But again, call it AIM if you like! How important is this anyway?
Not very important, but how one came to develop an AIM Variant(for lack of another word) seems to determine how a new system is called. At least that is how I linked the Vortex Method to Lichello's AIM. When I read Lichello's book I did not get the impression that the name AIM was linked specifically to structural details but rather that it represented an automatic trigger mechanism for initiating partial buys and sells.
I had not studied any DCA articles until after I finished Lichello's book, and recalling what the simple DCA instrument actually amounted to I conclude that the Vortex Method has far less similarity to DCA than to Lichello's AIM. That's how I came to refer to the Vortex Method as Vortex AIM, maybe as an attempt to give Lichello credit for it, or simply to express the feeling that it belonged to the AIM Family.
In suppose in this discussion it is not so much an issue as to if an investment is an AIM system or not, but if it deserves to be called AIM-like or not, or if it deserves to be called part of the AIM Family or not.
In a similar way we could start up a discussion if a human-like creature, like an American or Canadian, is less deserving of belonging to the Family of Man than an Aboriginal from Australia, or a Pygmy from Africa.
If the use of AIM-like for various derivatives of the Lichello sysem is not judged to be acceptable then it would be necessary to create a solid definition that AIM is only the system that Lichello invented, and nothing else.
It would then be superfluous to use the name AIM BTB. The use of AIM BTB means that AIM-users generally recognize/accept that there are AIM variants from which one can choose.
AI
