Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:19:55 PM
AGGHHH! Don't complicate it.
Conrad:
AIM's 'transactional performance' is best measured on a LIFO basis and that has tended to be the way those of us that discuss specifics have tended use. But that, and tax treatment is all beside the point. (see, now you got me doing it)
All I'm trying to do is offer up for discussion whether PC could be changed using something other than Lichello's original 'add 1/2 of purchase $' approach. And if it might be as good or better way to manage PC. Remember, he didn't have computers at his disposal to easily calculate consumption on a LIFO basis.
If so, then I might be able to use it in my Stop Loss calculations. Not where to trigger it, but how to account for it within AIM's internal controls.
That's all.
No more.
No less.
Anyone else care to dip their toes in this muck?
Conrad:
AIM's 'transactional performance' is best measured on a LIFO basis and that has tended to be the way those of us that discuss specifics have tended use. But that, and tax treatment is all beside the point. (see, now you got me doing it)
All I'm trying to do is offer up for discussion whether PC could be changed using something other than Lichello's original 'add 1/2 of purchase $' approach. And if it might be as good or better way to manage PC. Remember, he didn't have computers at his disposal to easily calculate consumption on a LIFO basis.
If so, then I might be able to use it in my Stop Loss calculations. Not where to trigger it, but how to account for it within AIM's internal controls.
That's all.
No more.
No less.
Anyone else care to dip their toes in this muck?
Best Regards, Steve (The Grabber)
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.
