Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:27:20 AM
Hi Ocroft:
"Move in for the kill at the bottom."
This issue has been on this Forum for as long as I can remember, although I can not remember now just how long that is
What you are suggesting is essentially a sort of fundamental technique that is used in combination with TA. . .and with any other investment concept:
Identify the Bottom and jump in. . .Identify the Top and jump out
This is nothing else than the foundation of investing that any kid can undestand:
Buy Low & Sell High
There is nothing new here!
Saying that you would Not buy at 41 but at 46 (+12,2%) could just as well be
Not buy at 41 but at 44 (+7,3%) or even Not buy at 41 but at 48 (+17%)
Any Recovery price could work out fine or it could work out wrong(you said as much yourself).
So, you Buy at 46 and invest a Lump Sum =10000(you may have been waiting a year for this), then the price drops to 42. . .What do you do then? Do you have an algorithm for what to do at 42 ???
As has been pointed out this method can result in a disaster of repeatedly missing the bottom and buying high and repeatedly missing the top and selling low. . .(extreme example of course).
In the year you have been waiting to identify the Bottom @ a 12,2% Recovery the stock price may have cycled +/- 11,8% 10 times while on the average the price has dropped from 100 to 41 and then you would have been waiting for a year doing nothing An Vortex AIMing(1) approach with a Hold zone of +/- 10% may have executed 10 profitable Sells and reaped a good profit while you have been waiting 1 year for a 12,2% Recover after a price of 41 and have done nothing yet. An AIMer may have dropped in value a bit on the first 10000 but may have invested more money at low process and his number of shares would be increased a great amount on the cycle profits(Volatility Creaming).
On a down trend one can even increase the Total PV and then when the Recovery starts the large number of share acquisitions will accrue profits rapidly, and if the up trend is just as volatile then there is more profit reaping even when one is in a selling spree.
The point being here is that any one of us can propose a scenario that would work best for a particular Investment Scheme. . . and if the price follows the proposed scenario then it would beat most other system(if not all of them) that were not “geared up” for that specific scenario
You method is well known already. . . .So I am curious what you are actually presenting in relation to AIMing??? We already know about all many techniques that can be used for delaying the investments to lower prices.
So, is that the only thing you are saying. . . that it is better . . .generally. . . to invests only at the Bottom. . . and I presume. . . that it is better to sell only at the Top?
"Move in for the kill at the bottom."
This issue has been on this Forum for as long as I can remember, although I can not remember now just how long that is
What you are suggesting is essentially a sort of fundamental technique that is used in combination with TA. . .and with any other investment concept:
Identify the Bottom and jump in. . .Identify the Top and jump out
This is nothing else than the foundation of investing that any kid can undestand:
Buy Low & Sell High
There is nothing new here!
Saying that you would Not buy at 41 but at 46 (+12,2%) could just as well be
Not buy at 41 but at 44 (+7,3%) or even Not buy at 41 but at 48 (+17%)
Any Recovery price could work out fine or it could work out wrong(you said as much yourself).
So, you Buy at 46 and invest a Lump Sum =10000(you may have been waiting a year for this), then the price drops to 42. . .What do you do then? Do you have an algorithm for what to do at 42 ???
As has been pointed out this method can result in a disaster of repeatedly missing the bottom and buying high and repeatedly missing the top and selling low. . .(extreme example of course).
In the year you have been waiting to identify the Bottom @ a 12,2% Recovery the stock price may have cycled +/- 11,8% 10 times while on the average the price has dropped from 100 to 41 and then you would have been waiting for a year doing nothing An Vortex AIMing(1) approach with a Hold zone of +/- 10% may have executed 10 profitable Sells and reaped a good profit while you have been waiting 1 year for a 12,2% Recover after a price of 41 and have done nothing yet. An AIMer may have dropped in value a bit on the first 10000 but may have invested more money at low process and his number of shares would be increased a great amount on the cycle profits(Volatility Creaming).
On a down trend one can even increase the Total PV and then when the Recovery starts the large number of share acquisitions will accrue profits rapidly, and if the up trend is just as volatile then there is more profit reaping even when one is in a selling spree.
The point being here is that any one of us can propose a scenario that would work best for a particular Investment Scheme. . . and if the price follows the proposed scenario then it would beat most other system(if not all of them) that were not “geared up” for that specific scenario
You method is well known already. . . .So I am curious what you are actually presenting in relation to AIMing??? We already know about all many techniques that can be used for delaying the investments to lower prices.
So, is that the only thing you are saying. . . that it is better . . .generally. . . to invests only at the Bottom. . . and I presume. . . that it is better to sell only at the Top?
Conrad Winkelman
What is Vortex AIMing? Look for my Vortex Discussion Forum:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1341
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.
