Replies to post #38285 on A.I.M. Users Bulletin Board (AIMUSERS)

[jaiml]

Hi Bob,

I agree. I view the method as you do. For example, if I want to start a 20,000 AIM program today using for the stock SDRL, then I would start a virtual btb AIM starting Oct 2013. By now, it would have released ~4,600. So I buy $4,600 worth of stock today, with ~15,400$ left in cash. At least that how I would choose to use it.

Allen,

BTW, what is the program you are using to get those charts and the rest of the data you showed?

I actually use a program that I developed myself as a fun project. It remains work in progress.

[SFSecurity]

Hi BowlerBob,

You are correct, I missed the "...as though he bought them at their High Point...." I might have confused his approach with a comment someone (I thought orcroft) made about accumulating buys until there had been an uptick in the price and then buy the accumulated number of shares.

However, in missing that point I was testing as though I had bought at an almost random point in the past, somewhere roughly between a peak and a trough. Then I was applying a "...don't buy until you get a run down and then buy the accumulated buy signals at the first point higher than the last buy signal." Doing this at any original purchase price seems to give a better longer term return than BTB AIM. When combined with following the same approach for sells, the difference between this approach and BTB AIM is significant. Not every stock/ETF does all that much better than BTB AIM and I've only found one that does worse than BTB AIM. But then not every stock/ETF does well with BTB AIM because it does not have enough volatility to kick AIM in the butt to wake it up.

Quote: So what do you do for the initial buy? Follow the advice that others have said, "...buy the worst performer(s)."

This is almost the exact opposite of his method, as far as I can see, unless you are limiting it to those A+ Rated stocks. This is his most basic tenet -- they must still be rated A+ on the date he is considering them.

Me thinks you have misunderstood my meaning of "worst performers." One can be rated A+ but still be on a down trend due to factors beyond the control of the company. People stop buying houses when the economy tanks or the prices have run through the roof. Now look at home builders, are their stocks going to be hitting new highs? Not likely but does mean that none of them will still retain their A+ rating? Ratings are a combination of facts, debt control, niche factors, etc., which are also part of their rating.

A common problem on forums is that we may all speak the same language, but as Winston Churchill so wisely observed about the US and Great Britain being "...two people divided by a common language" that often happens in posts where we understand what is being written differently. I know that I will not satisfy everybody all the time. Part of the problem is that we often use short cuts in our writing, saying, for example, bond fund without specifying what type when had in mind because it was not terribly important to the primary point we are trying to make.

Such is life.

Warmest Regards,

Allen