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.
I wanted a closed end fund that dealt in the actual metal commodities rather than in mining companies, but they didn't have it. I requested it and now it is available. This closed-end fund (CEF) curiously has the call letters CEF.
Hi, Matt,
Nice to see I'm not the only FolioFN user out there! <grin>.
Thanks for mentioning this one - it looks like it might well be an interesting way to add some presence of precious metals into one's portfolio without having to deal with the physical commodity.
Best,
Patrick
BTW, I just got a second sell on STEM.
Count on me to wear one of those "Red Hats" as I've gotten two daily back-to-back sales (Friday and Monday) at a 10% SAFE on Red Hat Linux. First quarter they've turned a profit is what seems to be propelling this Linux Penguin to greater and greater heights. Imagine that - making nice profit off of people investing in a company that markets a "free" operating system. Capitalism at it's best! <grin>.
Thanks for your kind wishes for my cat. His name is Cardhu, which is also the name of an equally excellent single malt scotch. His orange fur color is close to the color of the whiskey. This scotch is liked by a friend of mine who normally can't stand the stuff. Both Cardhu's are fine spirits indeed!
Best,
Patrick
So it was one upsetting thing after another, compounded by the loss of a friend.
Linda,
I'm sure most of the others who post here will do as I am and extend condolences at the loss of your friend. Such things are never easy, no matter what shape the friend may take. We're dealing with a very sick cat who will no doubt be making his journey to the next of his nine cat lives fairly soon. As civilized people are kept by cats, we will cherish the memories of our time with this little fur-covered soul, so too will your friend live on in memories, and no doubt your life is enriched by the friendship.
God bless.
Best,
Patrick
I have a few bucks on the side. I'd like to start.
There are some low cost brokerage services out there which offer various low-cost plans vs some restrictions. I suppose you could consider them more directly AIM(ed) (pun intended) at longer term holding type investors, rather than those who want to trade in and out at times of their own choosing or with condifionals such as good-til-cancelled price based orders and the like. If you're willing to give up a certain amount of control you can save a bundle of $$$, perhaps moving to a more regular type brokerage account once you've a rich enough portfolio to make such worthwhile. <grin>.
FolioFN ( http://www.foliofn.com ) is the one I've been using for the last couple of years. For $14.95 per month (slightly less cost if you pay the fee annually rather than per month) you can have holdings in up to 50 stocks, closed end and exchange traded funds, making as many as 500 buys-and-sells per month at no additional per transaction change, with subsequesnt charges at $1 per transaction. Should you not want a monthly plan, you can also opt for a $4 per transaction basis, though at these prices it doesn't need to make too many transactions before the monthly charge is more efficient. They don't offer everything on all exchanges, though they have over 3,000 stocks/funds to choose from which should satisfy most selection needs. Spring $29.95 per month and you can have up to 150 stocks/funds in 3 folios of up to 50 each. The downside for this low cost is that they have two bundled order daily trading "windows" 11 AM and 2 PM. You place an order into the system and it will execute in the next window, at whatever the price is when the order gets to the market. They also will do internal fills between customers - for example if I'm selling 500 shares of IBM and someone else is buying those 500 shares, this would be filled internally. One can build one's own folio(s) or they offer prepackaged folios including exchange-traded sector fund groupings. They have no minimum balance to start and they will also set up a wire transfer if you want to keep sending money to invest automatically. Although Lichello didn't see much advantage, FolioFN will hold fractional share amounts so you could theoretically start by owning a fractional share of something.
Sharebuilder ( http://www.sharebuilder.com ) is similar in some respects, though they are really positioned for a buy-and-hold type investor, rather than AIM.
Finally, in an appropriate enough name indeed is Buy and Hold, ( http://www.buyandhold.com ). Again one that offers lower costs up front, but with some tradeoffs.
Are these perfect for the AIM users? - maybe not, but I've found the results to be sufficient to hold to the underlying algorithm of "buy low and sell high" to make using this type of service worthwhile. Your needs, level of money to invest, etc. will
determine which type of broker will serve you best, but for those without a lot of money to start with might find one of these to be useful, some, perhaps, more than others.
Best,
Patrick
Hi, Steve,
I have no idea what a 'Stack' is. I've already asked the question out at Mr. Excel, and have received one reply already asking for more info. I'll see what comes of that.
A common analogy for understanding a stack and how it functions is to envision a stack of plates (as are often found at a local Chinese buffet). Each "plate" can hold a value. Assuming that one can remove plates from either the top or bottom without toppling over the whole lot picture this:
Diners come and take a plate to get their food from the top of the stack. These were the last to be placed on the stack from the clean dishes returned from the kitchen. Thus, they were the last on the stack and are now the first off (LIFO). The dishes remaining underneath "pop up" as the spring mechanism lifts the lot to move the next plate into position.
Similarly, if the stack is fed from the top down, a person would take a plate from the bottom of the stack. Since they are being replenished from the top, the first on the stack is now the first off (FIFO).
In both cases the length of the stack is decremented by 1 (plate removed) and then the last stored plate moves into position to be taken off the stack by the next customer. So a stack can grow dynamically as values are "pushed on" to the stack or "popped off" the stack. It is from which end of the stack that you add or remove "plates" that determines the FIFO or LIFO basis of the transaction. Substitute spreadsheet cells for example, or (in programming) a dynamic array - each position capable of holding a value and you'll get the idea.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Patrick
Busy at the warehouse lately!
Western Digital yesterday, Red Hat and Imax today out the door from 4 September 2003 at a 10% return. Love these greedy folks spinning their hard drives, embracing the penguin and watching a huge movie! <grin>. Bring on the cash reserves since October is coming and some of the doom-and-gloom pundits are calling for a 1987 repeat. Works for me better now with AIM! Bring it on, in either direction!
I also think Lichello was a mystic:
1- he wrote a book about Dag Hammerskjold.
2- p214 4th edition he mentions Thomas a Kempis
3- p281 4th edition he mentions Blaise Pascal
4- his hilarious ascent of the mist-shrouded mountain
Good observation. One might also compare him to the alchemists of yore, bent on, for an exoteric goal, that of transmuting base lead into gold. Not exactly what AIM does, but pretty close! <grin>.
As for the esoteric meaning of such transmutations, look up alchemists on Google for interesting sites of reference! See also Rosicrucians, Hermetic philosophers, Astara, etc. 'nuff said - enjoy the search, AND the Journey!
Best,
Patrick
The truck had been parked outside the last couple of days, but they finally came in and took out a box of IGM (iShares GoldMan-Sachs Technology) giving me a nice 8% return since 18 August 2003.
Hi A, IncWave looks remarkably like the MyWay program from the '80s, but built for Windows. MyWay allowed one to sell out just like IncWave. A very nice bit of work.
Tom,
Any idea of what the underlying algorithm for either IncWave and/or MyWay might be? In other words, is there a book or site that explains this, just as Mr. Lichello did with his? Not that I'm thinking of de-AIMing, mind you, but I thought it might be a worthwhile exercise to do some parallel testing - some funds may be more suited for AIM and others may do better in an invest-and-exit strategy like this one seems to use. The trick is finding out if this is true and then, of course, figuring out which ones. My intuition would tell me that perhaps funds of less volatility might do better with a known exit point, especially if said point isn't set too high...
As always, thanks in advance.
Best,
Patrick
It looks like your CHN has 94% of its assets in countries other than China
Details! <grin>
Their spiel: The China Fund is a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Fund's objective is long-term capital appreciation. The Fund invests at least 65% of assets in equity securities of China- related companies, to include common stock, preferred stock, convertibles, warrants, and rights. The Fund may invest up to 25% of assets directly in unlisted securities.
In looking over the spiel, I think I've highlighted the significant word here.. So this seems to be a China fund in a more "generic" "China" sense rather than specifically a People's Republic of same fund exclusively. 46.63% in Hong Kong, though, is China, since it is now no longer a British domain, and the Mainland does consider Taiwan a "renegade province" so, the 29.2% there could also be considered Chinese in one sense - (just don't tell the descendants of Chaing Kai-shek) - so their total investment of 75.83% is Chinese, if in a somewhat roundabout way.
In any case, with the fund now trading at a premium, this might not be the best time to invest in this particular fund.
Best,
Patrick
Based on the above proposition I would like to invest in a China ETF (exchange traded fund)but there are none. The next best thing would be a PURE China closed end fund and the worst choice would be a PURE China mutual fund(no load prefered). Does anyone know of anything that would meet my desires??
Check this one out:
http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundPages/global.asp?MFID=8002
It's a closed-end China fund - the only thing is that it might have been better to get into it some time ago as it's now trading at a premium, rather than a discount. The reasons you've mentioned for going into China right now have become more widely knowm, I'd think is the driving force for the shift from discount-to-premium status. Still might be worth considering, though. Expenses are 1.14% - higher than I'd like, but not as excessive as some.
I don't know sometimes I feel like 10% is better and sometimes 5% seems like the way to go. I think coming down on the side of, the more volatile stocks need 10% and the less volatile stocks using 5%.
Bernie,
Of late I've found Tom's use of the stockcharts' "zig-zag" parameter useful in "tweaking" SAFE levels. For example:
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=IGM,uu[h,a]wallyyay[df][pb33!e15][vc60]&pref=G
Change the Zig-zag percentages up and down and you'll see a corresponding shift in the number of trend reversal lines, higher percentage=fewer reversals, lower percentage=more reversals. Split the percentage that gives you a reasonable number of reversals between buy-and-sell SAFE levels and you can reasonably use the past to give some map for the future. Come back and revisit this say once a month and you may be able to further "tune" your SAFE levels accordingly. This would lend some dynamic or market-driven action to control our entries and exits, I think, rather than mandating that SAFE be "set in stone" as a fixed percentage for the duration of the AIM program.
On the example shown where I have a 15% zig-zag, a simple split would be for SAFE to be 7.5% each (buy and sell). But you can bias this either way. If, for example, you'd rather make larger buys, and sell out earlier, I've got this set this up to have 8.5% BUY SAFE and 6.5% SELL SAFE. But you can play around with these as you see fit.
Have fun. This gives an interesting and graphical insight.
Best,
Patrick
Hi, Pete,
Been reading the posts this morning and I think that you are all missing the point. AIM was invented right after the crash of 1970/1974. The purpose of aim is to buy shares at a lower price when you guess wrong so that when the stock recovers to the original price you can make profits on the lower purchases.
It also sells you out of shares as the price goes up when you are correct in your selection and causes you to buy the dips later in the program. The sells are for less and less shares but higher and higher percentage gains on each sell.
Correct me If I am interpeting the purpose of the original aim concept as presented by lichello.
You are correct in interpreting the original "aim" of AIM. The development happened as a reaction to the stock market declines you mentioned.
But, what's at work here is a group of people, trying in various ways to extend the fundamental algorithm and make it more "universal" as someone else recently posted. Even Lichello realized that there was room for improvement. In his last edition of the book, after the incredible run-up of the 1990's, he re-tuned AIM from a 50/50 stock/cash $100 min transaction size to the AIM-HI flavor of 80/20 stock/cash with a 10% transaction level. So, those of us following his path are trying to (as Emeril would say), "kick it up another notch" and see where we can get it to be the most efficient, emotion free, mechanical investment management system.
Thanks for the reminder of where we came from, we need to know that to plot the course to where we're going...
Best,
Patrick
Tom, you wrote about a Templeton Dragon chart with a "zig-zag" chart setting of 25 (percent):
I set the Zig Zag to 25 to get these bumps. So SAFE or min order size would have to be trimmed a bit to have participated in all of them.
Assuming the "default" SAFE settings of 10%, how would you adjust these to match your comments? In other words, what percentage rate on SAFE would you have to use to interface with a given percentage on a zig-zag? If ZZ is 10%, would you set SAFE to 5%, or does SAFE need to be set to whatever percentage you're using with the ZZ?
Thanks for the clarification.
Best,
Patrick
Incwave
Has anybody looked at Incwave software ( http://www.incwave.com )? Reading their spiel looks like their strategy is AIM-like if not exactly AIM, although their $49 per month charge for data updates makes it seem like one would need a fair amount of capital to make such a service worthwhile...
I would be happy to start running some of the scenarios if anyone thinks it would be of interest to the group. However, I'm just not sure whether Zack's picks would mesh well with long-term trading with AIM as it appears to be more slanted to the short-term trader. I am interested in other's assessments.
Hi!
I wouldn't go too crazy testing these things, but it might make sense to test a couple of 'em from each extreme. See how a couple of what they call #1's would do and also a couple of #5's. They just might balance out and be equally good AIM candidates, just at off cycle to each other, i.e., what's now a 5 was once a 1 and so on. Might actually get good diversification getting from each end of the scale that way.
Best,
Patrick
Thanks to the recent discussion on ETF beta's took advantage of a 8.5% run-up on IGW - semiconductors - from 8/18 in and now took some off the table on 8/22. I can live with this pace! Bring on the cash reserve recharge! Thank you Intel! <grin>.
He's been an avid reader of Investor's Business Daily and has been in continual internal conflict between what IBD recommends and what AIM does. AIM uses such a contrary method he can't relate it to the "advice" that IBD generates.
I just did a search on CANSLIM - William O'Neil's methodology which he's espoused in the IBD paper.
See: http://www.canslim.net/what.htm for more info.
It seems primarily oriented at finding stocks that are about to make a serious upmove - which is fine, as far as it goes, of course, but what about the inevitable downdraft? This is where I think AIM outshines plans like this as it has contingencies to handle both the ups and the downs and uses the latter to profit from the former. I suppose one could look at an IBD recommended stock - but over a long time period and see whether or not there's been enough up-and-down volatility to make it an AIM candidate. Otherwise I wouldn't want to pin my money on the hope that this one is going to "blast off" when in fact it may well be a "dud."
I own only one individual stock... My first AIM directed sell would be at $10.70. It is now at $5.50 or so and on the rise. Last year it went as high as $8.00 so I waited as it drifted as low as $3.00 since then (and like I said is now $5.50). I am thinking of holding all my shares as long as it remains above its 50 AND 200 MDA, and stays below my AIM directed sell level ($10.70).
I'd say it depends on what you want to do with the money and the current level of profit (or loss). As it may stay below AIM's recommended sell level for the indefinite future, assuming that you have some extra cash to throw at it, what would AIM's buy level be, based on whatever settings you've got running for this stock? Hypothetically, you could buy some more shares at the $5.50 level so as to have more to profit with when (and if)it does hit the $10.70 level, if you want to take a really long-term view.
Or, if you feel that the stock is on a slow boat to nowhere in terms of further upside movement, a simple calculation would be to take your cost and see if you've got profit or loss. If you've got some profit level, it might be worth taking even if it would be less than what AIM would give you so you could redeploy the funds to something with more "bounce" to it. Even a loss would help offset gains from other actions.
Using the moving averages as a guide isn't a bad idea, lots of people use 'em, but I think the more important questions to ask are like this: "Can the money I've got tied up in this be more productive elsewhere?" "Can I afford to wait another few months to see what it does?" If your answer is "no", as a friend of mine says, "time to cut bait and go home." In other words, close this position and try something else.
Best,
Patrick
By way of follow-up:
I did get a reply from the Barclays folk at iShares regarding their screening for one of their funds with a beta value >2. They kindly informed me that none of their funds are trading at such a value and that they would adjust their screener if and when one does. So, right now the iShares screener seems like a reasonable way to get selection of some ETF funds based on a beta parameter. Now if they would just let you sort the search results instead of having to cut-and-paste the lot into a spreadsheet for sorting...
Another intresting site that iShares references to is:
http://dowjones.investiq.com/dowjones/
On the left-hand side you'll see a link for "ETF Allocator" which will let you test allocations based on the Dow Jones sector funds (like consumer cyclical, basic materials, etc., that Tom's made reference to lately) as well as a total market fund. Might be useful.
I've always traded the individual holdings, never against the 'basket' value. I have never been comfortable with Lichello's recommendations in that respect. He was coming at it from a 'Couch Potato' viewpoint IMHO.
Agreed. In the backtesting I've done I've found much more successful outcomes working each holding on its own rather than against the whole lot. There is, in Mr. Lichello's book a strong distaste for tax reporting and the record-keeping involved therewith. He wanted minimalist trading activity, so working a whole portfolio at a time would produce far less transactionally than would working a few holdings individually.
Another thing to keep in mind with him, too, is that when his book first came out, the TRS-80 Model I was a current "PC." Even VisiCalc, the first major spreadsheet program wouldn't be available until two years or so after Lichello's 1977 edition in 1979. So his experience was largely paper-driven, so I can understand his reluctance not to do any more than he had to in maintaining a lot of paper records. Nowadays with far more powerful computers and software available to the average person, posting more transactions is not so arduous a process, especially if the end "payoff" is well worth the additional time.
Best,
Patrick
For the record, my LD_AIM portfolio (actual shares and cash only) summarizes like this:
* This portfolio's RiskGrade? of 80 suggests Growth Plan investment strategy. * Diversification benefits have lowered this portfolio's risk by 51%.
* This portfolio is 1.07 times as volatile as the S&P 500 Index.
Would I correctly interpret this as a good thing?
Depends. What I mean by "depends" is whether or not you're trading the individual LD-AIMed holdings as individual items or are doing as Mr. Lichello recommended, trading it as a portfolio as a whole. I would expect that such levels of diversity would favor individually traded items, as one moves up into a selling range, another might move down into a buying range. If on the other hand, you're trading a portfolio with 51% diversity as a portfolio, it would, I would think, take a serious market move to get such a portfolio to move into the buying and selling ranges. Such would be a good position for long term buy-and-hold, however. (Assumes the validity of that theory, of course - what I mean is that there is likely to be greater levels of internal offset, reducing the $ amount of change to the whole portfolio).
The greater than 100% correlation with the S&P 500, however, should tend to offset the internal diversity somewhat as it may be moving to a faster tempo.
The smaller the diversity aspect, then the greater the likelyhood that the portfolio overall will move in synch. When it does to the downside, have plenty of cash reserve waiting, on the upside, open your wallet! <grin>.
The nice thing about the site is that you can take the existing portfolio, do a "save as" to another name and play with different combinations of allocations, either within the existing holdings or adding/subtracting other items.
Have fun,
Best,
Patrick
Tom - C.T.C., Public Works Dept.
(that's Chief Turd Counter)
No doubt a thankless task, but somebody's got to do it... But then, my cats between their two litterboxes give me plenty of their own!
Do any of you know where I can get the beta values for these stocks and find out what companies they invest in?
Hi!
In answer to your question, and indeed my own of a day or so ago, http://www.ishares.com has a lot of good info on holdings and I found a screening function where you can choose beta <=2.0 which will return the beta value in the search list. Now if they'd just add a function for beta >=2.0 that would be even better. I'll have to suggest it. I don't know if they can give you the data on the whole list you mentioned but I think they handle at least a couple of them.
best,
Patrick
Hi, Tom,
Keep us posted on the situation.
Here in Central NY (Ithaca) it was hit-or-miss. Where I work went out until sometime early AM (today 8/15) but my house, only about 4 blocks away remained lit all night. A miracle as usually it's the other way around with the house out and the office fine. I've got battery backups in both places though so we had time to shut everything off in a safe way. One time I was glad I left NYC back in '87.
Best,
Patrick
So while AIM gives us an investment plan, it doesn't solve the asset allocation problem. Therefore there are AIMers (and I'm sure not all of them) that use a seat-of-the-pants method to diversify. They know they should be diversifying, but they don't know how to do it properly. In essence they don't have a plan when it comes to asset allocation so they go with a gut-feel approach.
Hi, Mark,
One site in this matter I've found useful and others here might as well is http://www.riskgrades.com . They offer a free membership and you can construct sample portfolios which not only measure the internal diversity of the component parts, but the overall portfolio volatility relative to the S&P 500. Can't argue the price!
Best,
Patrick
I've been looking for a site on the Internet that gives the ability to sort ETF's and/or closed-end funds by their beta so one can quickly get a sense of those which are currently most volatile. In the past I've gone to iShares and grabbed some stats that way, fed 'em into a spreadsheet and used that, but I was wondering if anyone's found anything that is more dynamic, less labor intensive, and, I should be so lucky, even free!
Thanks in advance.
Best,
Patrick
>As to common cash reserve, I think that is a bit dangerous. If the AIM recc's are followed slavishly, then 1 deep diver could burn all the cash. >Effectively freezing all other AIM accounts. While I do not object to this per se, it does bring back the subjective factor that AIM wanted to get rid off. >But I am sure you've realized so already. Just wanted to point this out for newcomers.
Point taken. IMHO, the risk of a combined cash reserve must be balanced against the securities that one is AIMing with, i.e., ETF's or mutual funds are less likely to "tank" than are individual stocks. A further consideration is whether or not one is just using all of these AIMed holdings in a static manner, i.e., whatever money is in the investments is all there is; or is still employed, for example, or otherwise is still in a position to make periodic contributions which would replenish the cash. If one were to bias the buy/sell SAFE settings against further buys, one might also get a quicker return of cash through the selling side performance of those holdings that are doing better.
Things to consider as options, I think.
Best,
Patrick
Hi, Mark,
Thanks for the prompt reply. Much appreciated.
>>"Currently my positions have me at 12% cash reserve. I'd like to increase this to 20%"
>You should be able to do what you want by using the "Add >Interest or Dividends" function on the "Cash Reserve" menu. >This just adds cash to the account without adjusting the :Portfolio Control or requiring you to purchase equity.
It does. It also changes the Profit/Loss figure by now showing XX$ profit, whilst it does also correctly increase cash. So the tradeoff at this point (for what I'm doing anyway) is skewed profit figures or action advice to ignore.
>If you have some examples of the kind of edits you're thinking of, I will look at them to see whether they're "safe" edits.
When I was setting these up (3 positions in one portfolio to show a common cash reserve amount rather than a per diem allocation) I'd transposed the price on the first fund that I entered, $15.72 instead of $15.27. This using the Equity mode of loading the data as these were prexisting positions. Since the program required the load one right after the other, I didn't catch the error until all three (thank goodness only three!) funds had been entered. The balance that AI was showing was not what my brokerage was showing. I had no way to go back (that I could quickly discern as a novice user) and fix the errant price on the first entry without blowing away the whole thing and starting again from scratch.
I had also tried to walk the portfolio individually through the end of July to bring it current to early August and I found a little 'bug' - as I was entering cash for a prior date, AI posted it in the running history using the current date, even though I'd given it the earlier date in the posting function itself. I also found that once there's a later or current date in there one can't post anything earlier. I know, not a bug, a feature! <grin>.
One more thing, on Windows 2000 Professional, when I exit out of AI if I bring up the task manager it stil shows it as a running application. I can then end them out just fine. It was weird this morning finding that the machine thought there were still two of 'em running when I'd shut 'em off last night!
Thanks again.
Patrick
I'm in the "evaluation period" for AI at the moment, having worked out a bit of AIM-ing in Lotus 1-2-3. AI certainly adds a much nicer "front end" to the process than does my spreadsheet and I'm evaluating to see if the software will give me substantially more value (or less work (read "tinkering", like Mr. Lichello was wont to do! <grin>) than what I've coded up for myself in Lotus. Currently my positions have me at 12% cash reserve. I'd like to increase this to 20%, by making, as I do, periodic investments into the brokerage account which I heretofore have been investing sans AIM.
The AI software is following the designated rules as I try to add more cash, i.e, splitting a percentage off to invest in stocks and leaving the remainder in cash. What I'd like to see the program have an option to do - not exactly orthodox, perhaps, is this:
Allow the user to set the configs to a desired minimum (rather than merely "initial") cash reserve level, say, in this instance from 12% to 20%. As one makes additional cash additions, 100% of the cash would be "earmarked" to be in the cash reserve portion only, until the configured cash level is reached. Once the target percentage is reached, the program would then revert back to the recommended methodology of splitting between cash and stocks. I realize I can simply cancel the recommendation, but I've a feeling I'm going to end up with a lot of ignored advice showing up before I hit my desired level! If this were an embedded rule, as AI recommends buys, which deplete the cash, the cash could then be added back by additional contributions until the cash level is back at the minimum again.
Another feature I'd like to see in AI is the ability to edit a transaction after it posts into the system, correcting any errors and adjusting accordingly. The Undo that blows away everything forward from a given point I find useful, but a little too powerful and blunt, when something more subtle would do a better job.
Also, is it possible to set things up in the software to where one can have individual portfolios but a common cash account that feeds all of them? Again, not something that Lichello recommended, but more in line with the real world where one has a brokerage account with several holdings, but one money-market account that does feed all the holdings. This of course would allow one to AIM in-and-out as each holding as the software directs you to, instead of waiting for the whole portfolio to move en masse before giving a signal.
Thanks for your consideration of this posting. I shall continue my evaluations!
Best,
Patrick
Tom,
Thanks for the interesting post and pictures!
>Steve's brother clocked us 0-100 MPH in 12.6 seconds.
Now if we could just supercharge AIM in a similar fashion <grin>.
Best,
Patrick
Bernie,
Thanks for the kind reply. I figured it out as you suggested not long after I posted the message - one of those "well, DUH" kind of moments! :) This message system doesn't seem to have an easy facility to delete one's own messages once they've been posted (at least, perhaps not in the "free" version). But perhaps my question will be useful for others as well.
Anyway, thanks again for the prompt reply - look forward to reading more on here and more discussions.
Say I want to rebalance funds...
Good day. I've recently become acquainted with Mr. Lichello's book and work - just a darn shame I didn't know of it a few years ago. However, no time like the present to start, eh?
One issue that was indirectly referred to in the book but for which I'd like some input from other AIM people is this:
Say I have three funds working along in one AIM account. Fund A is worth $4300, fund B $4600 and fund C $7000. Say I want to rebalance so that the funds are all equal in value as I think fund C is overweighted. I understand stocks can be bought-and-sold as long as the value is maintained. What, in this instance happens to the Portfolio Control amounts? Does one increase PC for funds A & B by the 100 % of the amount derived from the partial sale of fund C? (This seems right as doing so keeps the same perspective of PC vs actual value that the funds had before the new purchase. But what happens to the PC value of fund C? Is it left alone to whatever the original purchase value was or is it decreased to the value remaining after the sale?
Thanks in advance.