Replies to post #33923 on A.I.M. Users Bulletin Board (AIMUSERS)

[Conrad]

Trying to derive a negative adjustment to PC in order to keep the internals of an AIM program in line with the action taken (Stop Loss execution) is a reasonable concept IMHO.

Perhaps it is but I have not understood how this PC-related issue is relevant for a Stop Loss.

As I have shown to myself the negative PC for selling lowers the PC so that you can even get to the point that the Trade=0 after a Sell, so that the next Sell comes earlier if the prise rises and comes later if the price drops again.

If it is you AIM to stop selling if the Trade signal = 0, or near it, and to see this as a signal to Dump all the equity in a Stop Loss then I see your point. . .but that was clear in earlier discussions, or at least it is generally clear for any AIMing effort.(1)

I am groping to understand you.

If you use a negative PC adjustment for a Buy you lower the PC so that Trade=0, or nearly so, then if the price keeps dropping the next Buy is delayed. . .The Brake is applied! That was the point I made earlier. . . .didn’t I?

If the price reverses however your selling-off of the shares would be earlier than with the positive PC-adjustment.

So in either case the purpose of the different tactic has its negative counterpart if you let AIM do all the thinking for you and if you do not interfere with the Auto-IM at the very moment that the price does something different than what you had planned for.

I maintain my recommendation to always interfere with AIM if it does not what you want it to do:

Ignore the AIM Advice and do something you like better.

In the end you no longer need your AIM. . everything is in your head.
**************************
(1) After a bit if thinking I thought: "It could well be that what you AIM for is something with a 2*pi-shift":

Is it your intention that after you have decided that a Stop Loss is necessay, and have executed it, that you want to "fiddle" with your AIM parameters to make it reflect what you have done????

For example, after a Stop Loss it is "as asy as making Apple Pie" to fudge the PC-update factor to give you a Huge Sell Advice that reflects the Stop Loss.

Is that what you AIM for?

That is what we do in engineering all the time. . .we create Fudge Factors to theoretical equations to make the result that comes out of it be in line with "what happens" in reality.

It simply accounts for out ignorance about the real processes by which things happen, in AIMing you say that you have no way of knowing what will happen, so the "fudging" after the event has no purpose.

[AIMster]

Trying to derive a negative adjustment to PC in order to keep the internals of an AIM program in line with the action taken (Stop Loss execution) is a reasonable concept IMHO.

Of course one may also reasonably ask why you need to make the adjustment to PC in the first place? After all, Lichello does allow for a swapping of one security with another at any time, provided the relative ratio between stock value to PC isn't altered too significantly. In other words, if the one you want to take a loss on one that has declined to say $10,000 worth, and to preserve what's left, you cash out the $10K, then all you should have to do is either add a new holding for $10K or add the $10K to the existing holdings. (If AIMing in a portfolio mode). That way the stock value remains where it was (more or less) and PC shouldn't be affected at all.

Or do you have something more clever afoot that we're all still missing?

Best,

AIMster