Replies to post #496 on Systematic Investing Group (SIG)

[Conrad]

Hi LC,

Within the family of Lay Away Plans I would suspect that generally different plans would bear an overall resemblance in that the Periodic Deposit is split into share acquisition and reserve specking and that only the triggers and overall details for exit strategies will be a bit different. Still, in the end small trading rule differences, apart for exit strategies, could cause significant differences in the overall yield over a few years running.

In this respect I have not tested PremiVest for optimization yet, but I am sure that an optimization procedure would create unique parameter sets that will depend on the price history. No doubt this will be true as well for your Hi/Low Plan. On the optimized level it might well be so that one or the other plan shows a superiority, but still one would need to consider also the risk exposure to be able to make valid comparisons.

It might be interesting for me to set up a Demo Portfolio with PremiVest (non-margin mode) using the spread sheet I have for it (if I have not lost it already). I could continue the current Vortex Demo Portfolio but it might be more expedient to run a PremiVest Demo.

It could well be that your strategies for the formula plans are more efficient than PremiVest as you mentioned you are using standard indicators, which I do not. . .at least not up to this time. I prefer to stick to the core algorithms that are based on the Vortex technique. My opinion is that others that understand these indicators can always use these indicators to produce an Overlay on the basis Vortex Trading Rules.

Anyway, Vortex has now the PremiVest Module already programmed into the Windows version and adding other ideas/options is a possibility for the future. Should your Hi/Low program work out as well in the testing phase as you hope for I would be interested in comparing it with PremiVest. Should I go ahead on the PremiVest Demo then you can obviously do parallel runs with the Hi/Lo and see how the result are different. Maybe a volatile China Fund would be a good Candidate?