I noticed that on this Back Test Program
http://www.etfreplay.com/combine.aspx

the 3 year Buy & Hold Yield of Spy is almost 60%, due to its its almost "straight" line rise. Before 2011 SPY was rather highly volatile compared with the last 4+ years.
Over the last 3-year period used in the Link the Annual Reuturn would have been almost 20% per year over the Invested capital.

My Demo Vortex AIM Portfolio on SPY Annual ROTAI Yield of 27,33 % as of April 30, 2015.
Current Details on US$:

Start Capital = 20000
Added Capital in Stages = 30000
Current Reserve = 46031
Total investment = 7139
Weighted investment = 7447
Interest earned= 2022 (1)
Share number = 100
Share price = 208,46
Share value = 20846
Trading cost = 458
Dividend = 1148
Profit Total= 13707
Profit on Equity = 11685 (Discounting interest earned on Reserve)
ROTAI Yeild on alone Equity gain = 23,3% annually based on Invested not counting interest gain.

Interesting to note is the advantage AIMing over the buy and Reference Buy & Hold Case for SPY Discounting interest earning My AIM Yield as the Time Average Investment. . . as an approximate Buy & Hold Equivalent under the ROTAI Yeld Method for SPY for 4,33 years is about 3,5 % higher then the Buy * Hold for SPY over the last 3 years. OK, the Investment periods are not the same so I would have to make an adjustment for that.

(1) In July 2014 Interest rate on Reserve was changed for 2% to 1%. Currently the Bank interest in Holland is 0,9%.

Thanks Grabber for the Android primer

I will start with "Last mentioned First Replied to" LMFRT. . .
"_____________________
"Hope this helps!
______________________

Yes. . .I realize I live in a different tree !

Sometimes I sit in the train and 95 % of the people are frantically flicking their fingers on the their "telephone" and are not calling anyone, head directed downward and there is an eerie silence and the muted cadence of the train wheels. . .I seen the country side pass by, see interesting scenes sometimes on my way my thoughts go to the Cosmos and think of places there at Warp Speed 10^6 or more: "What if. . ." or I wonder what the square Root is of Log(i^pi)) is. . .and then I arrive at where I was going before I find the answer. . .

My Mobile telephone is an old Nokia. I have trouble finding out how to open it. . .No idea what model it is. It does have little camera but I never take photos with it and they are of such low quality that the are useless. . .I have no idea how to get the photo out of it even if I wanted to. . .Ahhh. . . I finally got the phone open . . .All I see is the number “0630826 1.1” and then : 32Mbyte....Maybe I will look at Google if it explains anything. . .the 32Mbyte seems very small. . .I have made photos with my normal camera that are 10MB just by themselves! My cheap camera has storage space of 7 GB.

This Android App Stuff is going to take too much time to fathom and then I can not work on the things that keep me occupied. I got a rough budget quote from an App-Man for building an App for Vortex AIM "As it is" for Windows, and he said: "with all the functions you have and the Stock Price Downloading Down-loading from two different sources (Dutch € and US$ Funds) and the live €/$ Rate Update, tour App will cost about € 30000 and requires uncountable hours from your time to guide us with the Design of the Interface. . . .and you have to set up a slick marketing program to get enough sales. . . I am resigned to the fact that my Idea is Three Bridges too Far.

I should stick to Engineering and Physics for the years that I have left

I have promised my self not to get an I-Phone.
Sometimes I get 4 telephone call per week. . . . .The Nokia can handle it.

Thanks a lot Grabber . . .I will stick to keep wondering about how the Cosmos works!
I may have 10 years left for it. . .perhaps 15 with a bit of luck.

Hi Grabber,
About week ago when I first saw this "AIM Money Machine" App the only Android I new was Yul Brynner. . . in West World

I have heard that Android name before in relation to mobile phones but never looked into it. . .I did not know and Android from an Otherdroid!

I use an old Nokia mobile phone that I got for nothing from the Recycle Department of a Thrift Store.

So when you referred me to Google Play I assumed that I could "play" on the AIM Money Machine with some Play Dough and see how the wheels inside were turning and to turn some Dials

I do not have any Androit "things". . .All I have is a Windows 7 IBM computer.

Are you telling me that I can Play a Windows version of the App via a Google Play Download on my Windows 7 ????
I though that each time I tried downloading before I got the message that I could not download it. What I noticed is that on Google Play they have some videos of the Apps but found no such video on the AIM App.

Regards,
The Android Virgin

Grabber. . .Thanks for the trouble.

when I get the Google Play link open on the AIM Money Machine all I get is a number of the App's Screens but I can not do anything useful with it as it only show a fixed Fund example. None of the buttons are actually operational as I see it.

As of now it does not show me anything functional. The only thing that is recognizable is the makeup of the Example Portfolio in term of Stock amount and Cash Amount.

As I see it Google Play just shows the buttons without actually allowing the "Player" to do anything with it. . .Right?

Trying to "operate" this App makes me feel like a 2-year old at the buttons of a Tetrix Game

As of now this App gets a Fat zero from me.

Thanks Grabber!

The App is now in version 3+something and as I do not have an android machine I will have to use the one my son has. . .but I have to catch him not using it

I was wondering what its complexity was compared to what I would want to put on it for Vortex AIM...for the purpose of estimating the cost of making such an App. . . Curiosity

From what you say I gather it did not much more that a basic AIM Spreadsheet Buy-Sell advising?

Up to this point it seems a very costly business if one does not have a friend to do it. It would require a mass-marketing effort in order to get enough exposure and a zillion "hits" via advertising. . .or to go for direct selling. . .Out of my reach anyway for now.

Hi Grabber,
I have been searching for discussions on that Android App "The AIM Money Machine". . .(the link you got from Lost Cowboy) here on the Board. I have searched ~ up to the end of 2012 here but did not find any response from you on this App.

Did you eventually check out this App?
If you did I like to know what you think of its User Interface.
Is it a stand-alone AIM program simply for getting a Trade Advice or is it actually an on-line Trading Machine based on AIM?
I have no Android machine so I could not try it out.

I found this message on "The Money Machine" on the Android Plarform from "The Grabber" in response to a message of "Lost Cowboy" who found it but I have not yet found a Follow-up Discussion on it.

Still searching

I just noticed that the Android App "The AIM Money Machine" is already about 3 years old. . . I must have been "sleeping"at least that long

AIM Money Machine 1.11.1
Maximus Java - 07/05/2012
Finance

I will look for discussion on this App here.

Recently I found an App called: "The AIM Money Machine".

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.javamatt.aim&hl=en

I have not been able to try it out yet as I do not have an Android Platform. It may be available also for other platform. I will look if that is the case.

It may have been already discussed here and in that case does anyone here know if it is an on-line trading platform or not?

As it is an AIM Machine I assume some of you must know about it already and I wonder what you think of it.

For all of you that thought I had become sick or had died I like to let you know I am fine. . I have been busy with other work so that the attention to this Forum has suffered.

From now on I and again working on presenting relevant information on Vortex AIM, which is now in Version 1.31d available with updated features that make it operation easier.

It has e real-time price change indicator;
The ROTAC and ROTAI Yield are now on the Interface Screen instantly "switchable" so you can see how lathe the Real real yield is bases on the principle of the "Internal Rate of Return" using a time based yield formula in which all the "earnings" and expenses that are necessary for maintaining an investment are processed as the occur on the precise date:

For ROTAC Yield that includes the proper accounting for adding Capital to the Reserve or subtracting Capital from it. This includes dividend, interest gain and all costs as they apply;

For ROTAI Yield that includes the dynamic equity earnings and costs but not "dead" Capital additions as that capital is not invested in equity until shares are bought. So a dividend is an Equity Equity Gain but is added as Cash to the Reserve and in effect it is treated like sale of shares but the share number remains the same. So in essence essence one gets extra shares for free if the dividend is used to buy new shares which increase the Equity Value. In the Standard AIM operation such a dividend can also be treated as buying shares without any Reserve reduction.

For your information I have placed a Vortex AIM promotion article on Face Book:

https://www.facebook.com/conrad.winkelman.

Hi Everyone!

After having been Away from this Forum as well as from my Vortex AIM Forum for some time now I am again going to spend some time on discussing the advantages of AIMing, mostly on my own Forum but incidentally in this Forum if I see a topic that is relevant for AIM in general. An example of this is the idea that Ocroft outlined some time ago. . .It is an interesting method of delaying the buys on price falls hat would equally apply to Standard AIM as to Vortex AIM.

In regards to the marketing and the selling of the Vortex AIM program and support software I am exploring to make my methods more efficient and we are adding an Optimization Subroutine for automatic parameter optimization soon. The prices of the Funds that are to be optimized are taken out of the Vortex Database. At the moment it is intended to work on a Portfolio that is already active in Vortex since 2011. These prices that we have been downloading from Yahoo since 2011 could be transferred to users of Vortex AIM. There are downloaded prices for American sources:

Accenture Ltd. . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
AEX . . . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
apple . . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Archer Daniels Midland gedownload: 2015-04-09
BP . . . . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Eastman Kodak Co. . . Laatste datum: 2013-09-03
Facebook Inc. . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Google Inc. . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Groupon Inc. . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Halliburton . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Harley Davidson . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Intel Corp. . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
LinkedIn Corporation . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Microsoft . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Pepsi Cola . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Philips . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Royal Dutch A . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
RWE . . . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
SPDR S&P 500 . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
****** Fout 3; USD/EUR Niet gevonden
volkswagen . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Wall-Mart . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Yahoo . . . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09
Zynga Inc. . . . . . . gedownload: 2015-04-09

From the Dutch Market 138 Fund prices are downloaded including some Index prices and the currency Exchange rates.

I find the Optimization Module effective for cases in which a fund has shown a more a less consistent pattern Like SPY the last 4 years. . .(starting date 01-01-2011). . . ~steadily rising with ups and down on the rising price curve. The optimization takes these ups and down into account so that the number of shares steady rises, and THAT causes growth acceleration, of course at some expense of the trading costs, which are taken also into the optimization.

The Demo SPY Portfolio show now an annual yield of 17.6% with trading costs and interest gain accounted for in the yield calculation

A 30-day Trial on Vortex AIM, 100% functional, can be downloaded from the links on Vortex AIM Forum.

If anyone has suggestions on the Vortex AIM User Interface and its financial features as it is now we would welcome suggestions for improvements. We are also considering a Vortex Android App, or for a comparable Platform.

Regards,

PS:
For anyone that uses Face Book I have posted a promotional message about what I am AIMING to to get more exposure for my services. . .I am exploring various avenues for the time I have on my hands 6 years after "retiring". . .this word "retiring"is a big Joke for me . . .Every day I am "short" on time. . .It is almost 6 AM now!

https://www.facebook.com/conrad.winkelman

Hi SFSecurity,

You asked an interesting question in point 3 of your List:

"Does any of the software like VORTEX make sense or should I just rely on my spreadsheet skills, which are fairly good?"

1 Comparing VORTEX-AIM with AIM is like comparing a particular Apple with another Apple The basic principle of creating a Trade Advice based on an equity Price Difference is the same. With a particular set of parameters each for VORTEX and AIM, to start off with the same capital and same equity the Trade Advice Algorithms can be "matched" to perform identically initially and then over time the Buys and Sells will diverge slowly, depending on how the equity price behavior evolves. Generally different AIM users make personal choices, bases on experience, or on their feeling about the equity that invest in and small differences in parameters will cause different long tern performance. . .one of them outperforming the other. In that sense Vortex and AIM can be regarded to be very similar "Apples".

2 Over the many years I came on this Forum there have been heated discussions on the differences between and we ran Various AIM Contests to see how the various AIM Derivatives performed on a Particular Test Data Set. The point here being is that each Contestant used his favorite AIM Variant, setting the parameters as each AIMer thought best. VORTEX usually edged in front of the others, but this was more because I was a rather aggressive investor so that I tend to "capture" volatility more efficiently rather than Vortex being "better". In that sense VORTEX is "better" for someone that has learned to acquire the skill to set the VORTEX parameters optimally for a specific equity, compared to someone using AIM and has no skill to use AIM optimally. VORTEX is simply a bit different. . . not better. . .

3 I suggest that you follow the advice of TooFuzzy and first get to know how AIM works using pencil & paper if you have not actually done that yet. After that you would be ready to consider VORTEX and find out if it “clicks” for you.

4 The interesting difference between VORTEX and AIM is that I have eliminated the Lichello Residual Buy so that after any trade. . .a Buy or a Sell. . .the Trade Advisor Generator gives “0” as Trade Advice. This is intuitively very logical because after executing a trade you do not want to trade at the same price again but you need a Price Difference to generate a Trade. This means that after any trade in VORTEX PC=Value so that (PC-V) = 0 by creating the PC-Update Formula

PC2 = PC1 + f*Buy Amount

with “f” being a Trade Aggression Factor. For AIM f=0.5 so I simply held on the basic AIM Idea but made the PC-Update a variable that automatically resulted in PC=V to give the Zero Advice (PC-V=0.

5 A second change I introduced as a consequence of (4) is more subtle: For a Sell I also changed the PC

PC2=PC1 + f*Sell Amount.

This produces the interesting effect that VORTEX behaves as a Ratio Trading System in the algebraic sense that Y= Trade Value and X is the Price Variable

For VORTEX: Y = aX
For AIM: Y= aX + b

Other that this subtle difference, creating a subtle Advice development over time, for both VORTEX and AIM The Trade Aggression that the investor can set that as he pleases:

In VORTEX the “f-Factor” is increased for getting greater Trade Aggression
In AIM the “SAFE Factor s” is decreased for getting greater Trade Aggression.

Once you have learned what these Vortex-parameter settings will do for the Trading Behavior then you can Set VORTEX to your hand to behave optimally.
The same is equally true for AIM when you have learned what the SAFE.

In the VORTEX Program there is an additional comprehensive Investment Administration Section included as well as a feature to monitor the Portfolio History automatically in Report Form. A very handy VORTEX feature is the Automatic Down Loading of stock prices from Yahoo.

For an AIM Beginner VORTEX will take a considerable amount of time to master all the features, so I advise against buying it right away. . it would take you time away from learning all the things AIM can do for you.

I have gone back to a number the Ocroft Posts and the responses it created.

My conclusion is that after a number of discussions then, I had a rather good general understanding of what Ocroft was doing. . .again slight variations on the theme not really being relevant.

For example, I understood that Ocroft would sell all at a 20% overall profit, or higher. . .the exact details also are not relevant, the important thing being is to be satisfied with the profit that is realized. It appeared that on one occasion he stated that he would sell all equity as the uptrend reversed. . .This is the same thing as is done under TA.

On the Buying Side he started with the AIM 50/50 CER. . .or 70/30 if that would have been advised via other indicator. His AIM Buy Point would be determined by looking back at the price behavior and identifying a Price Reversal relative to the previous prices, or a stop in the price Price Decline. A very sensible Buy Point Method that I also generally advocated in my book The Vortex Method. It is not so that Ocroft would decide to invest in a stock and THEN wait for a Price Decline and a Reversal to step in.

Here are some of the relevant posts on the topic:
*******************************************************
Post 31574 Ocroft himself:

When the mkt order(1/2 added to PC) stops the PC from changing or rising, i will enter an actual buy order at that price at that point.
…
…
Conclusion: This is all that i am trying to convey to the AIM users; go ahead and use the by the book method, however, enter your buy orders on the PC (stop changing or rising) side of the stock.

This indicates the Price Reversal Indicator Ocroft is using. The fact that this could be an 8 % price rise or a 12 % rise is not very relevant.

Post 31595. . . Ocroft himself:

I just plot the stock by hand and BTB. I use those figures to make a buy entry point. I will give you a short example of the way I use AIM.
I just actually purchased FNLC at $14.74.
Now, in my equity warehouse, I only purchase and include A+ rated Standard & Poor's stocks.
Before I made a buy entry in FNLC,I went back to its high price of $21.70. Hand plotted its monthly closing price BTB from that point and got in at $14.74 when its PC stopped rising.
***************************************************

Post# 31602
Monday, March 29, 2010 4:38:31 AM
To: lostcowboy
My Response to Post # 31601

Howdie Cowby!

Your explanation is exactly as I understand it as to what Ocroft is doing. Thank you! So now I know I am not going senile yet!

Now the puzzling thing is this. When the price has bottomed out and reversed a bit even from 4 to 5 then the FIRST thing that is obvious is the FACT that this has happened. . .one knows this because one is looking at the prices and this fact is obvious BEFORE the price is fed into the AIM Machine and from that the investor can see plainly that a price reversal has taken place of 25% from $4 to $5. That signal is strong enough to decide to buy the amount of shares that has been calculated already for the price of $4. . .(Accumualated Buy Amount). There is no need to look at the PC because at the price of $5 (25% rise) there is no Buy Signal. .and with a holding zone of 10% one would probably get a Sell signal as the AIM system has assumed that the Buy at $4 was executed.

The fact that Ocroft then jumps in at $5 is not relevant. He could as well decide to wait for the price to go to $ 6 to make sure the $5 price is not an incidental jitter, with the price dropping to $3 thereafter.

My point is that he does not have to look at what the PC will do at $5 in order to decide to start buying. The fact that the price is at $5 is the primary indicator and if the stock stays at 5 for a while then it is an even better indicator that bottoming-out has taken place.

Why look at the PC then????
***************************************************

The point of my question tat the time: "Why loop at the PC" simply meant that if a price stopped dropping then it was obvious that the price had become level or had started to rise again.

The fact that Ocroft actually used the PC as a Reversal Indicator is perfectly fine. . .I simply argued at the time that one could simply track the price reversal in any other way and make a Buy Decision on it. That Ocroft looked at the PC in AIM is simply another way of "spotting" a Price Reversal that could be used for triggering the actual buys.

There is no need to get into all this again on small points of differences. Its the general idea of finding an effective Buy Delay Method that would generally prevent one from burning the money on a deep diver that does not come back.

Over and Out

Hi Ocroft,

What you describe here is more like I remember it from the discussion I had with you at the time. . .I was keen on understanding the "nitty gritty" details of what you did.

In large lines you are confirming that what I remember was more or less correct:

1) Your Buy Side was 100% AIM Method. So I remember from that that you invested 50% of the allocated money at some point that you considered "worth buying" the stock at. . .just like AIM BTB wouod be based on, and indeed as I did with Vortex AIM;

2) When the price declined you would not actually invest on each Buy Signal but you would wait till for a point there was a price reversal, and if the price reversal was significant enough for you to see it as an Uptrend only then you would execute the accumulated Buy Amount.

An uptrend can be indicated by various means, the details of which are . . for me. . .irrelevant for the discussion on the essentials of your method. . .
An uptrend signal determination is something very subjective, and only after its details have been decided on will it become an objective thing. . .

3) On the sell side I distinctly remembered you abandoned the AIM Strategy and sold all at a specific profit level. I remember that you mentioned 20%. . .
It could have been that you were flexible on this, which would seen logical if the market all over was in a strong uptrend, and then it would also be logical to sell all if that uptrend ended.

Would you say that generally my understanding of what you did was correct. . .apart from the specific numbers you used for detecting a Price Reversal for the buying and for bailing out at a ceratain profit level?

Hi Adam,

What I am referring to what I understood what Ocroft essentially did(as far as I understood it then):

After having invested his money on the Dip Method he described he would execute a "sell all" at 20% profit.

The method you refer to is essentially unknown to me, although I may have causally read about it and then forgotten about it. . . I have forgotten a lot of what I read over my lifetime

In any case, Ocroft did not buy during an uptrend. . .or at least not systematically.

Thanks Ray,
From this point on I can "Bone up" on what he actually said(other that what I remember )

I must have missed that first Ocroft post.
What he stated here does not seem to be correct. . .unless he actually executed "virtual buys" on the AIM Spread to keep a record of the accumulated buys. That way he would actually get a rising PC. . . That is not what I remember he was doing. . . because I did not read this post.

Assuming that is what Ocroft did. . .what you call "synthetically" following the stock with the AIM BTB Algorithm, the he would "see" indeed the PC rising as price declined far enough.

But even so, if the price of the equity stayed constant then the PC would also stop rising. . . If he then would buy the full amount of accumulated shares he would expose himself to a further decline in price and THAT Oroft wanted to avoid.

I remember that he applied a Reversal Indicator. . .the price would have to start rising by some fraction before he would buy. . .I remember that part distinctly. . .and it would be a good strategy.
If I am wrong on this then it is a mystery where I got that idea from.

For some reason I seem to remember that he bought the declining stock for 50% when the price was simply attractive at some point and then IF a decline would occur he would wait for a Bottom and a Reversal, and then sell at a profit level he was satisfied with on the upside.

In any case the exact details are less important than the general idea of what he was doing. He was happy doing what he did, as he fared well with it. . .He wrote that in any case.

Interesting that there were at the start various interpretations of what Ocroft explained he actually did. I suppose a number of people at the time were uncertain what the method was, because perhaps that was due to the fact that the verbal explanations did not include specific examples.

What I remembered more than anything is that Ocroft seriously studied the equities he was uberhaupt willing to invest in on the basis of their intrinsic value an unlikelihood that they would become Deep Divers that would stay Deep . This means that the equity was "worth buying" even if the equity was in a temporary dip and that triggered his buying just like any investor would buy an equity that was worth buying. He did NOT wait for an additional Buy Signal after he decided to buy the equity (That is my memory of his later explanations ).
I also remember that he invested 50% of his allocated capital.

Then Ocroft would deviate from the AIM Method:

1 For dropping equity prices he would let it drop without buying any shares until there was a Price Turnaround and at a recovery of say 10 % from the Dip Price he would invest the accumulated AIM Buys that were advised at the Dip Bottom.

2 On the Up trend there would not be any selling until the Profit of the investment stood at 20% or higher and then Ocroft would be satisfied and sold all the shares. . .not waiting for the Big Kill that might never come.

3 If the price turned around right after doing the initial Buying then the 20% Profit Rule would also be used and he would sell all the shares.

This 20% was not an Annual Profit but a real profit. . . If the turnaround would happen in half a year to the Sell Point the Annual Profit would be >> 40%. . .this because part of the time only 50% of the money was invested (Ref the Veale ROCAR and the Vortex ROTAI Yield calculation).

If I am wrong in this I blame it on my fading memories
I remember though doing a Dry Sun contest with Ocroft with Vortex AIM on some historical data. The basis of such a contest is that I could look at the data and more or less set the parameters that I considered appropriate (optimum). . .without actually doing an optimization.

I do not remember how that Contest ended. I would need to search the Forum Records. As I recall it from the top of my head we ended up rather similar in regards to yield. The Starting Point was of course identical. For historical data I can preset the Vortex parameters in anticipation using some sort of delay mechanism. Regular AIMers can do that too. Ocroft stated that he could, on the average, beat any AIM Investor that was not using any Filters.

If I find the details of that Contest I will show it here again.
********
PS
Could anybody give me a hint on the dates Ocroft disclosed his Methotd to the AIM Board?

This is an Update on my recent remarks to Ocroft on the Vortex AIM:

SPY Portfolio 01-03-2011----- > 13-06-2014
Portfolio at June 13th 2014. Amounts in Dollars

Initial Investment = 20000
Starting Equity Price = 127,05
Added a various intermediate times = 30000
Total Injected Cash =50000
End Equity Price = 194,13
End Capital = 56088
End Equity = 971. . . This is due to the steadily rising prices and selling off equity and stacking the Reserve.
[At this point it would obviously have been more profitable to stop the selling much earlier and to let the profit accumulate during the rising trend]
Time Average Investment for the ~3,5 yeas = 4855
Profit for the Period = 5214
ROTAI Yield = 23,6% per year

Interest gains on Reserve = 1585
[A basic interest rate of 2% per year was used. Interest accumulated at each update of the Portfolio]
Trading Cost = 339
Dividend Received = 260
[Some Dividend have not been added yet. . .I need to check this and correct for the ones I missed]

Price increase on Equity for the 3,45 years 127,05----- > 194,13 ----- > 53,8 % or 15,3 %/year.
The Vortex Method for this cats achieved an annual yield of 23,61 % which is 54 % higher than the Buy & Hold Yield would have been.

Considering that with more attention to the Up-trend of SPY in the 3,5 years the Yield would have been considerably higher if I had applied the Selling Brake.
In the typical AIM used now-a-days this would be achieved with executing a Vealie

Interesting points Ocroft,

Your remarks testify that you have a lot more Market know-how than I ever had, especially lately I have not been paying attention to it.

In one of my post I made the comment that the stock market is man made and repetitive.
You replied, " In that case when Enron re-bounces we know when to get out before it collapses!

I would agree that the SM is "man made" but you use of the word "repetitive" must obviously have a different interpretation than that the seasons on Earth are Repetitive. . .(which in this case also means the occurrence of seasons are reasonably "predictable"). . .if we discount time periods running far into the future. The details of the seasons are far less predictable, but we would not expect any one winter to go to absolute zero and stat there.

In any case "The Stock Market" is not Enron. In that perspective my remark on Enron recovering and going down again was clearly tongue-in-cheek humor. . .Any one equity hardly ever does feature repeatability other than a sort of chaotic volatility that in some cases shows repetitive periods.

I merely mean to say with this that in conversations on forums or otherwise in informal discussion we often use words that are not well defined so that what is actually said by different people carries a unique message, which is usually discovered later. . .or any conclusions that are stated are disagreed on, while in fact there might not have been any disagreement if the use of words were more carefully structured, as is normally done in scientific/engineering papers(at least that is the intend of such papers).

On the rest of yout remarks on AIM BTB, up-trend, down-trend, out of the market, and how it relates to Enron I must admit that "I am out of my tree on that", especially when it comes to the details of the matter that you seem to be very familiar with. . you obviously live in a different tree J

I like to remark that over the years I have discussed AIM BTB and Vortex AIM. . .which are very similar in their general operational mechanisms. . .I have always proclaimed that an AIMer should not let AIM be The Investment Manager and to use the system only as a guideline for trading within the limits of the understanding that the AIMer has of the Market Kinetics . . I dare not use the word "Dynamics" here .

In my booklet The Vortex Method I continually stress the point that an AIMer should study the market and not buy equity he knows nothing about, and not be afraid to bail out if things drop too fast or too deep for his liking, or in a very strange way that appears abnormal

So, in regards your question:

". . .I am curious to know how your present method of Vortex aim would have fared on auto-pilot using Enron's actual stock prices starting on 01/01/1997?. . ."

Interesting as that is, I would say that I never supported the idea of an Auto-Pilot Manager for investing. . . not with AIM BTB nor with Vorex AIM. The more interesting question would have been: "How would Conrad have fared with his "hands-on" Investment Management using his Vortex AIM?". . . . but that is not what you asked , so it is not relevant as we can not go back and redo it. . .I have no answer for you. I had never heard of Enron until its demise came onto the AIM Forum.

I did however experience a very similar case, and that was my investment in the Dutch Aircraft Company Fokker, that had been taken over from Dutch Government Ownership by Daimler Benz. . . .Jurgen ???? called Fokker "His Baby" . . I forget what year it was.

I "AIMed" Fokker by the seat on my pants. . .I was then not yet using the exact Vortex AIM algorithms as they are now but the idea was the same: Buy into the dips and sell towards the tops. . .in steps. . .No filters of any kind other that my own head.

I started buying at about Fl. 6 and sold and bought on the ups and in the downs, all the time keeping my eyes and my ears tuned to the Fokker Market information and the statements made by Jurgen Kemph about his Baby. The stock began to cycle downwards at some point. . .it had reach a high of Fl. 11 . . .great volatility . . .and landed back on Fl. 6 or so and kept cycling there for a bit, but then it started creeping down again. At the point it reached close to Fl. 4. . . 33 % drop from the start price. . . I decided to Bail Out at about at Fl. 4, using the "Market" information I had. . . The Baby appeared to be sick and might be dying in the near future. . .
The Baby died about a year later or less.

I would have to dig into the records for exact numbers but I recall that Buying at 6 and bailing out at 4 gave me an Annual Profit of 5%, including figuring-in the accounting of the trading costs

Looking at the prices of Enron till 10/18/2001 at the extremes:
43
88
43
90
43 From this point the shit hit the fan. . . apparently
29 At this point the "writing was on the wall" and I think I would have baled out at that point. This is incidentally a 33 % drop from the 43 starting point just as it was for the Fokker Bail-out. Of course, IF Vortex AIM would have been on auto-pilot it would have run out of money eventually and all the investment would have been lost. . . BUT THAT is not the way to run an AIM System. . The Investor must use his head and on the basis of his market know-how bail out when it is wise to do so!

I can not make any calculations on the profit I would have made on Enron IF I had invested in it. In hind-sight I can run the Enron Price History in the Vortex Optimizer I have now, but the question is:

"How would I decide in 2014 what I would really used for Vortex Parameters between 01/01/1999 and 10/18/2001 when the price reached $ 29 ? "

To do this without any bias in regards to what did happen I could use the Enron prices from before 01/01/1999 and optimism a Vortex Parameter Set and then Run an Unfiltered Vortex Aim the same way I have been running the S&P 500 SPY Demo since 03/01/2011.

If I would do the Bail out on the Enron price of 29 I could well have made a handsome profit over the ~~3 year run. Still in case where needed I would have intervened here and there to adjust the Vortex Parameters IF the actual price trend would differ significantly from the price history that would have been used for the optimization. That is what I did with the Spy Demo as I never use an auto-pilot on any real investment:

Originally SPY was quite volatile and a good AIM-equity, but I started out with Holding zones of 7% but SPY’s volatility had dropped, so I adjusted the holding zones roughly 50% to get some trading done but that increased to trading costs and that had to be stopped. So later on I again increased the Holding zones. They are now something like:

Buying: 7%
Selling: 10%

with very little trading occurring.

As you might know I also use a Time Average Investment Base to calculate the Annual Yield . . .ROTAI. . .At the moment ROTAI =~ 20 % . . .based on effectively invested capital over the 3.5 year period. Looking at the SPY Price development I would have been better off to use the Buy & Hold strategy. . . [much les work involved]. . .SPY shows little volatility and went steadily from about 126 to about 190 now-a days. . .That is a ~51% total yield or ~15 % per year. In this respect the 20%/year Vortex Yield is 33% higher than the B&H. . .in spite of all the trading costs incurred. . . .I also figure in the Interest gained on the cash. . . The many hours spend in this are not figured into it.

How it would have worked out for Enron is too much work to get into, and in any case the results would be hardly be identifiably unbiased.

The current Spy Demo IS unbiased as I do not know the SPY future price trend.

Hi Frugal One,

Interesting point you drew attention to:

PC $s/N(1-0.1) where 0.1 is my SAFE of 10%.

In the Diagram you mentioned the SAFE appeared in the Formula as a Percentage

$s/N(1-S%)

Which is mathematically wrong, and you spotted it. . .and made the 10% ----> = 0.1 as a Fraction. It surprised me that Mr Torres did not correct that after it was published. Obviously most AIMers could, just as you did, come to that point on the basis of experience with AIM, but for newcomers it may have caused "going into dead-end streets on various occasions.

On the Question of the Holding Zone this:
The clue is in the answer of the Trade Price € 176.xx. If you compare that Advised Trade Price (ATP) you can calculate the Holding Zone on the basis of the previous Trade Price. . .PTP

HZ(%) = (ATP - PTP)/PTP*100% for a Sell Point. . .HZ is Positive
HZ(%) = (ATP - PTP)/PTP*100% for a Buy Point . . .HZ is Negative

So the Hold Zone is a calculated Value that arises from other choices rather than arbitrarily being set at the Starting Point. If all the choices for the other parameters are effectively logically chosen on the basis of Stock Price behavior then the Holding Zones are a more effectively determined than arbitrary values. That is how I understood this method that was explained quite some years ago.

Hi Toof,

I understand your remark on this, but Cases 1 & 2 are not my suggestion as to how to do it, or what I would do. From the time of the discussions, already several years ago,there were various discussions going on as to what Ocroft precisely did and I presented the 2 ways of interpreting what he had said in his discussions, in response to the question of Adam Hellberg on "missing the Buy Opportunity".

I even recall that Ocroft had commented something like 'What you exactly do is not really critical, as long as you delay the Buys to a good "Buy Point", close to the Bottom Price'.

As usual AIMers tend to "love" giving their one "Twist" to any method that appears on this Forum. . . The two cases I presented were not my "twists"

In a more positive way of saying this I have observed over the many years on this Forum that what I have called a "Twist" AIM Tinkerers might call it. . .

The Cherry on Their Cake

One of the "Cherries" on the Cake for me was calling the AIM Residual Buy "The Lichello Flaw" from which I developed my Vortex AIM, and my Cherry reverberated through the AIM Universe as a Big Bang for years

Hi Too Fuzzy,

What you Suggest is one of the many things you COULD do, but that is not quite what Ocroft suggested(and does). Remember. . .I am not advising anything here. . just interpreting what generically happens under the Ocroft Method

If I would advise anything. . .then I would advise you to buy a Vortex Method Program

1 If the price keeps dropping you do indeed keep track of the Buy Advises AIM gives you and add then up as you go(Case 1). . .not actually doing the buying, but you enter the Buys in AIM;

2 In case 2 you keep a record of the Last Single Buy before the Price Reversal. . . (Or you record the Buy Advice at the Point of the Price Reversal. . this is simply a personal Option which you can also apply in Case 1)

When the price reverses you can use any Buying Point Critera you like. Either the Cross-Over Methods you prefer OR simply a certain percentage price rise for executing the accumulated Buys. . .Your Choice.

It is certainly an Option to do everything different than Ocroft did. . . That is not really a significant point here. Case 1 and Case 2 are 2 Options.

If you think you need to have a 30% profit before selling out then you simply wait for that 30 %. . .but you might have to wait a long time for it and the higher you set the profit target the more likely it becomes that you miss the Profit Sell-Out, because the price could dump down any day, and then you miss the 20% Profit that Ocroft found sufficient.
You method would be the TooFussy Method

In practice "To let the price rise 'As long as Possible" is something that you have no control over. . .It is NOT in you hands "to let the price rise". . . Al you have control over is to decide when you want to sell.

Ocroft decided that 20 % Profit was enough for him , and he stated that it gave him above Average investment yields and generally a higher yield that an AIM on the same equity would have give him.

The follow-up consideration:

How would Case 1 and Case 2 work out for VORTEX AIMing ?


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102450242

Considering that the Vortex Trading Functions are

Vortex Buy Advice = (PC-V)*/(1-Fb)
Vortex Sell Advice = (PC-V)*/(1-Fs)

you can see at a glance that the Vortex Method is a Ratio Trading System

and the Buying and the Selling have the general mathematical form of

Buying: . . . y=Ab*x
Selling:. . . y=As*x

Considering that for Case 1 the PC is being Updated by each Buy" and for Case 2 it is not, then you need to consider that in Vortex AIM the Ratio System retains the same Trading Ratio based on an equity price change, so that raising the PC to the new equity value V(new) after a trade, in Case 1, does not change the trading Rates, which are defined by the Constants Ab and As.
After each trade the PC(new)= V(new).

For this reason the accumulation of Step-wise Buys in Case 1 results in the same Total Buy Amount for a single large Buy in Case 2, as long as the price changes remain identical for both cases

For Vortex Case 1 and Case 2 of my Ocroft Method Options are Identical.

I have discussed an interesting AIM Alternative that was suggested by Ocroft here on the AIM User Forum:

I agree with Ocroft that on the average The Ocroft Method (TOM) will outperform the Standard AIM Method:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102449505

High TooFuzz,

Yes, in both examples the buying of the Accumulated Amount of Buy Advises are triggered at the same price for both cases. I have assumed the AIM principle of triggering a Trade at a certain Percentage Threshold on the Price Change. . .you tend to call that also the Hold Zone.

The assumption I also "executed"(See Note 1)is that the two cases are compared point-by-point on the Hold Zone specification because it is a theoretical testing procedure. In reality one would not always get a trade trigger exactly on the Hold Zone Percentage. In practice you will normally get a Trade Advice at a higher percentage drop than the Hold Zone.

So if you had two people running Case 1 and Case 2 concurrently then because they would not do the Price Checking at the same day then Case 1 and Case 2 would do the Recovery Buying at different prices, but in general the conclusion would generally be that in Case 1 the Accumulated Buys would exhaust the "Reserve" earlier. In Case 2 the Buy Amount are tempered, so at the point Case 1 triggers the Buy with all all of the Reserve at the Recovery Price Case 2 does the same but has a lower Buy Amount "on the books".

Of course it is possible that the Recovery occurs before Case 1 exhaust the Reserve. In that case the Buy Amount for Case 1 would also be higher. . .unless the Recovery occurs before the Second Buy Advice is triggered, because on the First Buy Advice the PC is the same for both cases.

Note(1)
I did not actually execute the Tests on an AIM Spread Sheet as I do no longer have one on file. . .but doing the test one does not need to use a Spread Sheet. I just did the reasoning in my head, using the PC-Update Principle for Case 1.

At the moment, as an afterthought to Post # 37740, I was wondering how Case 1 and Case 2 Of the Ocroft Method Options(as I see them)would work out for Vortex AIM. . .I would not be honest if I ventured to give a definite answer to this question. . .

I have not tested the options in Vortex and I can not do the comparing in my mind's eye. . . I would have to do the tests. The Result, I suspect, will depend on the two Vortex Aggression Factors that drastically affects that Buy amount.

Off-hand I would suspect that the result in Vortex AIM would be identical for Case 1 and for Case 2. The reason for this is that Vortex AIM is a pure Ratio System. . . For each price difference irrespective of the price level they occur the Trade Advice per step is identical. The accumulated Buy Amount of the step-buying should be the same as the Buy Amount in "One Shot".

In the cases 1 and 2, in Post # 37739, above there is yet another possibility: The prices keep dropping below the point at which Case 2 has exhausted its Reserve. At that point, and at a lower price, the cases remain identical because only $ 10000 can be invested.

So, the question as to which method is better is to be based on the possibilities. . .chances. . . that for selected equities that tend to make big drops and are, for the criteria chosen, not likely to be varnishing equities.

I would say that Case 1 is the better Option because the price Y13 is easier reached and quicker than the higher price Y23. For a certain volatility Index Case 1 is more profitable.

Hi Clive,

On the Ocroft Method I have understood two options... that I have mentioned before. As I do not have a Standard AIM Spreadsheet so I have not tested the two options:

1 The AIM is run with standard parameters, or with adjusted parameters, and when a Buy Advice is triggered the trade is entered into AIM but in reality it is not executed. In this procedure the AIM Pc is updated with 0,5x Buy Value.

The Real Cash Reserve will greater that the Reserve AIM shows. When the drop in price continues at some point a new Buy Trade is advised, based on the Updated PC, and again this procedure is repeated, as in your example:

"Rather than perhaps 13.3 shares being bought at $75, another 14.8 shares at $67.5, another 16.5 shares at $60.75 (combined $3000 paid for 44.6 shares at average cost of $67.25), you might buy all of those 44.6 shares at a price ('average cost') of $63 price (being the first month with AIM indicating no action/trade after a series of buy trades)".

In this procedure the Residual Trade Advice is by dropping prices being ignored. With each Buy Trade Advice a new Residual Trade appears and a new PC-Value is created. Only the Actual Advice is entered into AIM but no Trade is actually executed.

At the point of the dip and a small recovery that satisfies the amount of recovery at the Accumulated Buy Advise is to be executed, say a 10 % Recovery, and assuming that the Buy then consumes exactly all the Available Cash. This then results in a single large Buy of X shares at a Price of Y. With a continuing price rise Ocroft set a criteria of 20% profit. I think I recall Ocroft set that 20 % Profit criteria on his Total Investment, which included his original investment with which he stated his AIM Management. . .Thus the recovery price from the Dip Buy Point has to be greater that 20%. So id Ocroft started with $ 20000 and invested $ 10000 to start AIM, and with the Total Purchase Amount at the Dip Buy is $ 10000. . . then the Portfolio Profit of 20% is Achieved at an Equity Value of $ 24.000 Net Value. . .and not just LOOKING a 20% Profit on the $ 10000 Dip Buy. One could figure in the trading costs in this as well.

2 The AIM is run with standard parameters, or with adjusted parameters, and when a Buy Advice is triggered the trade is NOT entered into the AIM. . . .One simply notes the Buy Advise and leaves it at that.. .Note that in this case the PC is not updated upwards and its value remains as is was... The PC would thus remain smaller that in Case 1 above.

With the price continue dropping the AIM Algorithm simply keeps adding value to the previous Buy Advice. This continues then until the price recovers and rises say 10% and assuming that this occurs at a point that the Single Buy Value at the Dip Buy Price Y2 is equal to the Available Cash.

Comparing the two cases I observe that in Case 1 the subsequent Buy Advise Points that are determined by say a 10% price drop and the Buy Amount is determined by an ever larger PC, and in that way INCREASING the Buy Advice Amount at each following Buy Advice. So the Accumulated Buy Values at say 3 or 4 steps down the Deep Diver increase rapidly. . .This is the well know AIM Cash Burn Problem. So when the price dips to the point of recovery + 10% then the Buy Price is Y1 and the Buy Value is the value of the Reserve(assume the €10000). Then 10000 = N1*Y1. . .Calculated with using the traditional Safe Value and N1 is the effective number of Shares.

In Case the PC was not changed and the consecutive Buy Advises were accumulated. They are simply recorded at an Update as the price drops. . .AIM simply keeps increasing based on the original PC, which MEANS that the Buy Advice is tempered considerably relative to Case 1 at each 10%. . .The Last Buy Advice on Case 2 would be smaller than in Case 1, because the Cash Burn Brake due to NOT changing the PC would give a lower Final Buy Amount when the recovery occurs and the Buts are executed ate Price Y1=Y2.

What are the relevant results for Case 1 and Case 2 when the Recovery to the Buy Price Y1=Y2 occurs?

Assume that for case 1 at Price Y1 the amount to buy from Accumulated Buy Value = $ 10000 = N1*Y1------> N1 = 10000/Y1.

The Buy Point @ Price Y2=Y1 for Case 2 comes at exactly the same point. . .at Recovery Price Y1=Y1.

Since for case 2 The Accumulated Buy Amount at this point is less that for Case 1 it follows that N2<N1 and that means that for Case The Reserve has not yet been exhausted, which means that for Case 2 the Buy Value N2*Y2 < € 10000 and some Cash remains on the account.

Which method is . . .ehhh. . . Better?

3 In Case 1 if the price keeps rising after the Buy @ Y2 $ 10000 is invested and the Profit Point of 20% would be reached at Price Y13 at which the Equity would be worth $ 24000.

4 In Case 2 if the price keeps rising after the Buy @ Y2 a smaller amount than $ 10000 is invested. In order to get to a Equity value of € 24000 the equity price Y23 must be greater than Y13 and THAT requires waiting a bit. . .or a long time. . .for the price to reach Y23 > Y13. . . if it happens.

If in both cases the equity is sold an either Y13 or at Y23 the Yield Percentage Yield13 > than the Yield Percentage23 because the profit of $ 4000 is achieved in a shorter time for Case 1 than for Case 2

5 If however the price keeps dropping to a point that the Buy Amount for Case 2 is also $ 10000 then bath cases become identical...In both cases the investment $ 20000 and the buy point are identical.

Adam,

It would appear to me that two different interpretations create a very different response if the equity does not dive as Ocraft would in any case buy the Advised Accumulated Amount on a Dip Recovery and the Sell at 20% profit. But the big difference is that If the total Buy amount is Less than Reserve the Ocroft Buy is larger than the AIM Buy. It could very well be that at this point with a cycling equity the Ocroft Method may remain in the Hold Zone longer

A the Deep Diver would reach the Reserve value then the two methods would generate the same Buy = Reserve. Then after the Recovery the methods would no linger be the same as Ocroft sells everything at the 20% profit level.

Adam,

On the Ocroft Method you wrote:

"Check on the stock once per month and if AIM tells you to buy, you instead show on your spreadsheet a virtual buy but you don't actually execute it with your broker. You keep doing this until the spreadsheet show no more buys. At this point the presumption is the stock has stopped falling and you're free to execute your buys. The idea is that you prevent buying a falling stock and only buy it when it starts its recovery.

In my experience when I've used this method on a few stocks I've missed the buys when the stock declined, and then when the stock recovered a bit it went back into a hold zone, so AIM ended up doing nothing. There is particular stock price pattern where his method works well, and if it does not follow that pattern the filter just ends up poisoning the AIM mechanism."

As I remember it is was so that the Suggested AIM Buys on the way down were NOT Entered in the AIM Algorithm as Virtual Buys, but as the price dropped the AIM simply is increasing the Advised Buy Amount because [(PC-V)-sV] keeps increasing, and at the Recovery Point there is a Large Level Buy Advice (A Buy = > Reserve). In this process V gets smaller but the PC remains the same. . . causing the large Buy.

If at each step the Buy Advice is executed virtually in AIM the V is increased in value but the PC is increased by 1/2 that amount so that the Total Buy Accumulated Buy Amount is less than the Total Advice via the Method of NOT executing the buy in AIM. If the PC is not updated and no Buy is executed then, as far I can model that in my head, would result in a greater Total Buy Advice at the Recovery point than if the Buys had been entered into AIM.

Essentially the Reserve Depletion would not occur either way as no equity is bought. The differences would come into play only when the Recovery would come before the Reserve is depleted. The Ocroft Buy would be larger than the Advised AIM Buy. So at the Recovery Point Ocroft would invest more money than regular AIM at the Bottom Price AND Ocroft has an advantage on AIM at that point. Also Ocroft would sell All the Equity at a 20+ % Profit Level, while the AIMer would start selling smaller packages at say a 10% price rise. . . .Ocroft would ignore the AIM Method for selling.

Ocroft did not care that at that point the AIM Algorithm on the price rise would get messed up by his Method. . .He would sell everything if his profit reached 20 % or more

I remember that Ocroft Method quite well and I saw the virtue of it: “Do not take too much Risk and be not to be too Greedy + do some wise Stock Picking"

It essentially amounted to an AIM Strategy without executing the Buy Advices but to keep track of the total Advised Buying Trades. . .If the Equity became a Deep Diver Ocroft would NOT have lost too much Money. . only the initial Inlay.

At a deep Point at which a Recovery occurred at about 10% or so, Ocroft invested the Accumulated Buy Advice, or the full Reserve.

When the Recovery continued all the equity was sold at a profit of 20 to 25 %. The trigger point was 20% as I remember it, and then sometimes the lot was sold at a higher point.

He did enough research on the equities to give him a good assurance that the equity would not be a Deep Diver and his experience was that he made very satisfactory above average yields, which was enough for him, not wanting to wait for a Killer Point. . .which would seldom happen.

The Ocroft Filter resembles the MACRO Filter except that the MACRO would not trigger any selling at 20% Profit but at an Upper End Reversal of say 10% and then Sell the AIM recommended number of shares.

Ocroft found that waiting for an Upper End Reversal would have too high a risk of a fast price decline so that Upper End Sell Order would not be executed until the price had reached a Deep Dive.

This Ocroft Filter can easily be modeled into the Vortex Threshold & Aggression Parameters. That is why I remember The Ocroft Filter.

Results for the second phase of the SPY Demo Portfolio between 03-01-2011 and 09005-2014:

I use only the End positions. The starting positions for this sensid phase are defined as the End Positions in the previous Post.

Second Period: 03-07-2012 to 09-05 2014
Yield Performance is calculated for the entire investment period of 41,5 months, For the several Optimization runs shorter periods were used.

Capital Investment total = $ 40000 [$ 20000 Capital was added~1 year ago]
Reserve Cash = $ 45873. . .partially received dividends are included in this(See Note 1).
Equity Value = $ 940. . . .Due to the rising Share Price triggering predominant Selling Trades
Share price = $ 187,96
Share price Gain from 127,05 ~3,5 years ago = 47,94 % over 3 years and ~5,5 months.
That is an Annual Share Price Gain of 13,9 % .. .Which is also ~ the Buy & Hold Gain

ROTAC Yield = 7,44 %

* Cash Fraction = 0,98
* Buy Threshold = 5%
* Sell Threshold = 10%
* Buy Aggression = 0,96
* Sell Aggression = 0,70

Due to the low volatility the optimizations drifted to larger aggressively but the low volatility also reduced the trading frequency. Still the Vortex ROTAC yield dropped behind the Buy & Hold Yield by ~6,5 % because of the trading costs. This is considerably worse than for the first 1,5 years...

Note 1
I must add to my embarrassment here that since 21 September 2012 I have neglected to add the Dividends. . . .A calculation shows that about $ 270 Dividend should be added to the value of the Reserve and the Total Value. The corrected Yield is then approximately 7,84 %. . .This is not significant, so the overall conclusion that the yield is still substantially less, and that the Buy & Hold Yield of almost 14 % stands as substantially higher.

ROTAI Yield at this End Point = 23,26 %

This is substantially higher than the ROTAI Yield of 14,01 in the first 1,5 year.

If the $ 270 Dividend would have been added then the ROTAI yield would have been ~ 23,26%(7,84/7/44) = 24, 5 % and THAT is substantially higher that the 14 % Annual Buy & Hold Gain.
I will retroactively add the missing Dividends in this Demo and report the effect om the End Yields per May 9th 2014.

The point of this optimizing is that using an Optimization Program VOP the yield in this case was greatly improved over the 41,5 month Investment Period, which is due to that fact that earlier I had estimated the Trading thresholds at 7% and then reduced them to 3 and 4 % which was actually too low. The VOP Program corrected that and I reset these threshgolds to 5% for buying and 10 % for selling.

Clearly it must be emphasized that this result of improvement from optimization can not be applied indiscriminately to other stocks that have behaved drastically different from SPY.
In this period the Price Chart shows a steadily increasing share price without great dips and without high peaks. For comparably gentle price behavior I would predict that Optimization such as I have practiced works fine!

A 25 % annual Yield for SPY over a period of 41,5 months, compared to 14 % Buy & Hold is quite a reasonable achievement.
The essential point in this SPY Demo is that for the ROTAI Case the Time Average Investment. . .The money actually at Risk. . . was calculated at only $ 5116 while the same for the ROTAC case the Time Average Capital was about $ 20750 for the same period.


Another point that was discovered is that I was selling SPY too fast as the price rose. I should have stopped the rapid sell off for the rising Trend Channel and lowered the Sell Aggression and increased the Buy Aggression, in order to retain the share quantity much higher than I did.

Here is the corrected text of the post I withdrew:

Among other things I have been attending to lately, I have been struggling to get Windows 7 functioning properly. . .No success yet. Some errors prevent me to download some drivers(scanning and sound and Printing) frown
Also O have an Error that causes the MS Back-up not to work frown. . .I have been ”suffering” this for 1,5 months now.
****************************
All the time I have continued running some 3 Demo's on the SP500 SPY, and on a set of Dutch Penny. . . a Calamity portfolio. . .just for Fun, since 03-01-2011 foe SPY to today, with VORTEX, trying to get an optimized strategy using our Optimization Program. . .(only Dutch language so far). People interested could buy a Copy of it for € 100 and experience the development as we go, getting free Updates.

SPY has not show a great deal of volatility and has been steadily rising in value these 3.5 years. . .resulting in the performance for which Buy & Hold Method would have been better, if I had used the simple ROI Yield Calculation. . .as some of you use: The ROI Method without considering a variable amount of Investment that over the years applies.

My approach was as follows, as of 03-01-2011 with $ 20000 Inlay:

Parameters are
* Cash Fraction = 0,72
* Buy Threshold = 7%
* Sell Threshold = 7%
* Buy Aggression = 0,8
* Sell Aggression = 0,6 . . .This means that I buy more aggressively than I sell, which drives the Portfolio towards Share Accumulation (Increasing Equity Value).
If I reverse the Aggression Factors then that drives the Portfolio towards Liquidation (This interesting if it is to generate cash income).

1) January 2011 I started with Parameters more or less as I had found best the previous periods with a volatile SPY. As the time goes on. . .during say 6 months or so I monitor the volatility and if it proves to be too low I lower the Buy-Sell Thresholds a bit and at 6 months or so I run an optimization with VOP. . .Vortex Optimization Program . . . on the last 6 months history and then I resets the Vortex parameters for optimized Yield %.

The Cash Fraction can then be rebalanced to suit, if judged necessary. I use my "fingerspietzinggeful" for that smile.

The Vortex Program also allows for adding Cash at any time and adjusts the total investment to an Period Average that as the Investment for the period. The Optimization Process uses a fixed CER that is started with for that Run.

2) After this a new Staring condition is defined for VOP. . . Essentially the Test Portfolio is Reset to a New Start Condition for the Next Optimization Run. The Vortex Portfolio itself runs from the Starting Date. Trading costs and Interest on Cash are accounted for in Vortex but also in the VOP. . . This prevents the yield to be suppressed by too frequent trading!

Starting Price = $ 127,05

3) Results after almost 1,5 year:
At the start volatility was much lower than expected and was adjusted somewhere during the period manually to

Buy = 3 %
Sell = 4%. . .Aggressions unchanged.
The subsequent VOP Runs showed it should have been around 5%. . .I had a snappy Trigger Finger J
Share Price = $ 137,4

Share Price Gain = 9,91% but for the ~1,5 year that is 6 annually.

Vortex ROTAC Yield = 6,68% Annually
This is based on Total Averaged Cash Inlay. . .which remains in this case at $ 20000, but If I had added $ 10000 at the 1-year point the capital base would be $ 30000 but for the yield calculation @ 61,5 year it would be [20000*1 + 10000*0,5]/1,5 = $25000/1,5 = $ 16667 for the 1,5-year average. In this case ANY cash injection is treated as an Cash Inlay and any withdrawal is treated as a Negative Inlay. I prefer this way as it models The real World Investment Environment.

Vortex ROTAI Yield = 14,01 % Annually
This is based on only The Money for which shares are bought and expenses required to maintain the investment. If shares are sold the investment base gets smaller. If cash is added or taken out NOTHING changes except the Yield on the Cash gets higher or lower.
The Cash in itself is NOT at RISK an is not treated as an investment for Equity. Obviously this method. . . .very similar to the ROCAR that some AIMers use but it is more realistic and is automatically calculated for the Portfolio.

Interesting to note that the trading cost in the first 1,5 years have NOT reduced the Buy & Hold Yield compared to the ROI Method but in spite of the trading costs the performance was 4% higher even with the low SPY volatility [In this example I had a constant € 20000 Cash Inlay]. Any AIM-trader would have had pay the same trading fees as the Vortex AIMer, so a regular AIMer might have had a higher yield for the same type of trading but the yield would have been overstated. Moreover, the high Vortex trading aggressions of 0,8 and 0,6 are considerably higher than for a standard Lichello AIM. It is therefore safe to state that a standard AIM for SPY between 03-01-2012 and 03-07-2012 would have had a much lower yield than the 6,68 % Annually that Vortex AIM scored. Does anyone that aimed SPY in that 1,5 year period still have any yield data thereof?

With the 14% ROTAI Yield that really shows that the Vortex AIM Method created an hypothetical Yield Improvement, due to intermediate trading on price changes. . .in spite of the trading costs incurred. . .by using this fundamental AIM Principal of

Buy Low Sell High

Again and again when prices fluctuate.

The end Position of the Spy Portfolio is at 03-07-2012 is:

Cash Reserve = $ 14093
Equity Value = $ 7941
Portfoli Value = $ 22034
Interest earned = $ 411
Trading cost = $ 120
Dividend paid = $ 227

[The dividend is, in this case, calculated in as Gain but it was not yet included here as intermediately added capital. . .Using the ROTAC method this could be treated as capital added. If you receive Cash dividend on your bank account it becomes a choice to add it to the Reserve if the Portfolio or not smile In this case it was added ro the Reserve but NOT treated as an extra Capital Injection but under the ROTAC Principle it could have been].

Of course, experienced AIMers know al these aspects already and accept the risk of Under-performance and AIM for the likely Gain of Over-performance, relative to the Buy & Hold Method.
I made a point of it here for Newcomers to AIMing that might find the Vortex Method an interesting alternative Automatic Investment Program that has an extensive Portfolio Administration Section, for managing their investment.

More results from between June 2012 to May 10, 2014, in the next posting.

Results for the second phase of the SPY Demo Portfolio between 03-01-2011 and 09005-2014:

I use only the End positions. The starting positions for this sensid phase are defined as the End Positions in the previous Post.

Second Period: 03-07-2012 to 09-05 2014
Yield Performance is calculated for the entire investment period of 41,5 months, For the several Optimization runs shorter periods were used.

Capital Investment total = $ 40000 [$ 20000 Capital was added~1 year ago]
Reserve Cash = $ 45873. . .partially received dividends are included in this(See Note 1).
Equity Value = $ 940. . . .Due to the rising Share Price triggering predominant Selling Trades
Share price = $ 187,96
Share price Gain from 127,05 ~3,5 years ago = 47,94 % over 3 years and ~5,5 months.
That is an Annual Share Price Gain of 13,9 % .. .Which is also ~ the Buy & Hold Gain

ROTAC Yield = 7,44 %. . . .

* Cash Fraction = 0,98
* Buy Threshold = 5%
* Sell Threshold = 10%
* Buy Aggression = 0,96
* Sell Aggression = 0,70

Due to the low volatility the optimizations drifted to larger aggressively but the low volatility also reduced the trading frequency. Still the Vortex ROTAC yield dropped behind the Buy & Hold Yield by ~6,5 % because of the trading costs. This is considerably worse than for the first 1,5 years...

Note 1
I must add to my embarrassment here that since 21 September 2012 I have neglected to add the Dividends. . . .A calculation shows that about $ 270 Dividend should be added to the value of the Reserve and the Total Value. The corrected Yield is then approximately 7,84 %. . .This is not significant, so the overall conclusion that the yield is still substantially less, and that the Buy & Hold Yield of almost 14 % stands as substantially higher.

The Vortex ROTAI Yield at this End Point = 23,26 %. . which is substantially higher than the ROTAI Yield of 14,01 in the first 1,5 year. If the $ 270 Dividend would have been added then the ROTAI yield would have been ~ 23,26%(7,84/7/44) = 24, 5 % and THAT is substantially higher that the 14 % Annual Buy & Hold Gain.

The point of this is that by optimizing the parameters using an Optimization Program the yield in this case was greatly improved over the 41,5 month Investment Period.

Clearly it must be emphasized that this result of improvement from optimization can not be applied indiscriminately to other stocks that have behaved drastically different from SPY.
In this period the Price Chart shows a steadily increasing share price without great dips and without high peaks. For comparably gentle price behavior I would predict that Optimization such as I have practiced works fine!

A 25 % annual Yield for SPY over a period of 41,5 months, compared to 14 % Buy & Hold is quite a reasonable achievement.
The essential point in this SPY Demo is that for the ROTAI Case the Time Average Investment. . .The money actually at Risk. . . was calculated at only $ 5116 while the same for the ROTAC case the Time Average Capital was about $ 20750 for the same period.

Here is the corrected text of the post I withdrew:

Among other things I have been attending to lately, I have been struggling to get Windows 7 functioning properly. . .No success yet. Some errors prevent me to download some drivers(scanning and sound and Printing)
Also O have an Error that causes the MS Back-up not to work . . .I have been ”suffering” this for 1,5 months now.
****************************
All the time I have continued running some 3 Demo's on the SP500 SPY, and on a set of Dutch Penny. . . a Calamity portfolio. . .just for Fun, since 03-01-2011 foe SPY to today, with VORTEX, trying to get an optimized strategy using our Optimization Program. . .(only Dutch language so far). People interested could buy a Copy of it for € 100 and experience the development as we go, getting free Updates.

SPY has not show a great deal of volatility and has been steadily rising in value these 3.5 years. . .resulting in the performance for which Buy & Hold Method would have been better, if I had used the simple ROI Yield Calculation. . .as some of you use: The ROI Method without considering a variable amount of Investment that over the years applies.

My approach was as follows, as of 03-01-2011 with $ 20000 Inlay:

Parameters are
* Cash Fraction = 0,72
* Buy Threshold = 7%
* Sell Threshold = 7%
* Buy Aggression = 0,8
* Sell Aggression = 0,6 . . .This means that I buy more aggressively than I sell, which drives the Portfolio towards Share Accumulation (Increasing Equity Value).
If I reverse the Aggression Factors then that drives the Portfolio towards Liquidation (This interesting if it is to generate cash income).

1) January 2011 I started with Parameters more or less as I had found best the previous periods with a volatile SPY. As the time goes on. . .during say 6 months or so I monitor the volatility and if it proves to be too low I lower the Buy-Sell Thresholds a bit and at 6 months or so I run an optimization with VOP. . .Vortex Optimization Program . . . on the last 6 months history and then I resets the Vortex parameters for optimized Yield %.

The Cash Fraction can then be rebalanced to suit, if judged necessary. I use my "fingerspietzinggeful" for that .

The Vortex Program also allows for adding Cash at any time and adjusts the total investment to an Period Average that as the Investment for the period. The Optimization Process uses a fixed CER that is started with for that Run.

2) After this a new Staring condition is defined for VOP. . . Essentially the Test Portfolio is Reset to a New Start Condition for the Next Optimization Run. The Vortex Portfolio itself runs from the Starting Date. Trading costs and Interest on Cash are accounted for in Vortex but also in the VOP. . . This prevents the yield to be suppressed by too frequent trading!

Starting Price = $ 127,05

3) Results after almost 1,5 year:
At the start volatility was much lower than expected and was adjusted somewhere during the period manually to

Buy = 3 %
Sell = 4%. . .Aggressions unchanged.
The subsequent VOP Runs showed it should have been around 5%. . .I had a snappy Trigger Finger J
Share Price = $ 137,4

Share Price Gain = 9,91% but for the ~1,5 year that is 6 annually.

Vortex ROTAC Yield = 6,68% Annually
This is based on Total Averaged Cash Inlay. . .which remains in this case at $ 20000, but If I had added $ 10000 at the 1-year point the capital base would be $ 30000 but for the yield calculation @ 61,5 year it would be [20000*1 + 10000*0,5]/1,5 = $25000/1,5 = $ 16667 for the 1,5-year average. In this case ANY cash injection is treated as an Cash Inlay and any withdrawal is treated as a Negative Inlay. I prefer this way as it models The real World Investment Environment.

Vortex ROTAI Yield = 14,01 % Annually
This is based on only The Money for which shares are bought and expenses required to maintain the investment. If shares are sold the investment base gets smaller. If cash is added or taken out NOTHING changes except the Yield on the Cash gets higher or lower.
The Cash in itself is NOT at RISK an is not treated as an investment for Equity. Obviously this method. . . .very similar to the ROCAR that some AIMers use but it is more realistic and is automatically calculated for the Portfolio.

Interesting to note that the trading cost in the first 1,5 years have NOT reduced the Buy & Hold Yield compared to the ROI Method but in spite of the trading costs the performance was 4% higher even with the low SPY volatility [In this example I had a constant € 20000 Cash Inlay]. Any AIM-trader would have had pay the same trading fees as the Vortex AIMer, so a regular AIMer might have had a higher yield for the same type of trading but the yield would have been overstated. Moreover, the high Vortex trading aggressions of 0,8 and 0,6 are considerably higher than for a standard Lichello AIM. It is therefore safe to state that a standard AIM for SPY between 03-01-2012 and 03-07-2012 would have had a much lower yield than the 6,68 % Annually that Vortex AIM scored. Does anyone that aimed SPY in that 1,5 year period still have any yield data thereof?

With the 14% ROTAI Yield that really shows that the Vortex AIM Method created an hypothetical Yield Improvement, due to intermediate trading on price changes. . .in spite of the trading costs incurred. . .by using this fundamental AIM Principal of

Buy Low Sell High

Again and again when prices fluctuate.

The end Position of the Spy Portfolio is at 03-07-2012 is:

Cash Reserve = $ 14093
Equity Value = $ 7941
Portfoli Value = $ 22034
Interest earned = $ 411
Trading cost = $ 120
Dividend paid = $ 227

[The dividend is, in this case, calculated in as Gain but it was not yet included here as intermediately added capital. . .Using the ROTAC method this could be treated as capital added. If you receive Cash dividend on your bank account it becomes a choice to add it to the Reserve if the Portfolio or not In this case it was added ro the Reserve but NOT treated as an extra Capital Injection but under the ROTAC Principle it could have been].

Of course, experienced AIMers know al these aspects already and accept the risk of Under-performance and AIM for the likely Gain of Over-performance, relative to the Buy & Hold Method.
I made a point of it here for Newcomers to AIMing that might find the Vortex Method an interesting alternative Automatic Investment Program that has an extensive Portfolio Administration Section, for managing their investment.

More results from between June 2012 to May 10, 2014, in the next posting.

Hi everyone, I am still alive!

Among Other things I have been struggling to get Windows 7 functioning properly. . .No success yet. Some errors prevent me to download some drivers(scanning and sound and Printing)
Also O have an Error that causes the MS Back-up not to work . . .I have been ”suffering” this for 1,5 months now.
****************************
All the time I have continued running some 3 Demo's on the SP500 SPY, and on a set of Dutch Penny. . . a Calamity portfolio. . .just for Fun, since 03-01-2011 foe SPY to today, with VORTEX, trying to get an optimized strategy using our Optimization Program. . .(only Dutch language so far). People interested could buy a Copy of it for € 100 and experience the development as we go, getting free Updates.

SPY has not show a great deal of volatility and has been steadily rising in value these 3.5 years. . .resulting in the performance for which Buy & Hold Method would have been better, if I had used the simple ROI Yield Calculation. . .as some of you use: The ROI Method without considering a variable amount of Investment that over the years applies.

My approach was as follows, as of 03-01-2011 with $ 20000 Inlay:

Parameters are
* Cash Fraction = 0,72
* Buy Threshold = 7%
* Sell Threshold = 7%
* Buy Aggression = 0,8
* Sell Aggression = 0,6 . . .This means that I buy more aggressively than I sell, which drives the Portfolio towards Share Accumulation (Increasing Equity Value).
If I reverse the Aggression Factors then that drives the Portfolio towards Liquidation (This interesting if it is to generate cash income).

1) January 2011 I started with Parameters more or less as I had found best the previous periods with a volatile SPY. As the time goes on. . .during say 6 months or so I monitor the volatility and if it proves to be too low I lower the Buy-Sell Thresholds a bit and at 6 months or so I run an optimization with VOP. . .Vortex Optimization Program . . . on the last 6 months history and then I resets the Vortex parameters for optimized Yield %.

The Cash Fraction can then be rebalanced to suit, if judged necessary. I use my "fingerspietzing-geful" for that .

The Vortex Program also allows for adding Cash at any time and adjusts the total investment to an Period Average that as the Investment for the period. The Optimization Process uses a fixed CER that is started with for that Run.

2) After this a new Staring condition is defined for VOP. . . Essentially the Test Portfolio is Reset to a New Start Condition for the Next Optimization Run. The Vortex Portfolio itself runs from the Starting Date. Trading costs and Interest on Cash are accounted for in Vortex but also in the VOP. . . This prevents the yield to be suppressed by too frequent trading!

Starting Price = $ 127,05

3) Results after 6 months:
At the start volatility was much lower than expected and was adjusted manually to

Buy = 3 %
Sell = 4%. . .Aggressions unchanged.
The subsequent VOP Run showed it should have bee around 5%. . .I had a snappy Trigger Finger J
Share Price = $ 137,4

Share Price Gain = 9,91% but for 1 year that is 18,02 %

ROTAC Yield = 6,68% Annually
This is based on Total Averaged Cash Inlay. . .which remains in this case at $ 20000, but If I had added $ 10000 at the 3-month point the capital base would be $ 30000 but for the yield calculation @ 6 month it would be [20000*3 + 10000*3]/6 = $90000/6 = $ 15000 for the 6-month average. In this case ANY cash injection is treated as an Cash Inlay and any withdrawal is treated as a Negative Inlay. I prefer this way as it models The real World Investment Environment.

ROTAI Yield = 14,01 % Annually
This is based on only The Money for which shares are bought and expenses required to maintain the investment. If shares are sold the investment base gets smaller. If cash is added or taken out NOTHING changes except the Yield on the Cash gets higher or lower.
The Cash in itself is NOT at RISK an is not treated as an investment for Equity. Obviously this method. . . .very similar to the ROCAR that some AIMers use but it is more realistic and is automatically calculated for the Portfolio.

Interesting to note that the trading cost in the first 6 months has reduced a Buy & Hold Yield by about 8 % compared to the ROI Method [In this example I had a constant € 20000 Cash Inlay]. Any AIM-trader would have had pay the same trading fees as the Vortex AIMer, so regular AIMer with the ROI @ say 12 % would overstate the ROI Yield which actually was about 10%.
With the 14% ROTAI Yield the really shows that the Vortex AIM Method created an actual Yield Improvement due to intermediate trading on price changes. . .in spite of the trading costs. . .by using

Buy Low Sell High

Frequently.

Of course, experienced AIMers know al this t and accept the risk of underperformance relative to the Buy & Hold Method.
I made a point of it here for Newcomers to AIMing that might find the Vortex Method an interesting alternative Automatic Investment Program that has an extensive Portfolio Administration Section for managing the investment.

More Results till 2014 in the next posting.

Hi everyone, I am still alive!

Among Other things I have been struggling to get Windows 7 functioning properly. . .No success yet. Some errors prevent me to download some drivers(scanning and sound and Printing)
Also O have an Error that causes the MS Back-up not to work . . .I have been ”suffering” this for 1,5 months now.
****************************
All the time I have continued running some 3 Demo's on the SP500 SPY, and on a set of Dutch Penny. . . a Calamity portfolio. . .just for Fun, since 03-01-2011 foe SPY to today, with VORTEX, trying to get an optimized strategy using our Optimization Program. . .(only Dutch language so far). People interested could buy a Copy of it for € 100 and experience the development as we go, getting free Updates.

SPY has not show a great deal of volatility and has been steadily rising in value these 3.5 years. . .resulting in the performance for which Buy & Hold Method would have been better, if I had used the simple ROI Yield Calculation. . .as some of you use: The ROI Method without considering a variable amount of Investment that over the years applies.

My approach was as follows, as of 03-01-2011 with $ 20000 Inlay:

Parameters are
* Cash Fraction = 0,72
* Buy Threshold = 7%
* Sell Threshold = 7%
* Buy Aggression = 0,8
* Sell Aggression = 0,6 . . .This means that I buy more aggressively than I sell, which drives the Portfolio towards Share Accumulation (Increasing Equity Value).
If I reverse the Aggression Factors then that drives the Portfolio towards Liquidation (This interesting if it is to generate cash income).

1) January 2011 I started with Parameters more or less as I had found best the previous periods with a volatile SPY. As the time goes on. . .during say 6 months or so I monitor the volatility and if it proves to be too low I lower the Buy-Sell Thresholds a bit and at 6 months or so I run an optimization with VOP. . .Vortex Optimization Program . . . on the last 6 months history and then I resets the Vortex parameters for optimized Yield %.

The Cash Fraction can then be rebalanced to suit, if judged necessary. I use my "fingerspietzing-geful" for that .

The Vortex Program also allows for adding Cash at any time and adjusts the total investment to an Period Average that as the Investment for the period. The Optimization Process uses a fixed CER that is started with for that Run.

2) After this a new Staring condition is defined for VOP. . . Essentially the Test Portfolio is Reset to a New Start Condition for the Next Optimization Run. The Vortex Portfolio itself runs from the Starting Date. Trading costs and Interest on Cash are accounted for in Vortex but also in the VOP. . . This prevents the yield to be suppressed by too frequent trading!

Starting Price = $ 127,05

3) Results after 6 months:
At the start volatility was much lower than expected and was adjusted manually to

Buy = 3 %
Sell = 4%. . .Aggressions unchanged.
The subsequent VOP Run showed it should have bee around 5%. . .I had a snappy Trigger Finger J
Share Price = $ 137,4

Share Price Gain = 9,91% but for 1 year that is 18,02 %

ROTAC Yield = 6,68% Annually
This is based on Total Averaged Cash Inlay. . .which remains in this case at $ 20000, but If I had added $ 10000 at the 3-month point the capital base would be $ 30000 but for the yield calculation @ 6 month it would be [20000*3 + 10000*3]/6 = $90000/6 = $ 15000 for the 6-month average. In this case ANY cash injection is treated as an Cash Inlay and any withdrawal is treated as a Negative Inlay. I prefer this way as it models The real World Investment Environment.

ROTAI Yield = 14,01 % Annually
This is based on only The Money for which shares are bought and expenses required to maintain the investment. If shares are sold the investment base gets smaller. If cash is added or taken out NOTHING changes except the Yield on the Cash gets higher or lower.
The Cash in itself is NOT at RISK an is not treated as an investment for Equity. Obviously this method. . . .very similar to the ROCAR that some AIMers use but it is more realistic and is automatically calculated for the Portfolio.

Interesting to note that the trading cost in the first 6 months has reduced a Buy & Hold Yield by about 8 % compared to the ROI Method [In this example I had a constant € 20000 Cash Inlay]. Any AIM-trader would have had pay the same trading fees as the Vortex AIMer, so regular AIMer with the ROI @ say 12 % would overstate the ROI Yield which actually was about 10%.
With the 14% ROTAI Yield the really shows that the Vortex AIM Method created an actual Yield Improvement due to intermediate trading on price changes. . .in spite of the trading costs. . .by using

Buy Low Sell High

Frequently.

Of course, experienced AIMers know al this t and accept the risk of underperformance relative to the Buy & Hold Method.
I made a point of it here for Newcomers to AIMing that might find the Vortex Method an interesting alternative Automatic Investment Program that has an extensive Portfolio Administration Section for managing the investment.

More Results till 2014 in the next posting.

Hi everyone, I am still alive!

I had provided some Results from my SPY Demo but it contained an error on the defined period, so I withdrew it and will present the corrected text in a new Post.

Anyone AIMing SPY now? I would like to know what others get for the SPY AIMing:

I agree Toof. . .

There are various conflicting ideas. . .I think all of them have been discussed at one time or more times on the Forums here.

This is why it is sometimes a good method to have Average Settings and leave things alone generally, and for others that have a good grip on something special they want to use to set the parameters that is specifically good for THAT and then keep a sharp eye on the prices or trends and re-adjust as required.

Hi Clive & Toofuzzy,

Interesting discussion on Not Buying when AIM indicates a Buy and there is still cash "on board".
For the Vortex AIM program this simply has to be an "external" decision of the Investor by way Market Indicators, like Moving Average Crossovers. . . like the MACRO Don Carson use to use some years ago. Such extra Management tools are not part of the Vortex Program. Do you know of anyone that includes such automatic Buy Delays in their AIM program itself? I would think it is not something that is required for AIMers. I would rather advise that the Investor himself decides not to execute such particular Buy Advices. That way he remains in conscious control of What he is doing and Why.

Clearly, delaying delaying the Buys using a MACRO Filter is not a form of Cash Burn Rate Reduction but rather it serves to invest the available cash more efficiently at a lower price. The advantages are well known but the disadvantages are that if the Trading Range is not very wide a lot of volatility capture could be missed if the Buy and Sell Limits with the MACRO filter are far apart. This can happen when these limits are set close to the Trading Range Limits. In using the Trading Limits the extra work to be done it to find out the optimum Trading Limit Settings may be beyond mist AIMers. I think this is where the Vortex Optimiser could be used, but then we would have to program these limits into the Algorithm as well which we have not done as yet. . .
Is there some other way to find the optimum Trading Limits for not executing buys and sells?

In regards to running out of money with Vortex AIM it automatically refuses to execute any Buy when the Reserve is too low. In the Excel version one can set the Buy Reduction Factor at any value to Reduce the Cash Burn Factor as the Cash starts to get low. For example if a Buy exceed the value of the Reserve then one can still execute the Buy with say 60% of the Reserve (Buy Factor = 0,6) or use any other fraction. This Buy Reduction Factor is build in as a variable parameter but is not available in the Windows Version. In the windows version this problem is solved by adding a small amount of money to the reserve but then Vortex gives the full Buy as an Advice but then the AIMer can simply execute a 60^% Buy himself! This way he has perfect control of the Cash Burn Rate.