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.
Hi Steve,
You are right. It is hot. Our son just called and said he and his family are on their way here to go swimming in our club pool. It is too hot for me to even think about going swimming. I am staying inside.
Personally I like to make SAFE a percentage of Portfolio Control and make my Minimum Transaction the same percentage as SAFE.
As you say, there are many ways to skin this cat.
Regards,
Ray
Hello Steve,
I can think of three quick solutions to the "flaw". I am sure that there are plenty of other solutions.
(1) One solution might be to increase the SAFE with each consecutive, sequential purchase. For example, an investor could start with a SAFE amount of 5% for the first purchase, 10% for the second purchase, 15% for the third purchase, etc. This also puts some brakes on the cash burn rate.
(2) Another solution would be to make the SAFE amount a percentage and function the Portfolio Control instead of the Stock Value. This will automatically increase the amount of SAFE with each additional purchase.
(3) Another solution is to make your Minimum Transaction a percentage amount instead of a dollar amount. It appears that Mr. Lichello did this with his AIM-HI algorithm whereby he made the Minimum Transaction a percentage function instead of a dollar function. He made the Minimum Transaction the same percentage amount as the SAFE percentage amount (10%). Thus, as the Stock Value increased in value so did the amount of SAFE and the amount of the Minimum Transaction. I think he said this was a "democratic" method that would apply to all investors, large and small, instead of having a minimum dollar transaction threshold that kept the small investors from making any purchases.
As I said, there are probably a multitude of other methods available to avoid this situation instead of just waiting 30 days before making another purchase transaction.
Regards,
Ray
I don't know if anyone is aware of the following or not......I have been away on a trip for a couple of weeks and have not kept up with the conversations here. I apologize if I am repeating what has already been previously discussed.
Proshares has introduced eight new ETFs. Four of these ETFs "short" the Dow, the Nasdaq 100, the S&P500 and the S&P MidCap 400 indices. The other four ETFs goes long "double" these particular indices. Here is a link to the press release.
http://www.proshares.com/home/news/1830296.html
Last fall we discussed a little about setting up some "inversely related" positions to take advantage of both the declines in the market and the advances....playing both sides of the fence simultaneously.
Just passing this along for everyone's information.
Ray
Here is another Selengut screen:
The criteria I used by following the book instructions are: S&P Rating of A- or better, dividend yield of 1% or more, the current price is at least 20% below their 52 week high. All stocks are listed on the NYSE except for Intel (I made a book exception since this is such a widely followed stock).
MLS, FBP, RGF, INTC, MNI, GCI, MDC, DHI, CCI, TSS, KBH, PNR, NYT, AVP.
You will notice there are several homebuilders in this list.
Ray
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.
Thinking about how to mix the two strategies does give one a lot of things to consider.
One thing about Selengut's method that seems kind of weak is where he considers making additional purchases of a security only after it has fallen 30% from its cost. I think that a lot of profit opportunities are missed by waiting for that large a decline before any additional purchases are made. Now then, he has been doing this for a large number of years, so I am sure he has his reasons for doing it this way. The AIM method of purchasing is a better method, IMHO.
Regards,
Ray
Hi Aimster,
You raise a very good point.
In his book, Selengut does not consider the market value of a portfolio. Instead he uses the term "Working Capital", which he takes to mean the cost of the security...not its current value. He puts a lot of emphasis on the traditional asset allocation models between fixed income and equity securities....60/40...50/50, etc. He also admonishes one not to put more than 5% of their Working Capital in any one security. Someone following this type of strategy would have a very diversified portfolio of a large number of holdings. I seem to recall he mentioning portfolios of 35-45 securities.
Thus, it could become unwieldly trying to mix and match Lichello's AIM and Selengut's methods....especially when AIM would tell you that you need to sell off a portion of the portfolio simply because the total market value of the portfolio had risen a certain amount. This would go against Selengut's strategy of using Working Capital as your benchmark for investing...not market value. His goal is to increase Working Capital, or absolute returns.
Selengut's methods would have an investor use each security separately and have each stand on its own merits.
I have Lichello's 4th edition book. In one part of the book he mentions treating all of your stocks as one investment. Kind of like your own mutual fund. As I read that part of the book the thought kept occurring to me about which stocks would you sell when it came time to sell off a portion of your portfolio because of an increase in its overall value.
As you say, it is something that needs some more pondering.
Ray
Hi Aimster,
Another thought occurs to me. What sort of parameters would you use to establish your cash position? It would seem to me that a smaller cash position could be used with such a stock portfolio, but I am not sure how much.
Ray
Hi Aimster,
I hope you are having a very good holiday. I am just trying to stay cool today.
I hurriedly read through the book the first time. I have begun reading it again in order to make sure I understand it better.
If I am reading your message correctly it appears you are suggesting how the strategy was described in the book. It appears that you sell your position that has gained 10% in value and roll that amount over into the next best candidate on your buy list.
He has a table in the book where a few stocks (but not all) had multiple transactions during a specific 1 year time period. He did not get the details of how that occurred, but it appears that probably after the making initial sell, the stock might have dropped enough in value to make it back on to his buy list (at least 20% below its 52 week high).
He has 3 rules that appear to be set in stone.
The first one is that the stock must have a Standard & Poors rating of A- or better. This is the "quality" he continually stresses.
The second that it must pay a dividend. The reason is not so much one of income, but that the board is shareholder friendly and not playing games with the profits.
The third is that it has to definitely be 'at least' 20% below its 52 week high when it is purchased. He said something like 19.875% does not qualify.
So, I assume that with the stocks where he had more than one transaction it was because the price had fallen 20% back below its 52 week high and got back on the buy list for the subsequent purchase.
He suggests always keeping a buy list up to date.
I could be wrong about all of this. If anyone read his rules and suggestions differently than I did, then please let me know.
Ray
He is talking about selling your position....not just taking some profits off the table.
Ray
Hi Aimster,
I am still reading the book, but here is what I gather his strategy is:
(1) Buy only NYSE stocks that are down at least 20% to their 52 week high.
(2) Buy only dividend paying stocks....not because of the income, but because company management has enough confidence in their future prospects to share the profits with the shareholders. Also, the stock should be "investment grade", which I gather from what he says is a S&P rating of A- or better.
(3) Buy more when the stock is 30% or more down from the price you paid.
(3) Sell when you have a 10% gain PLUS the commissions you have already paid....a net 10% gain.
(4) Put the proceeds into another stock on your Buy list that happens to be at least 20% down from its 52 week high. If you have no stocks on your Buy list, then put the money in an income investment until you do have some candidates. Chances are that if you have no good candidates, then the market is at a really high plauteau and you should not be buying stocks at these levels.
Rinse and Repeat.
I have not finished the book, but that is what I have gained from it so far. I might not be totally correct in what I said as the book jumps around a lot. If I am incorrect on any of this, then someone please correct me.
Ray
Hello Neil,
Thanks for your reply.
Selengut's system does seem to be very busy. I would not want to try it without the best commission schedule available to me for my personal circumstances. At the present time my commissions cost me $8 at Fidelity, so this is not much of a problem because of the size of my trades.
Also, since all of my trading is done within the confines of a tax-deferred account this would not present a problem......it would be an accounting nightmare to attempt this in a taxable account, IMO.
I have some reservations about him not making any additional purchases until the stock has fallen at least 30%. His rules of only purchasing stocks which pay a dividend, trade on the NYSE, and that have already fallen at least 20% from their 52 week high would not seem to induce many additional purchases. I could be wrong but it seems to me that most of this type of stocks usually only trade in tight trading range unless we run into a 1987 scenario sometime in the future. Thus it seems that in the real world he only buys stocks for their upward momentum. He does not to take advantage of the trading range they might present. My opinion is that with his stock selection universe the AIM strategy is a better system.
Otherwise he does give some advise which has caused me to do some thinking.
Ray
Re: Steven R. Selengut's book "The Brainwashing of The American Investor".
I have just about completed my very hurriedly first reading of the book. I know others have reviewed and discussed this book and I would reference those conversations if I knew how to find them.
One of the rules he advocates is never buying a stock that is within 20% of its 52 week high. He says the reason is that you can obtain your 10% profit objective at least twice without the stock having to make new highs. That seems like a common sense approach. It also seems like a rule that would work hand in glove with LD-AIM, where you would initially purchase two sales instead of three or more.
BTW, I was researching the S&P A+ stocks before this posting and there are very few of those stocks now trading at least 20% below their 52 week highs.
I was wondering what benefits others have obtained from this book.
Regards,
Ray
Congratulations....that is a really good year-to-date performance.
Ray
Sometimes you get lucky. I bought VPHM on Tuesday at $11.538 a share. I had placed a Sell Limit Order in at $12.82 a share. It opened this morning at $13.12, where my trade was executed. Sold 1/3 of my shares. It has since dropped down to about $12.55 a share.
Sometimes it is better to be lucky than smart or right.
Ray
Hi Adam,
I understand. Now that I have reread your post I see my mistake.
Ray
Hi Adam,
Why do you assume I would trade only $500? I am not sure I understand what you are getting at? I don't think I implied that. The very least I trade is $3,000 buy or sell.
Ray
Hi Adam,
You are correct about paying attention to commissions. When I started investing in individual stocks in 1973 the commissions we paid back then were outrageous. It did no good to shop around for better commissions since all the brokers seemed to charge about the same. Things have really changed. I now pay $8 a trade, market or limit, at Fidelity Brokerage. Quite a difference.
Ray
Thanks to everyone who answered my question.
Tom, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that you are using a 0% SAFE on the Sell side, but that you are using a 20% SAFE on the Buy side. That seems to me like it would still give you the same trading range that you had with the traditional 10% SAFE for both buys and sells.
On the other hand, maybe I did not correctly understand your response. If I am not correct in my understanding, then please let me know.
Ray
Just curious about something....
Does anyone use a SAFE amount on the Sell side of the equation when it comes to individual stocks? I see sales posted from time to time. It is unclear whether one used a SAFE amount in determining the sale or whether they used a 0% SAFE for the sale.
Ray
Yes. It was unavailable for a short period of time.
Happy Holidays to all.
Ray
Hi Tom,
I was using the numbers on the spreadsheet that Don sent to me. The only thing I did was to change the variance from 13% to 10% and change the required holding period from 21 days to 0 days.
Yahoo does show a 1:10 stock split for RYVYX on 4/23/01. It changed the NAV from $5.82 to $50.80. The Adjusted Close is supposed to reflect this. The Adjusted Close shows a value of $49.75. That is why I said in previous posts that I was having trouble with the historical prices I was finding on some of these funds. Don's spreadsheet shows a price of $56.73 on that same date.
I don't place a lot of credence in the prices, per se....just the rebalancing concept of inverse funds. Even using hypothetical numbers, like Mr. Lichello did in Chapter 6, with different rebalancing scenarios always has better results than buy-and-hold. The only way buy-and-hold would do better is if the investment went straight up and never, ever retreated in price.
You are probably correct that a 1X fund comparison with lower expense ratios might be a better backtesting study. I haven't gotten that far in my research....I probably never will either. The reason I have been fooling around with the 2X NAZ 100 funds is because of the increased volatility. That would create more rebalancing opportunities. As with AIM and its variations, usually the more transactions available for rebalancing, the greater the profit potential. Of course, there are exceptions to my last statement.
The one thing I see eyeballing the PerfCharts with different combinations is that this is not a concept that will yield instant profits. It seems to me that one would need about 3 years or more with a lot of market cycling and volatility for this to really pay off. That is just my opinion.
Probably using Don's spreadsheets with different funds would lead to better results. Maybe the ProFunds would do better. I just don't know at this point because I haven't gotten that far yet. In fact, at this point I am about ready to abandon this idea altogether since I am not convinced it is better to other strategies.
Regards,
Ray
Hi Capitalist,
Don has a very good rebalancing spreadsheet that he can send you with any two 'opposite' funds you want to give him. Please see his Conversation #18129. If you write him I am sure he can send it to you (though I don't want to speak for him).
He sent me one on the 2X Rydex long-inverse NAZ 100 funds. Their symbols are RYVYX and RYVNX.
By using the parameters of rebalancing whenever there is a 10% variance between the two funds and with the study going back to June, 2000 when the two funds were created, I see the following results:
Buy-and-Hold:
Began with $100,000 in the funds ($50,000 each).
Began with a total of 1,318 shares between the two funds -- ended with the same 1,318 shares.
Ending value was $25,473.80 -- a decline of -74.53%.
Rebalancing the two funds:
Began with the same total of 1,318 shares -- ended with a total of 4,676 shares between the two funds.
Ending value was $97,087 -- a decline of only -2.91%.
That is quite a bit of difference when compared to Buy-and-Hold.
Also, if either or both funds share values ever increase back to the study beginning values there will be a very tremendous profit for the investors. I think the NASDAQ was around 4,000 when these funds were created and the study began. RYVNX began the backtest study with a share value of $45.38 and ended the study at $18.50 per share. RYVYX began the backtest study at $232.00 per share and ended the study at $23.55 per share.
Don's spreadsheets lets one change the rebalancing variance to whatever percentage they want to. It also lets one change the time period between that lapses between transactions. I used 10% for the sake of this particular backtest study, with no restrictions on the time between transactions. The more frequent the rebalancing the better the returns. For example, by changing the rebalancing variance from 10% to 8% the study actually shows a small profit instead of a small loss -- the ending value became $100,189 instead of $97,087. At a 7.5% variance the value increases to $100,613. If someone is going to do this in real life they have to decide how much time they want to devote to monitoring the results and making the necessary rebalancing transactions. Since these are mutual funds they can not use GTC limit orders. Also, these funds have a beta of 2 and can make large movements compared to their underlying indices.
I know that Rydex funds have at least four inverse funds available -- RYURX, RYAIX, RYTPX, RYVNX. They might have several others. You might want to check out their website or call them. By the way, I am not a salesman for Rydex or any other funds (I am retired). I assume that the Profunds perform just as well -- I am just more familiar with Rydex.
Again, I don't want to speak for Don, but I am sure he can help you with this. You can write him as he suggests in Conversation #18129.
Also, I have decided not to begin any more conversations with respect to rebalancing results using long/inverse funds since this forum is devoted to AIM and Tom does a great job here. I do not want to hijack the AIM concept and I apologize to all if I did it here with this subject.
Ray
Thanks AIMster,
You are correct about my choosing that particular pair. They are not good examples.
However, even with their poor showing and using the AIM formula for rebalancing I showed a 48% improvement versus buy-and-hold. So AIM works very well even with deep divers compared to other strategies.
As I said I am having a lot of problems getting historical quotes from both Yahoo and BigCharts that I believe have some creditibility. The discrepancies on both funds occur in 2000 through 2002. Especially when compared to QQQQ. Something just isn't right with those quotes.
I have done a couple of spreadsheets using hypothetical numbers...similar to what Mr. Lichello did with his 10-8-5-4, etc. Whenever I do that it that way it always turns out very well. Both funds accumulate many more shares than they began with. I have been doing it by using absolute dollar changes in value and rebalancing that way, versus percentage changes as one would do in AIM.
Mark had an interesting observation about rebalancing between individual stocks in a diversified portfolio. Right now I am getting a little brain weary and it is hard to think about this subject at all. I will look into the RSP/BRPIX pair though.
Thanks,
Ray
Hello Capitalist,
I think you expressed the objectives very clearly in your Edits. To my way of thinking the objective should be to accumulate a much larger number of shares over a long period of time (years), instead of generating some quick profits during a shorter time period.
I am new to this AIM forum and to the AIM concept of managing one’s assets. Not too long ago someone brought up the idea of using opposite direction moving funds together......using one fund to generate profits while another fund lost value. They mentioned something about the PerfCharts over at StockCharts.com. I went over to that site and saw how the opposites moved over different time periods. I don’t know if the link below will work or not. I am trying to show how RYVYX and RYVNX act when compared with each other over different time periods and length of the different periods. These funds are both long and inverse 200% of the NASDAQ 100 index. Just use the ‘slider’ back and forth at the bottom of the page. You will see a lot of crisscrossing between the funds.
http://stockcharts.com/webcgi/perf.html?ryvyx,ryvnx
I have the 4th edition of Mr. Lichello’s book. When he started the AIM asset management concept he began with placing 50% of one’s assets in stocks and 50% in cash. Later on he evidently became seduced by the long running bull market of the 80s and 90s to the point where he suggested having only 20% of your assets in cash and the rest in stocks (AIM-HI). I could be wrong because I was not AIMing in 2000-2002, but I am sure that beginning with 20% in cash during that time period probably proved to be a very inadequate cash fund. It would probably be very inadequate if one was holding stocks or funds that were more volatile than a conservative diversified mutual fund might be. An investor probably burned through their cash in a hurry with the size of some of those declines which we experienced. I was a buy-and-hold investor during that time period and because of those declines I believe that is why I am now attracted to AIM.
After this subject of using an opposite pair came up here it seemed to me at the time that if one went back to Mr. Lichello’s original concept of 50% in stocks and 50% in cash……but instead of having a cash account, if an investor used the opposite moving funds they could generate better returns than the cash account would generate in such a situation. My Fidelity Brokerage account cash reserves have a 7 day cash yield of 3.76% as of this morning. It appears to me that at any point in time either fund could be used as a cash generating machine while the other fund was losing value. For example, one fund could be declining 20% while the other fund gained approximately the amount that was being lost (the equivalent of a 20% gain in my cash account). The one that gained the amount lost in the other fund would have generated a lot more “cash” for future purchases than my cash reserves account would generate at Fidelity. Also, it would not matter which fund was ahead or which fund was behind at any point in time (whether we were in a bull market or a bear market), because the objective would be to “accumulate shares” in both funds over the “long run of several years”, not just gain profits during the next few months. As long as there was a lot of “crisscrossing” between both funds, then at any point time one fund would be acting as the cash account while the other fund would be acting as the equity account.
At this point I do not believe that neither the traditional AIM formula, nor any of its variations, are adequate for this concept. The reason is that the formula generates different amounts of buys and sells because of the increases in Portfolio Control and the use of SAFE. I presently believe that the old rebalancing concept back to an average value for both funds is the best way to manage these opposite moving funds. Since the funds move approximately the same amount in dollar terms, it is probably best to think of this managing this in absolute dollar amounts instead of the percentage amounts which are used in the AIM concept. That way an investor would be buying the same dollar amount as he would be selling whenever he rebalanced the funds.
The biggest problem I see in this opposite pair concept is we could enter a very long running bull market like we saw in 1995-1999 or a very steep decline that could go on for several years. If someone needed to use this money during that period of time for living expenses this concept would not work for them. Using a mutual fund as a substitute for cash would be very dangerous thing to do during a sharply trending market in either direction. However, as long as the market is range-bound with adequate sizeable moves in each direction this concept might “possibly” work.
These are all “vague concepts” swirling around in my subconscious at this particular time. Nothing is concrete yet. Plus I definitely do not intend to spend 4 years working on this concept the way Mr. Lichello said he did in developing AIM. The biggest problem I am now running into with my backtesting is that I believe some of the historical prices I am finding at Yahoo are incorrect due to some splits. Going back to the period of 2000-2002 I think some of the historical prices at Yahoo are just flat incorrect. I need to do more digging to make sure I am testing with the correct numbers.
Ray
In thinking about the "Opposite Pairs" strategy....it seems to me that the objective initially is not so much to obtain gains, but to increase your number of shares in each holding while not having to increase your investment dollars. Later on as time goes along and several rebalances have occurred it seems that is when the gains really happen since the investor is holding a much larger number of shares in each fund compared to his/her original purchase.
In checking the PerfCharts it appears that using 2X opposite pairs, such as RYVYX-RYVNX, or RYTNX-RYTPX, a lot of velocity and friction can be developed. At first glance it appears the best way to accomplish this is not to use the typical AIM formulas. Instead it might be best to just rebalances back to the "fund average" whenever the difference in the value of the funds approach 25% or 30%. This would be a 12.5% or 15% movement away from each rebalancing.
I have been working on a backtest using this approach. The first time I back tested using opposite movement funds I used the AIM-HI strategy. The results improved 48% over buy-and-hold going back to June, 2000. After doing that back test, I now see the best approach is not to use the typical AIM buy and sell techniques. It appears the best results might happen if one would just "rebalance" the funds whenever the difference in values is significant. The reason is that the typical AIM type strategy would give you different buy and sell amounts. In my opinion, that is not what you should be trying to accomplish. Since the purpose is to use the profits from one fund to purchase cheaper shares in the other fund, it seems to me that you would want approximately the same amount of dollars being traded into and out of each fund each time a trade is made.
This is still a work in progress.
Ray
Grabber...Thanks for sharing. Also, thanks for your honesty.
BTW, I was almost ready to send you a message asking what you intended to do with CPN.
Ray
Steve,
Thanks.
That does answer my question and sort of helps make clear something that has been swirling around in my subconscious.
It began a couple of weeks ago when there were some discussions about using opposite 'pairs' of funds; a long fund with an opposite inverse bear type fund, e.g., SPY along with RYURX. It seemed to me at that time that a normal cash fund of say, 40%, could be cut in half since you could probably achieve offsetting buys with sells at approximately the same time. Therefore, there would be no need to have such as large a cash position as would be indicated with long only funds.
Then I got thinking about having a large number of LD-AIM programs, such as you have. You post your buys and sells on a regular basis. You have a good amount of activity of both buys and sells. Thus, it seemed to me that the more diversified a portfolio of LD-AIM programs the less cash overall percentage-wise would be required, since there would be a large number of buys being offset by the cash generated by the sells from the portfolio.
Now I am trying to critique my thinking and shoot holes in it.
I think that in a trading range type market, like we have had for the past couple of years, then I would probably by okay having a diversifed portfolio of LD-AIM holdings with less money held in overall cash percentage-wise than would be otherwise be indicated by the total sum of cash developed by adding the cash for each individual holding in the portfolio.
On the other hand, if we get an overall market meltdown, such as that which occurred from 2000-2002, then my thinking on this subject is very faulty. It seems to me during that particular period most stocks lost ground with a few exceptions; mainly some REITs and some value type stocks held their value. So, using my strategy of holding less overall cash than indicated by each holding I would have burned through my existing cash account in a very short period and would have nothing left to make some purchases near the bottom.
Again, I thank you for your answer. I have a lot more thinking and research to do on this subject.
Regards,
Ray
Steve…..a question about LD-AIM and cash accounts.
I could be wrong, but I believe that you have the most LD-AIM programs of anyone posting on this forum. I think you said you had 22 LD-AIM programs. I also believe I read where you said that you keep one cash account for all of your LD-AIM programs, which are all traded inside of a rollover IRA.
My question is how do you determine what percentage of cash to target? By that question I mean is your cash account based upon a percentage of the value of your individual LD-AIM ‘actual shares’ program? Is it valued upon the combined value of your ‘actual shares’ plus the ‘virtual shares’ in each individual LD-AIM program? Or is the amount of cash you target is a percentage of the total value of the IRA?
You have probably answered this question before someplace on this forum. If I am asking you to repeat your answer then I apologize.
Ray
Hi Tom....I see what you mean. That is 'neat' (as my children would say in years past when they were teenagers).
Ray
I see what you mean. When you pull the "slider" all the way to the left and look at the 1,719 day period both funds look bad. So, for a 'buy, hold and forget' investor it would be a losing cause regardless of which fund he/she invested in.
However, there is one thing that I did notice. When I pulled the "slider" all the way to the left (1,719 days) and then got hold of the right side of the "slider" and pulled it towards the left to shorten the period under review, there appeared to have a good number of trading opportunities.
An example would be the 201 day period from January 4, 1999 to October 19, 1999. There was a 35% movement both ways during that period.
Another example would be the 198 day period from October 19, 1999 to August 4, 2000. There was a 40% movement both ways during that period.
During the 199 day period from August 4, 2000 to May 17, 2001 there was a 70% to the upside movement during that period.
I guess the ultimate outcome is more or less "time period dependent". I intend to do a side by side 5 year comparison spreadsheet. Wish me luck--I am just now learning how to create a spreadsheet.
Thanks for your help.
Ray
Has anyone done this yet? Has anyone bought a couple of the 'enhanced' index funds that have a negative correlation and used them as separate AIM accounts?
I have been thinking about this subject for the past couple of days. I have been looking at some comparison charts. When I can find the time I intend to take some historical prices and create a couple of spreadsheets and see what those results might be. It makes for an interesting scenario, IMO.
I have checked and most of the Rydex funds are available in my Fidelity Brokerage account. Two of the Rydex funds I have created some comparison charts for are RYVYX - Rydex Velocity 100 (200% Nasdaq 100), and the RYVNX - Rydex Venture 100 (200% 'inverse' Nasdaq 100).
It appears to me that this market has been in a trading range for almost two years. As long as it continues to be in this trading range and moves back and forth between resistance and support this strategy appears to have some merit.
I do have some reservations about this....that is why I am asking if anyone else has tried this in the past. If so, what were your results?
Ray
Thanks Aimster.
Your post is pretty much what I have been thinking about doing lately....more so with sector funds than with other diversified funds and ETFs.
Ray
Hi Adam,
To my way of thinking Steve is going about this in the best possible way. By that I mean he is not taking a large position on any one stock. Therefore, a deep diver that never recovers won't have a significant impact on his long-term overall results. I seem to recall that in the fourth edition of Lichello's book he mentions taking positions in ten or less stocks. For me personally one adage that is appropo especially in investing is to "know thyself". I do know that I could never put 10% of my investment capital in only one stock and just "sit there". I would just be too nervous.
Of course, that is just my personality and my opinion which is subject to change on a moment's notice.
Ray
Good question.
I have made some recent profits on SNDK. However, I had originally set up an LD-AIM program on SNDK with my position based upon 3 sales and have now liquidated my entire position.
Otherwise I feel like I am 'stuck in mud' as my investments meander back and forth.
Regards,
Ray
Is this still working?
I haven't seen a new msg on this board in a couple of days. So I thought I would post this 'test' message to see if it is still working okay.
Ray
Thanks. I will keep that in mind. So far my worksheets have been very simple and fundamental. I expect to create more complex worksheets in the future. I do hit the 'save' button quite often as I go along since I mistakenly lost all my work in one worksheet when I first started doing this. Live and learn.
Regards,
Ray
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the link. I am getting forgetful in my old age.
Yes, I installed Excel a few weeks ago. I am now engaged in a self-study course in Excel. The book and interactive CD is entitled, "Excel 2003 Personal Trainer". It is very slow reading and study since this is all new to me.
Wish me luck in learning this stuff.
Ray
Can someone link me to the AIM Excel Template? I seem to recall that that it was a link somewhere on the AIM conversation board and I once had it bookmarked. However, it seems that I deleted the bookmark by mistake. I can still find the Excel Text, but not the Excel Template.
Thanks a lot.
Ray
I didn't mean to hit the send button twice on that last message.
Ray
$8 a trade at Fidelity.
Ray