AI
Saturday, September 01, 2012 11:33:17 AM
Ocroft, Re: AIM refinements.............
Your arguements are sound relative to the conditions as they prevailed. Going back to the '90s it was nearly the same type of condition but in an upward trend. It became difficult for AIM users to remain invested to the degree they desired during a bull market. Continuous consecutive sells pushed cash levels to way up if one didn't attempt to place a governor on AIM's engine.
Hindsight might say that all that cash wasn't such a bad thing, but that's not the point. The point is that we don't know what the trend is until it unfolds and then we don't know its longevity until it changes. The basic AIM engine works well enough without too much manipulation. What we add to it to personalize it is a matter of comfort and effort.
Technically, AIM has reasonable efficiency as can be seen when plotting its activity against moving averages, crossover moving averages, Williams %R, Relative Strength and many other traditional measures. It is usually doing the right thing at the right time when viewing the long term and not the day-to-day changes. It manages this technical efficiency without the need to do the comparisons or calculations.
AIM can be likened to a distillery. A mash of technical and fundamental information is put in the still. Turn on the heat and AIM passes good advice to the user from the condensing coil in a very pure form.
Years ago I had a "competition" with a friend where we owned and "managed" the same company stock for several years. This was "real time" with "real money." He, did the "technical trade" route and worked it well and profitably. I ran the same investment as an AIM holding and after over three years we compared notes. I had traded essentially the same number of trades as he had. Mine were the trend-following AIM trades both up and down. His were, for the most part, well timed trades and there was some emotional influence in there, too. If he found himself whipsawed, he sometimes over-rode his own rules to get back in or out of the stock if the trade turned against him.
We both made about the same amount of money on a gross level. We both paid commissions that were about the same. (I think my comm. costs were a bit higher if I remember right) However, his taxable base for his profits was higher and essentially all of his capital gains were short term. So, AIM won for a taxable account hands down. It also won in that I played a lot more golf than he did since his methods required a lot more supervision! We talked a lot about combining the ideas. Our long time friend, Mr. Carlson, did a massive amount of work on just such a system as someone else mentioned. I think most people here enjoy seeing the variations and most treat the board here as a buffet. They sample lots of things and fill their plate with what seems to them to be the most appealing. We're all winners thereby.
Improving AIM efficiency isn't a bad thing. Fiddling with any system can potentially decrease costs and improve total return if done in a very well studied fashion. There always lingers in the shadows what is referred to as "opportunity risk." It is a haunting idea that we could be doing just a bit better if we only............
Best regards,
Your arguements are sound relative to the conditions as they prevailed. Going back to the '90s it was nearly the same type of condition but in an upward trend. It became difficult for AIM users to remain invested to the degree they desired during a bull market. Continuous consecutive sells pushed cash levels to way up if one didn't attempt to place a governor on AIM's engine.
Hindsight might say that all that cash wasn't such a bad thing, but that's not the point. The point is that we don't know what the trend is until it unfolds and then we don't know its longevity until it changes. The basic AIM engine works well enough without too much manipulation. What we add to it to personalize it is a matter of comfort and effort.
Technically, AIM has reasonable efficiency as can be seen when plotting its activity against moving averages, crossover moving averages, Williams %R, Relative Strength and many other traditional measures. It is usually doing the right thing at the right time when viewing the long term and not the day-to-day changes. It manages this technical efficiency without the need to do the comparisons or calculations.
AIM can be likened to a distillery. A mash of technical and fundamental information is put in the still. Turn on the heat and AIM passes good advice to the user from the condensing coil in a very pure form.
Years ago I had a "competition" with a friend where we owned and "managed" the same company stock for several years. This was "real time" with "real money." He, did the "technical trade" route and worked it well and profitably. I ran the same investment as an AIM holding and after over three years we compared notes. I had traded essentially the same number of trades as he had. Mine were the trend-following AIM trades both up and down. His were, for the most part, well timed trades and there was some emotional influence in there, too. If he found himself whipsawed, he sometimes over-rode his own rules to get back in or out of the stock if the trade turned against him.
We both made about the same amount of money on a gross level. We both paid commissions that were about the same. (I think my comm. costs were a bit higher if I remember right) However, his taxable base for his profits was higher and essentially all of his capital gains were short term. So, AIM won for a taxable account hands down. It also won in that I played a lot more golf than he did since his methods required a lot more supervision! We talked a lot about combining the ideas. Our long time friend, Mr. Carlson, did a massive amount of work on just such a system as someone else mentioned. I think most people here enjoy seeing the variations and most treat the board here as a buffet. They sample lots of things and fill their plate with what seems to them to be the most appealing. We're all winners thereby.
Improving AIM efficiency isn't a bad thing. Fiddling with any system can potentially decrease costs and improve total return if done in a very well studied fashion. There always lingers in the shadows what is referred to as "opportunity risk." It is a haunting idea that we could be doing just a bit better if we only............
Best regards,
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.
