/loss to protect the gains.
Re-investing the cash an investment has generated is therefore an Double Vealie, or a Turbo Vealie.
Conrad
Hi Lou,
In principle, what you say about lowering the Resisances to increase the activity is true, but it may not necessarily be effective. If a stock cycles between +/- 10% and you schop up this 20% zone up into say 10 steps of 2% then you create say 10 buy activities down and approximately 10 steps up. These are very small moves and would only be effective if your trading cost are purely %-driven so that the frequent trading will not drive up the costs.
But there is a bigger problem with this. If you make 10 buy steps for the rather small 20% trading range then the cash is invested foolisly too soon. Although I agree that waiting for the bottom is not effective either, spending the cash too early for the sake of spendig it is not going to give much profit.
I have the same objection to the the Decay Method of spending the money(Spending progressively a percentage of the cash). This means that when you get to the bottom there is little or no cash left. So, this is the Dilemma for the two basic methods that I hear about:
1 Spending all the cash too early and have none at the bottom,
and
2 Spending most of the cash too early and having almost nothing left at the bottom.
Any method that allows you to spend the available cash mostly close the bottom is a gain over the two methods above.
In relation to any standard AIM you should also try to create a significant delay factor between the last buy on the dip and the first sell on the rebound. The longer this delay is the higher the profit will be. This is difficult to do with mutual funds that hardly move. Selling many small packages does not generate much cash! In this sense you are quite right that increasing the Sell Resistance is effective, but it also means that you should then increase the amount you sell at a later point in time if you want to generate cash for the next dip.
The central focus of my effort with the Vortex Method is to buy little as the stock begins to fall, and then increase the buy rate as the stock drops, and managing this so that at some reasonable drop-level most of the available cash is disbeursed. If the stock then keeps falling you simply wait and do nothing.
The point of all this is that to the exend that you will increase the buy rate as the stock goes down that the cash is invested more effectively than spending it too early. I have practished my method effectively. It is decribed in my Dutch Book The Vortex Method. I am working on an English translation, but this Board takes up so much of my time that the book translation takes a back seat...
Its called ineffective time management. One of these days you can buy the English version of the book.
Conrad
ET,
Good point about time zones if one uses time dependent data but the idea was, I thought, that at a particular time a ficticious share price would be issued. The responses could then be publised 24 hours later. That would give all parties a "leisure time window" to play the game(unless your grass needs mowing or your house needs painting).
More ideas are welcome.
Conrad
Hi Cowboy,
I was right! You are not lost at all!
In a way you are right with the idea of posting the Buys & Sells in a AIM Contest...But it would have to be done so that the moves{/b] are only publised after closure of the entry window. If I can see the reponses of ohers then these may effect the way I make my response. Even if you do not publish
the results the publication of the moves may affect one's actions.
This type of activity would require some seious organization to work. Judging by the time all of us spend on this issue we could have build another Tower of Babel, so, time itself is not the issue, but getting organized will be the crux of the Contest. Things like this often require a lot of time of a few people.
Is running an AIM Contest a practical thing to carry out?
Conrad
Oops,
It appears that I can't "get" it!
The editing symbols for the bold text escape me now and then when I check the text.
Sorry for the mess!
Conrad
Rien & Tom
Maybe this is a good time for me to try to figure out the real purpose of the Vealie. Some things I hear about remain a little fuzzy[/]until I get to do it. It was the same for me with sex. I couldn't "figure" it out from the book!
If an AIM gets fat with cash then it means it is working fine. It would appear to me more logical just to inject some cash to buy more shares. I would think that this is the simplest thing and most effctive thing to do...A bit like keeping the goose that lays the golden egg and and get another goose just like it[/] and get two golden eggs instead of one!
If you take the shares you have out of the AIM then you still have them! Nothing has changed. What is the difference in which pocket you carry them? No matter were these shares are "kept" they still can generate cash. Converting the cash into shares will produce more cash.
The idea of sing the stop/loss can be done would appear only significant in relation to investor mentality in relation to what he thinks about his stock dipping below a certan level.
Stripping the Vealie from its dressing, what is its Punch?
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Tom, The website on steam explosion was not available but I will check it out later. I suspect that it refers to high pressure hydrothermal biomass treatment and then suddenly letting the pressure drop so that the superheated water in the pores of the biomass flashes into steam. Back in the 70-ties this method was already used to optimize the cellulose yield in pulping so that a shorter chip cooking time was required.
My interest lies in a derivative of this process Supercritical Hydrothermal Gasification. This method yields high putity synthesis gas from which hydrogen for fuel cells can be made. Research on this is going on in Holland but I am not involved in it(too bad).
Thanks for the link.
Conrad
PS: How do you manage to put an hyperlink in the text on this page?
Mark,
Thanks for detailing what you mean exactly with back testing. Although I am not familliar with the specific method you desribe, I get the drift of it. I would suspect that this type of testing would also only be meaningfull is the Model you build is used for a stock that has approximatelysimilar behaviour as the Model. With this I mean that if the Model works well with 25% amplitude cycles then I would expect it not to do well with 7% amplitude cycles(other things being equal).
My thinking is that with runing a number of test with stocks that vary quite differently(not only with amplitude but also
with other differences) and optimizig with overfitting then I will arrive at global parameter settings that would be "best" for stocks that behave more orless the same way. More complex testing is for me not possible at this time as I have no detailed know-how on that type of testing.
If you are interested to do the type of back testing you speak of with my AIM then you are welcome to do so. I could then give you the combination of pc-correctors I have setteld on for now. Thanks to an Vortex-AIM Excel spreadsheet that was provided to me by Lou Dina I was able to do some fast testing with some variations of my basic system.
Regards,
Conrad
Hello EXTelecom,
I noticed you would cover yourself with s stop/loss after the rise is big enough. How about the protection on the downside?
I am not a big fan of stop/loss protection as it prevents the AIM of doing its work, but if you use the stop/loss on the upside why would you not use it immediately as you start the portfolio? I am not really against using the S/L either...It makes a lot of sense for a cyclic stock. It could even be an execellent strategy as an alternative form of AIMing.
If one can prevent geting into stocks that cycle downwards the S/L would result in an AIM-like response with the biggest steps possible: sell the whole lot at the top and rebuy the whole lot at the bottom. This can only be a problem if the stock systematically cycles downward.
I have never used this apptroaqch, yet, but I can not escape the feeling that it might not be a bad system for stocks that cycle upward. In any case, my thinking for the AIM is also to make the steps as large as possible so that the effciency of the invested money is the greatest...keeping enough liquidity to buy at the bottom.
If I am honest with myself then I should combine this waiting for the bottom with a stop/loss. The sense of all this is, ofcourse, that if the drop is severe it is much, much more efficient to bail out and get back in at the bottom. This method requires however quite a good "feel" for when the bottom is reached, or when the stock is on its way back foor a long stretch.
Any thoughts on this?
Conrad
Hi Tom, everybody,
....a source of hydrogen.....???
See www.synergytechnologies.com
and see the Feb, 15, 2002 Press Release.
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Karw,
In your response to Lou you have hit exactly on the problem of trying to have your cake and eat it too(the solution is to get two cakes, eat one and keep the other to have it).
You point out precisely the dilemma of dealing with the unknown systematically. Running out of cash on the downside is not a problem at all..it means that you have invested on low stock prices. The problem would be not spending the cash!! If you wait for the big kill at the bottom you may well miss it completely as the stock may rise very quickly. If you adjust you system for fewer Big Trades then this will only profit you if the big dips occur.
Suppose you set the Buy/Sell Resistance at 30% of stock value and the stock cycles happily at an amplitude of 25%. Then you miss all the nice dips and crests, and the system acts as a Buy & Hold system. If you set the trades at 5% and the stock dives then the big dip is missed... There is no answer to this dilemma. But one thing is certain: with a reasonably low Buy/Sell Resistance you at least are able to buy on the dips and sell at the crests. That the setting is not optimum does not matter. As long as you are trading and the stock is solid you will make a profit.
I like to quote some unknown wise guy: "With investing the only mistake you van make is not being in the market."
So, go ahead and get into the market and then try to feel its vibrations...the stock behaviour will tell you when to raise the Trade Sizes or when to lower them. Being ridged on low or High Buy/Sell Resistance can be very damaging for profit making. This is why the name minimum trade should only be applied to prevent high trading cost and the name resistance be restricted to the selection of effective trades in response to stock behaviour. A large resistance will prevent a fast sell-off as the stock rises and prevent a rapid cash depletion on the down side, but there is not single answer as to how large the resistance should be.
My advice is this: Do not get stuck on what the AIM suggest what you should do. Use it only as an guideline and then ignore the advice as you please. If your gut feeling is that the stock is going
to rise, do not sell anyLet the profit ride, and sell later. If you feel that the stock is going to dip more, simply wait for it to drop, then buy later.
It is as simple as that.
Conrad
Hi Mark,
I agree with everyting you say, except that back testing does not prove as much as it may appear to imply...with back testing you know what the stock is going to do and you can fiddle with the knobs to optimise for the dips and crests. This is precisely why I have come back on my idea of optimizing an AIM structure. Certainly it will work if the stock exhibits a recognizable pattern. So, my point is that if the stock behaviour is known we do not need any system, except Buyl Low Sell High.
So I still have that dilemm: How can we test a system if the stock behaviour is completely unknown?
Conrad
Hi (Lost)Cowboy,
I suspect you are not as "lost" as your name suggest. Something like what you suggest would appear an excellent Contest. The Rules of the game should be well defined. By that I mean: we should run the game with the same rules that would apply as if the numbers would come from a real invesment... What I try to say is this. A system simulation is fine but it is not the real world.
For example, if I invest today and tomorrow the stock dives to 50% then it is too late to adjust the "system" I used for making my decision. With a simulation I can go back and fiddle with the knobs to make the optimum moves to profit from the big dip(if recovery is programmed in the simulation).
A perfect example is my simulation with a Vortex AIM in which a 40% Minimum Trade Order proved to be the optimum strategy. If however the stock price amplitudes were less than 40% the simulation would have been a buy & hold strategy, and my profit would have been zero, instead of $35 000 on a $ 20 000 start-investment. Simulations therefore prove only that if you buy low and sell high then you win. Any 5-year old knows that.
So, the Contest should not allow back testing. It would only allow fiddling with the knobs as you go[/]. The problem with this approach is that it does not prove anything either! The same problem occurs with the yearly Stock Market Games I witness in Holland frequently. Some people do very well simply by pure luck and the next year the end up "broke". So, how can we really test a system except by simply looking at long term track records, and how then do we separate the investment savvy of the investor from the inherent capabilities of the system?
As an AIM-user and Vortex AIM developer I personally feel that I can outwit my own system simply by knowing what to do when a stock dives or reaches into heaven...The knowledge I have did not prevent me from buying Bre-X Minerals for pennies, but it also helped me pick a lot of winners. With a set of random numbers being fed to me I need to rely on the system, but THERE LIES THE DILEMMA: The Contest would become a roulette game.
Is what I call a dilemma real or imagined? Is it not so that any AIM system as such is only a vehicle that can be used to learn how to drive?
Conrad
Hello Lou,& Others
I see that there is interest in fuel cell companies. Fuels cells are certainly going to be a big thing in the future. The same is true for companies that will make fuels for fuel cells such as hydrogen, hythane(CH4+H2), etc. One company I have bet on for my future is Synergy Technologies Inc. The focus on the fuel cell market with their SynGen Technology(Plasma Fuel Conversion and FT Gas to Liquid and and an heavy oil conversion technology)
The shares(OTC) are trading below 1 Dollar but if the technologies reach market stage it will gain big. The risks are high too!
In order to make clear why I say this I need to tell you that I am the Dutch Agency for the SynGen Technology in the Netherlands and in Germany. My work is developing my own business on biomass and waste conversion. I have no formal links with Synergy other than an Agency Agreement. My information on this is not an advice to buy Synergy shares but to draw your attention to an exiting new industry in which there are a lot of interesting things happening.
Information on Synergy? www.synergytechnologies.com
Conrad
Hi Tom,
A secret Decoder? What's up Doc?
Conad
Hi Mark & Everybody,
Now that I have been participating in the AIM discussions and having done some testing recently on my own AIM version, I get the feeling more and more that there are about 179 ways of operating and modifying an AIM...and stil counting. As a general remark it would appear to me that there is no way of comparing the various system unless we can think of an accepted Reference System.
I ran a VORTEX Test with an imposed down-up price structure and optimised the parameters for a maximum yield returning to the starting price after 4 cycles. This proved impossible to do as it is possible to get any yield I like with fiddling with the knobs. The fact is that at a depletion of cash one can run a little in the red and this improves the yield(or the Returns). The test criteria are not set down, so, how do we know what is BEST? I keep hearing about a 5% Minimimum Trade and a 10 % Buy/Sell Resistance. For the system I tested today a 40 % Minimum Trade provided the highest performance. Also, in order to get optimized I arrived at an aggressive Buy Policy and a conservative Sell Policy. This way I arrived at a Profit of $ 35500 for a $ 20000 investment at 50/50 cash to start.
The test results also differ with starting the AIM on a price rise than with starting it on a price fall. If you start with 20 % cash and the stock dips, the cash is gone in a flash. You would have been better off to start with 100 % cash and wait for the bottom of the dip. The question is: What is an objective AIM-test when you remove any market behavioural input information. I may have missed it but I have not seen this addressed before.
Suppose one takes an arbitrary share price history without knowing it in advance and feed it into the various AIM versions that exist. The results would not mean anything. The "operators" would want to fiddle the knobs to "get it right"....
Just like an arbitrary industrial control system will not usually be able to control an arbitrary process. The system must be tuned to the process in order to work at all.
I propose that we run an AIM Contest. We define the boundary conditins for a test and the Target Objective, and whatever guidelines we think are required are invoked. For all I care we hide the share price input and the we "operate" the AIM bij "fiddling" with the knobs. Let the best AIMer win and collect a price.
How about it?
Hello Matthew,
It was originally my plan to met my Apple spreadsheets(I am an amateur on programming) turned into an Apple Program, but all the experts I contacted said that it would be difficult to do.
I was told that a data base type program would be needed. In the end I had Chris Kruidenier write the VORTEX program for DOS and then for Windows...but it is still in a form that needs some modifying I think. I am not going to develop an Apple version but I was interested in doing so lately. Dutch AIMer Rien is working on this idea. When he is ready for it you will hear about it. He can be contacted on this Board.
Regards,
Conrad
Hi Grabber,
If you were half joking about the AIM-meeting place being in Holland, we could hold half of the Meeting in Holland and the other half in the USA.
What do AIMers expect for such a Meeting? Fancy Hotel for 1000 attendees & catering or back at he boon docks with everybody taking a brouwn lunch bag??...With 4 Dutchman being AIMers we might need only to hire a small room.
Conrad
Dit is voor de Dutch Connection
It appears that in Holland the Lichello-Method is beginning to get attantion in the press. In the following link
www.beursadvies.nl/berichten/column101161.html
there is a two-part artikel adtessing the Licello technique.
I thouht you might want to know this.
Conrad
What is a GTC order??
Call me Stupid if you will, but call me anyway!
Conrad
Hello Steve,
I was surfing the iHub and saw your suggestion on an AIM Gathering in our neck of the woods. How is the planning coming along? BTW...this is not the Dutch VAT I refer to!...in our neck of the woods there are almost no woods left.
Conrad
Hi Sarmad,
Your question is the crux of the Aim-method. In essence an AIM does precisely what you propose. The difficulty is that a 10 % profit on a small portfolio invokes a high trading cost. It also depends what type of stock you are dealing with: for currency trading a 10% rise is a big move(very low trading costs). Supoose your stock exhibits a horizontal movement with + 10 % peaks and -10% dips. Then obviously you could adjust your buys and sells with large share-packages and this optimizes the trading. However, this approach goes beyond the ideas of AIM and falls under market pattern recognition. Anyone that recognizes a pattern can profit from it as long as the pattern lasts.
With the Lichello type AIM the essence is that your are blind to the market patterns and use a methodolgy to take advantage of the many market moves between the extremes that the market will exhibit. My interpretation is that a 10% market move is big enough, provided the portfolio is not too small. Consider that if you do sell 3 times on a 10% move...that is a jump of stock prices of 33%... that this is a large move and you did made a good profit. Waiting for a 33% profit may have resulted in market dip and then having missed the 10% rise would be frustrating. Depending on how much you sell at each 10% jump this means that a nice profit has been realised. If your sell packages have been too small you might have sufferd a loss due to high trading fees. What you call making a 10% profit on a few shares requires that these few shares must be larget than the minimum trading quantity(I call that a quantum)...the idea of a quantum derives of course from [b/quantum dynamics in which displacements and energies can not take place in quantities smaller than a quantum. I think that this analogy is perfect: AIM Trading "cannot" be smaller than a [b/quantum. Obviously the Minimum Buy/Sell Order is the same thing and you should make sure that you trade values are larger than that.
With regards to the dilemma of running out of shares if a big stock price rise occurrs this is precisely what AIM prevents. As the price rises you sell progressively less shares for the same QUANTUM that you sell(value of the Sell). This conserves the number of shares at a high stock price while you reap the profits.
On the big price drop that you metioned just after a 10% rise you have at least gained the 10%(if you sold some shares) profit from that and with that 10% profit you can possibly buy back 3 times as many shares in the dip. So my advice is that selling shares at 10 % proft is OK, as that is the intent of the AIM mehod...but watch the trading costs!!!
This does not fully remove your dilemma that it might be better to wait till a 30 or 50% rise in prices has ocurred. The point is that big market moves are very, very infrequent and taking advantage of the frequent oscillation that will build up the [b/share quantity in your portfolio is a much more effective method for portfolo growth...if the Big Move then hapens then your profits are bigger than with the Buy & Hold Method(B&H).
My motto is that that in any market an AIM cab beat the market systematically[b/]. This means that relative to an B&H strategy an AIM does better in all cases over a price cycle.
Conrad
Hi Matthew,
I have been "out" of it for a while. My link on the Vortex Method is www.vortexcw.nl--->Link Vortex Method----Contents---Book Vortex Method....this is Free!
I suppose you refer to the decay of the residual buy-signals that result with a falling stock price with the Licehllo AIM Method...or do you mean somehing else?
Conrad
Hello AIM People,
Conrad is Back!
I saw the message on this board questioning if I had "vanished" on account of some criticism that was expressed.No way! I have, among other things, a thick hide and I see criticism mostly as a constructive tool.
After the Foolboard closed off(I am back on it for a trial) I lost a little direction...some alternatives...new sign-ons...forgetting passwords, etc and I "let it ride" for a while. The principal discussion on the Flaw was in my opinion "closed" and in my view the only thing left was to "fiddle" at the edges of the main point that I made.
From the discussions and my own "deeper" look into the Flaw/Feature I could see a possitive effect of the basic Lichello method of raising the Portfolio Control...this is that if the down-trend reverses there is an automatic "delay factor" as the stock price had to move through (pc-y) before a Sell Signal is generated. This positive effect I recognize, but in restrospect I still consider it an accidental feature.
What I achieved with the Vortex AIM is that the Advice Generator is a "100% symetric" tool for buying and selling with each time the buy or sell is done the (pc-y)=0, and with the Aggression Factors for buying and selling being set by the investor. The investor then controls all aspects of the AIM response to a stock price change.
Now, in the meantime, I have started to translate my little book on the Vortex Method in Englisch. Chapter 6 has been published in full on my webiste. There I develop the Vortex Method in detail, FREE for all to see: www.vortexcw.nl----> Link Vortex Method----->Contents---->The Book....
I decided that it was a good thing to do so that everybody could see how beautiful the structure is. If this method is any "better" than any other is the same as asking if an orange is better than a mandarin....given the choice I usualy pick the mandarin, if the orange is small, but I would pick a Jaffa orange any day over a mandarin!
The Vortex Method is there for all to see: to like it or hate it. At the least, look at it as it stands, and behold it.
Regards,
Conrad.