I don't understand the relax and wait theory.
A BEAR!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
Paul Morgan
news:ef920214.02061...@posting.google.com...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
> market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
> it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
>
> Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
> to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
> to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
>
Only matters if you invest in averages.
--
............................paul
Everything has a Boolean value, if you stand far enough away from it
Dale Legan
always will. Also, in the past it has taken a lifetime to get above
previous high levels. What if we go into a 50-60 year bear market and the
great usa becomes little more than a 3rd world country. It will happen,
especially since we have abandoned free enterpise for government
manipulation. A great depression is highly probable around 2012.
Most of those experts who wrote those books are finance professors who drive
a 10 year old Toyota full of dents.
"A BEAR!" <A-BEAR-...@aggies.org> wrote in message
news:ef920214.02061...@posting.google.com...
> .
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
turnup
A-BEAR-...@aggies.org (A BEAR!) wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
> market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
> it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
>
> Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
> to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
> to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
http://www.fiendbear.com/ good picture and weekly report.
the opposite of diversify and wait, would be focus and trade, which
works. have a golden summer.
David Wilkinson
investments and confidently sitting back and waiting for them to go up
was the bull market of 1982-2000, now just a memory. Each previous bull
market of this type was followed by a 15-20 year "static" period of
prices that went up and down a bit, sometimes quite a lot, but with no
overall trend, being the same at the end as at the beginning. The last
of these was 1965-1982.
Of course you could settle for Money Market funds or bonds but with bass
rates of 1.75% in the USA and 4% in the UK the returns are small, hardly
beating inflation after tax.
If you want to make any money out of stocks in this sort of period you
can't just invest and wait, unless you have almost infinite patience,
you have to try a lot harder. The diversification route fails because
the markets are fairly well correlated. If the US market goes down then
so will the UK and Europe and most of the rest. Of course Gold has gone
up but no Asset Allocator would have had more than about 5% in Gold as a
long shot so it does not compensate for the rest. Korea has gone up but,
again, ditto.
The only way to have made money from 1965-1982 and probably now, is
market timing (Shock! Horror!!) Many will rush to tell you this does not
work, but then nor does Buy & Hold which they have been recommending as
long as I have been reading this NG. Not only does B&H not work but it
does it in spades! It would have lost 31% over the last two years for an
index fund based on the S&P500, plus small fees and loss of interest on
the money that could have been left in the Bank. Call it 38% down on a
Bank account or 19% p.a. And B&H is not finished yet as the market is
still falling. It could have been worse though. If you had bought and
held the Nasdaq two years ago you could have lost 61%, plus fees and
interest.
In article <ef920214.02061...@posting.google.com>, A BEAR!
<A-BEAR-...@aggies.org> writes
>.
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
>market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
>it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
>
>Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
>to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
>to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
--
David Wilkinson
Paul Morgan
news:XHrcxJAh...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk...
What nonsense. You are assuming great overdiversification and therefore
performance approximating indices in order to make your grossly misleading
point.
You could have made a pile of money between 1965 and 1982 in common stocks.
Rather than cheat and pick out individual stocks with the benefit of
hindsight, here are a couple of portfolio performances which I happen to
have handy (strategy is what you refer to as buy and hold):
Charles Munger Partnership: between 1965 and 1975 inclusive: average
annual return: 17.91%, and that includes some terrible years (1965: 8.5%,
1970: -0.1%, 1973: -31.9%, 1974: -31.5%)
Sequoia Fund (Bill Ruane): between 1972 and 1982 inclusive: average annual
return: 19.29% (including the only two years of losses: 1973: -24%,
1974: -15.7%)
Traveler
own it for another 37 years.
"A BEAR!" <A-BEAR-...@aggies.org> wrote in message
news:ef920214.02061...@posting.google.com...
> .
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul Morgan
news:xe6P8.1474$Y43.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
covering June 15 2000 to June 14 2002
Sequoia Fund (Robert Goldfarb) (Turnover 7%): NAV 6/14/00: $104.24 (adj.
for dividends), NAV 6/14/02: $130.36
Annualized rate of return: 11.83%
Arne Reil
more.
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
.
"Dale Legan" <Dale...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:eN2P8.114183$9z5.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Papa
years the average annual returns on stock investments has been about 8 percent.
"Traveler" <firstT...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Pk6P8.1906$6a....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
sam grey
"Papa" <biki...@my.fun> wrote:
> Interesting comment. I have seen official data that shows that over the last
> 75
> years the average annual returns on stock investments has been about 8
> percent.
I've seen that too, except that would be after inflation is taken into
account. Otherwise, about 11% or so.
Steven Litvintchouk
David Wilkinson wrote:
>
> The great era of just buying a diversified portfolio of different
> investments and confidently sitting back and waiting for them to go up
> was the bull market of 1982-2000, now just a memory. Each previous bull
> market of this type was followed by a 15-20 year "static" period of
> prices that went up and down a bit, sometimes quite a lot, but with no
> overall trend, being the same at the end as at the beginning. The last
> of these was 1965-1982.
How did you reach the conclusion that we are now going to have a 15-20
year "static" period?
The only thing I have noted, is that two-year bear markets (like the one
we're currently in) are much more typical of these long-term "static"
periods or secular-bears, then they are of long-term secular-bulls.
(The last two-year bear market was in 1973-74, right in the middle of
the 1965-1981 "static" period.)
But that's the only data point I have on this issue.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
ckh_-_too_much_spam
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whoa, wait a minute guys, especially you, Dave.
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
> >
> > The great era of just buying a diversified portfolio of different
> > investments and confidently sitting back and waiting for them to go up
> > was the bull market of 1982-2000, now just a memory. Each previous bull
> > market of this type was followed by a 15-20 year "static" period of
> > prices that went up and down a bit, sometimes quite a lot, but with no
> > overall trend, being the same at the end as at the beginning. The last
> > of these was 1965-1982.
Hah?
> How did you reach the conclusion that we are now going to have a 15-20
> year "static" period?
>
> The only thing I have noted, is that two-year bear markets (like the one
> we're currently in) are much more typical of these long-term "static"
> periods or secular-bears, then they are of long-term secular-bulls.
> (The last two-year bear market was in 1973-74, right in the middle of
> the 1965-1981 "static" period.)
Using Dave's dates:
1982-2000 - bull market, will be followed by a static period.
1965-1982 - Dave's example of a static period following a bull market.
Seems that you've shown that a bull market follows the static period.
>
> But that's the only data point I have on this issue.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
Maybe you're showing that there is a 15 year half cycle and a 30 year
cycle. 15 years up and 15 years down, very roughly.
Dr Tormento
> "David Wilkinson" <da...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:XHrcxJAh...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk...
>>
>
>
> What nonsense. You are assuming great overdiversification and
> therefore performance approximating indices in order to make your
> grossly misleading point.
A key point that is being missed here is the assumption that the Dow
always represents the general market. It doesn't. In the late 1970s the Dow
stagnated in a trading range while small cap stocks soared. Even a
diversified portfolio that owned some small caps and would have done much
better than the Dow.
David Wilkinson
Paul Morgan <pa...@not-here.or-there> writes
from the 10,000 or so available that will beat the index by 55%. If the
index goes down by 31% then that is what the average investor, without
hindsight, will have experienced and that is what B&H has given over the
last two years.
--
David Wilkinson
David Wilkinson
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> The great era of just buying a diversified portfolio of different
>> investments and confidently sitting back and waiting for them to go up
>> was the bull market of 1982-2000, now just a memory. Each previous bull
>> market of this type was followed by a 15-20 year "static" period of
>> prices that went up and down a bit, sometimes quite a lot, but with no
>> overall trend, being the same at the end as at the beginning. The last
>> of these was 1965-1982.
>
>How did you reach the conclusion that we are now going to have a 15-20
>year "static" period?
Look at the first graph in "How to make money in Stocks" 2nd Edition by
O'Neil. This gives the Stock Market index from 1788-1993. It is not a
conclusion, just a possibility based on what has happened before.
>
>The only thing I have noted, is that two-year bear markets (like the one
>we're currently in) are much more typical of these long-term "static"
>periods or secular-bears, then they are of long-term secular-bulls.
>(The last two-year bear market was in 1973-74, right in the middle of
>the 1965-1981 "static" period.)
>
>But that's the only data point I have on this issue.
>
>
--
David Wilkinson
David Wilkinson
Paul Morgan <pa...@not-here.or-there> writes
Nasdaq over the last two years and any index funds based on them would
have done slightly worse. B&H of these index funds over this period
would have done really badly. Similarly an index fund, if one existed,
over 1965-1982 would have shown no gain over 17 years while inflation
was very high so there would have been a substantial real loss over a
very long period. These are general facts you can't avoid.
To try to counter this you have cited two special cases of investments
that with hindsight beat the indices for parts of the 1965-1982 period.
Charles Munger linked up with Warren Buffett at some stage and the two
are one of the outstanding success stories of the last few decades, but
you can't deduce any general conclusion from this special case. Also I
believe, but don't know the actual numbers, that the Buffett and Munger
partnership has been fairly unsuccessful over the last few years.
I think Bill Ruane is another exceptionally successful investor who,
like Munger, has nothing to do with how the average investor will have
done over the period. The average investor, like the average fund will,
by definition, do worse than the market and the indices and this is what
B&H will give, so citing the two most successful investors tells us
nothing.
--
David Wilkinson
NoEd
due to terrorism and fake numbers.
"Arne Reil" <there...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c57P8.43296$Hn4.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Dr. Bob
>Go back into you cave with your food supplies. The market is shaky mostly
>due to terrorism and fake numbers.
That may well be - at least that is what WS wants us to believe.
I suspect it is more down to Earth than that. recall that just a
couple of months ago, everyone was certain that the Fed was going to
begin raising rates in May. Then it was August, then September, now
it's December and the likelihood of it being in 2003.
The fear of rising rates as early as May put a decided chill on
things. First it meant that the consumer was going to be hit hard -
rising mortgage rates, etc. It also meant that companies would have
their capital improvement plans screwed up. Capital expenditures are a
long term affair, and with so much uncertainty in the interest rate
picture over that time period, companies just decided to postpose
capital spending until the first rate hike became a fact that could be
dealt with.
Greenspan has done everything he can to push the day of interest rate
hikes off into the next year, and thereby maybe give consumers some
breathing room and maybe encourage companies to begin capital
expansion now and not wait.
If so, then the market will anticipate the benefits of healthy
consumer spending and healthy corporate spending - and maybe that is
why we are finally coming out of the doldrums. Of course we won't know
any of this until it is well past this stage, so this is all just
speculation for now.
Dr. Bob
"It is always the mark of a weak, feminine nature to endeavor
to establish one's superiority on the issue of a verbal quarrel,
whereas it is the sign of a man to desire to conquer the world
by the strength of one's own arms."
--The Principles of Tantra, I, 127.
Jack Hershey
You point out one of the many major forks in the road. I feel so fortunate
in my life that I was able to be influenced by a single person at just the
right time in my life regarding investing.
I have declined an offer to write a brochure type booklet on an investment
learning orientation I have. My interactions were with staff franchisees of
a national franchise of investment planners. They target wealthy informed
clients and the intention of the booklet was to introduce high school
students to the intellectual considerations for investing.
I feel that a person can consider a set of logical questions to get to a
place where they understand how to optimize capital appreciation. This is a
way to counter conventional wisdom which originates in advertising and
ordinary investment planning strategies. The book series that relates to
Rich Dad, Poor Dad is kindred to this panacea that exists.
1. Do you want to personally optimize your family capital appreciation?
If no, then go to Q x.
2. Do you understand the compound interest formula or would you enjoy
learning how to use it effectively?
If no, go to question x.
3. Do you understand the life-cycle hypothesis ( Franco Modigliani, 1985,
Noble Prize) and the relationships of how money allows a family to achieve
and maintain a high quality of life?
If yes or no go to question 4.
4. Are you willing to learn to have a family investment plan that you are
able to run?
If no, go to question x.
5. Are you willing to save a given % of your income for six months or more?
If no, go to question y.
6. Are you willing for 6 months to spend some time formally preparing by
learning to be able to invest optimally ( that is appreciating capital
continually and reinvesting the profits using the compound interest
formula)?
If no, go to question x.
Notice where most people are in life's processes at this kind of juncture.
Question x is where the series of questions begins to get a person to a
place where he can hire someone to make money for him. The two nicest
alternatives for having someone make money for you are boutique broker firms
for equities and commodities traders that trade for other's accounts. The
silly alternatives are mutual fund operations and financial planner
operations.
After a yes to question 6, a person has to learn several basic things. A
set of questions can give you a quick way to focus on these matters.
Underlying the questions is also a way out of the myths of the financial
industry. Here is a set that will allow anyone to get to a reasonable place
for making money rapidly and all the time using conventional means.
7. Can you handle data and arithmetic satisfactorily with a normal level of
interest?
If no, go to question x.
8. Do you have a basic capability to use web sites to get data and are
willing to spend about 20 minutes a day on this?
If no, go to question x.
9. Will you do a self appraisal of yourself now and periodically to assure
that you are getting rid of the major myths of the financial industry that
might, unknowingly, be impeding you? See sample list on pages 254 through
257 of O'Neil's book.quoted elsewhere here.
If no, go to question x.
10. Are you aware of how prices and level of trading (volume) of equities
and commodities vary over time? If not would you be willing to make some
daily observations to learn that they do?
If no, go to question x.
11. Would you be willing pick an assortment of stocks based on criteria to
create a list of quality stocks?
If no, go to question x.
12. Would you be willing to watch these stocks according to question 10 in
the evening for a few minutes regularly?
If no, go to question x.
13. Would you be willing to call your broker periodically to very you
investments in a timely manner to appreciate the capital you have invested?
If no, go to question x.
Basically at this point a person can get to a skill level to be able to
manage his destiny as many people have before him. The two efforts of
getting rid of myths and adding skills that are common to many investors
take a person well past the initial considerations of this thread.
Question x. Would you be willing to pursue finding a competent person to
handle your investment operations?
A yes answer here starts a person along the path to getting into a contract
with a person who is skilled and can do investing for him. The best will
not work with you and they may recommend someone who would that they have
confidence in. If you live away from financial centers you just have to fly
to a place that has this talent pool. Personally, I was afraid to go to my
first broker's office until my last day there. Several things had happened
in those first years; the most significant of which was that I no longer
looked to be 14 1/2 years old. I had my first run in with the SEC while I
was there as well. The president's of two companies had to make a joint
announcement to cover the situation. It was a q 11 through 13 situation.
Question y. Do you have alternative funds to savings?
If not, you cannot invest at this time but you should complete questions 7
through 13 to jump start the time when you do. It doesn't matter when you
start because you will surpass your needs in about three years.
It is a shame that many people do not take the time to think bout what they
read. Unfortunately you accept the premise you are considering. So do the
people who write what you read. I didn't. I was introduced to investing by
a person who knew otherwise. In my lifetime, I have met many many people
who have become very able to handle their affairs. My great aunt was born
in 1879 and took care of her mother who died when my aunt was 78. As a
single woman all her life and the daughter of a minister, she lived off her
investing and never had a job. Her rules for investing (question13) came
from her experience in what was definitely a man's world. She never, I
believe, ever got caught in the myths that abound. She died at 94 on my
40th birthday ( thirty years ago) and to that day she ran her own books and
was recognized by everyone for her continuing benevolence.
How she would have laughed at anyone who did not know the compound interest
formula and that if you plugging into it the buy and hold variables it would
be the dumbest thing that anyone could ever do. She never owned a stock in
her life that was not appreciating in value except under extraordinary
circumstances. She only knew to make profits and to only have stocks that
were increasing in value. I loved looking at her inked spread sheets at her
stand up desk in the attic. She kept them all.
"A BEAR!" <A-BEAR-...@aggies.org> wrote in message
news:ef920214.02061...@posting.google.com...
> .
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bill Reid
to peddle this type of jabbering hogwash here now.
Jack Hershey <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3soP8.21477$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
...
> My great aunt was born
> in 1879 and took care of her mother who died when my aunt was 78. As a
> single woman all her life and the daughter of a minister, she lived off
her
> investing and never had a job.
...
> How she would have laughed at anyone who did not know the compound
interest
> formula and that if you plugging into it the buy and hold variables it
would
> be the dumbest thing that anyone could ever do.
Are you sure dear old auntie didn't kill herself when she realized this:
CSCO 1991 - 1999
Instrument rose/fell +53.40 or +33375.00%
Number of trading days: 2275
Up days: 1089, Down days: 1186 (47.87% Up days)
Average Daily Percent Change: 2.1508%
Average Up Day Percent Gain: +2.5579%
Average Down Day Percent Loss: -1.7770%
Simple Volume Reversal Strategy:
3 days declining price/volume = buy
2 days rising price/declining volume = sell
Completed 66 trades for profit/loss of +17.69 or +326.64%
Traded 725 days total, average trade lasted 10.98 days
Final account was: 2171.27
Account rose/fell +2071.27%
Had 48 winning trades, 18 losing trades (72.73% winning trades)
Averaged +4.95% gain/loss per trade
Averaged 7.61% profit per winning trade
Averaged -2.16% loss per losing trade
Acheived 6.21% of gains in 31.87% of days compared to buy-hold
Buy'n'hold would have given her 16 times more money...now THAT'S
the power of compounding! She would have, however won 70%
of her trades with about a 19% monthly return...
---
William Ernest Reid
Paul Morgan
> >
> This is only relevant if you have a method for picking in advance a fund
> from the 10,000 or so available that will beat the index by 55%. If the
> index goes down by 31% then that is what the average investor, without
> hindsight, will have experienced and that is what B&H has given over the
> last two years.
> --
> David Wilkinson
>
More nonsense. I was pointing out that the B&H portfolios that I have
access to did better than you suggest. Those investors did very well. That
is a matter of fact. How the "average investor" did, and how many were B&H
investors, is a matter of speculation.
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 03:31:19, Steven Litvintchouk
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Whoa, wait a minute guys, especially you, Dave.
>
>
> 1982-2000 - bull market, will be followed by a static period.
> 1965-1982 - Dave's example of a static period following a bull market.
>
> Seems that you've shown that a bull market follows the static period.
These have alternated through history. Let's go further back:
http://cpcug.org/user/invest/dji.gif
Long-term secular-bull: 1920(or earlier) - 1929
Long-term static period (secular-bear): 1930 - 1941
Long-term secular-bull: 1941 - 1965
I don't have the figures right at hand, but I do recall that there were
alternating long-term secular-bulls and long-term static periods
(secular-bears) in the 19th century as well.
> Maybe you're showing that there is a 15 year half cycle and a 30 year
> cycle. 15 years up and 15 years down, very roughly.
I don't have the data from the 19th century, and we have had only two
static periods and three secular-bulls in the 20th century, so that's
not enough data on which to formulate a rule, IMHO.
Papa
a positive slope, and therefore the average was not nearly as much as 3%.
"sam grey" <sg...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:EZbP8.104863$Fp1....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> A market timing strategy, if it works, would get you out of the market
> (or short) when it goes down and keep you in it when it goes up. The
> only argument against it is that it can't be done....
Well, has it been done successfully in past static periods (what I call
secular-bear or super-bear periods)?
In the 20th century, we had two such periods:
1930-1941
1966-1982
Can you cite some examples in which investors profited handsomely in
either or both of these periods by market-timing?
(For example, were there investors who used market-timing to sidestep
the bear market of 1973-74, and then got rich by getting back into the
market afterward?) Which market-timing strategies did best in these
past static periods?
Japan has been in a static period since 1991.
Can you cite some examples in which investors profited handsomely in the
Japanese market's static period by market-timing? If so, what
market-timing strategy did they use?
I keep looking for all the folks who succeeded at market-timing in past
static periods. Where are they?
Or are we repeating the same failed market-timing strategies, that have
been done over and over in the past?
Arne Reil
at me? If so why? If not, snip me out. It isn't that hard to make your posts
more clear... or it shouldn't be....
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
.
"NoEd" <bsPo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ugru9i3...@corp.supernews.com...
ckh_-_too_much_spam
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks, I'll cut and paste to line up the date ranges.
> ckh, -, Too, Much, SPAM wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 03:31:19, Steven Litvintchouk
> > <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Whoa, wait a minute guys, especially you, Dave.
> >
> > Using Dave's dates:
> >
> > 1982-2000 - bull market, will be followed by a static period.
> > 1965-1982 - Dave's example of a static period following a bull market.
> >
> > Seems that you've shown that a bull market follows the static period.
>
> These have alternated through history. Let's go further back:
>
> http://cpcug.org/user/invest/dji.gif
>
Reordering the columns:
Start - End : Duration : Comments
1920 or earlier
> 1920 - 1929 : 10 : Long-term secular-bull
> 1930 - 1941 : 12 : Long-term static period (secular-bear):
> 1941 - 1965 : 25 : Long-term secular-bull:
> 1965 - 1982 : 18 : static period following a bull market.
> 1982 - 2000 : 19 : bull market, will be followed by a static period.
2000 - 201? : 10-25 years of static, secular-bear.
> I don't have the figures right at hand, but I do recall that there were
> alternating long-term secular-bulls and long-term static periods
> (secular-bears) in the 19th century as well.
OK, we've had 29 months of a bear market or there abouts. While some
might quibble about exactly how long the Great Depression ran or when
a bull becomes a bear, laid out like this, it sure looks like we're in
for it.
> > Maybe you're showing that there is a 15 year half cycle and a 30 year
> > cycle. 15 years up and 15 years down, very roughly.
>
> I don't have the data from the 19th century, and we have had only two
> static periods and three secular-bulls in the 20th century, so that's
> not enough data on which to formulate a rule, IMHO.
Right.
But the picture is compelling. I think we can assess the risks
ourselves.
Jack Hershey
My aunt died in 1973 and was a person who constantly handled her investments
with regard to the precepts advanced by Carnegie and Mellon:
1. Save.
2. Invest
3. monitor investments, and
4. make timely decisions and act upon them.
This is definitely not a buy and hold strategy. and it is a
treditionalalternative to buy and hold that goes way back. My aunt always
had a pleasant character and loved all the things she engaged in. you
pomments about her were tasteless and if you made a point; it is lost on me
and probably quite a few others.
You provide an example of Cisco from 1991 to 1999 over what looks like 2275
trading days. It closed up or down (EOD) during that period it looks like.
Unusual that it did have days where it remained unchanged. You have a data
source for your example so your data is fine with me.
I didn't understand the line: Instrument rose/fell +53.40 or 33376.00%.
Help me out a bit in my learning, please.
Then you block out something. Looks like "Simple Volume Reversal Strategy"
Looks like money is available for investing about 68% of the time when it is
not in Cisco.
And this strategy is only 1/16 as good as buy and hold on Cisco.
We can all pretty much agree that chucking "Simple Volume Reversal Strategy"
in the garbage is a great idea.
Could you help me out on the point you are making here.
PapaBear
but in the long run we're all dead!"
NoEd
I don't know how much more "down to earth" anything else can be than
unreliable numbers and the threat of being killed.
"It is always the mark of a weak, feminine nature to endeavor
> to establish one's superiority on the issue of a verbal quarrel,
> whereas it is the sign of a man to desire to conquer the world
> by the strength of one's own arms."
You favor brute strength over brains? Hmm? Poor Mr. Newton, Mr. Mozart, Mr.
Gates, etc.
Sorry Dr. Bob, Pure Jabberwocky!
"Dr. Bob" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:3d0dfb7a...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
NoEd
"Arne Reil" <there...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:TNtP8.52130$Hn4.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
zooked
"yes" or "no". I would like to gauge whether anyone really gets anything
truly useful out of Jack's posts.
"Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3soP8.21477$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
craig wisper
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:W_AP8.7226$t%5.36...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Please say whether you got anything useful out of this post. Just respond
> "yes" or "no". I would like to gauge whether anyone really gets anything
> truly useful out of Jack's posts.
NO
It's just more hyperbolic dribble from his Heraclitean flux.
Bill Reid
>
> My aunt died in 1973 and was a person who constantly handled her
investments
> with regard to the precepts advanced by Carnegie and Mellon:
>
> 1. Save.
Good
> 2. Invest
Check
> 3. monitor investments, and
Right
> 4. make timely decisions and act upon them.
Bingo
>
> This is definitely not a buy and hold strategy.
Maybe it would be if you had the prescience to buy Cisco at IPO and
hold it. Your timely decision would be to look at it every few months
and say "Geez, this muthaeffin' company is growing at the rate of
200% a year, why the freakin' hell would I sell it" and act accordingly.
Of course, you might have a few clinkers in the portfolio that you
could weed out as well.
> and it is a
> treditionalalternative to buy and hold that goes way back.
There are a million ways to "play" the market. Some of them
actually make money, a few actually make a remarkable
amount of money compared to market averages, most underperform
the averages.
> My aunt always
> had a pleasant character and loved all the things she engaged in. you
> pomments about her were tasteless and if you made a point; it is lost on
me
> and probably quite a few others.
>
Well, my pomments are the same as I've made before: that stocks
and other "instruments" have periods of high capital appreciation due
to certain technical market (technical) and fundamental
(micro/macroeconomic) factors, and the trick to greatly outperforming
the market averages is to recognize these factors and buy'n'hold the
highest appreciators for whatever period is indicated. If you
attempt to trade in and out of them you will probably reduce
your return, though if you are trading good stocks in the first
place you may still make money. That simple enough?
You on the other hand, show up here every few months and
blather some nonsense about fractals and compound interest then run and hide
when asked for details. I'm just putting you on notice that we
now have a guy who has promised us up to 8% a year flipping pennies,
so you can just take your 30% a month (or is it 300% for futures?)
and shove it. He also regales us with stories about his 200-year-old dad
so take your auntie with you.
> You provide an example of Cisco from 1991 to 1999 over what looks like
2275
> trading days. It closed up or down (EOD) during that period it looks
like.
> Unusual that it did have days where it remained unchanged.
Oh, I'm sure it did have one or two of those unchanged days. My
software only counts up days as days where it rose more than 0 and down
days as all the rest. So there are about the usual 0.3% days when
the coin lands on its edge included in the down days.
> You have a data
> source for your example so your data is fine with me.
>
Well, I have several, and of course, they all have some conflicting
entries. For market data (price/volume) over time, I'll get
roughly the same answers from all.
But that's still orders of magnitude more exacting than
the government numbers...
> I didn't understand the line: Instrument rose/fell +53.40 or 33376.00%.
> Help me out a bit in my learning, please.
>
Trading "instrument"; "instrument" is lingo in the biz for stock, bond,
index fund, future, you know, what you can "bet" on. There was
a time when I worked with people on a daily basis who talked like
that, sorry. It is easier for me because it is a generic term and
I can run the software on any "instrument" that can show capital
appreciation (it also picks up on dividends and interest too, so
"rose/fell" refers to total possible compounded profit/loss for
a stock, bond, whatever)
Cisco rose a 54.40 "points" (you know, "dollars") from a split-adjusted
16 cents in nine years, what some might refer to as a 334-"bagger".
Similar to the 800 "bags" you could have had from Dell from IPO,
or MSFT, or a few other all-time heavyweight appreciation champs.
> Then you block out something. Looks like "Simple Volume Reversal
Strategy"
>
I've got dozens of them. Many of them will actually exceed buy'n'hold
for some "instruments" during some time periods. This particular
one failed miserably in that regard, but hey, we had 72% winning
trades!
> Looks like money is available for investing about 68% of the time when it
is
> not in Cisco.
>
Well, yeah, how ingenuous of you to bring that up. We could have
taken it out of Cisco and put in into Enron, I suppose. That
would increase our results 16-fold, I'm sure.
> And this strategy is only 1/16 as good as buy and hold on Cisco.
>
Yup, you got it. You really weren't that confused at all, were you?
Did you see the part where we were in Cisco 1/3 of the time to
only get 1/16th of the results?
> We can all pretty much agree that chucking "Simple Volume Reversal
Strategy"
> in the garbage is a great idea.
>
Sure, but then you'll just want to replace it with a more complex
volume reversal strategy, with "first rising volume", "dry up volume",
etc. If we could chuck that too, we'd be done here, and auntie
could rest in peace.
> Could you help me out on the point you are making here.
>
Well, at some level, I think we all know the point I'm making...but
there is a path to enlightenment that the truly intellectually bold
can travel should they so choose. I've taken the journey, will
you?
You know, there ARE patterns in the market. After running thousands
of tests on MACD, chart patterns, simple "regression-to-mean",
simple/complex "volume reversal", etc., etc., etc., some facts have made
themselves clear over decades of data from thousands of companies.
You could even devise a strategy to make money from the patterns;
that is, if by discovering the patterns, you didn't realize you could
make even more by taking a more direct approach.
You say chuck the simple volume reversal strategy? Well, let's
look at two more data points before we give up.
First, let's trade the "diamonds" for the same nine years, and note
that the strategy yields roughly equivalent results for the amount
of days in the market; still not beating buy'n'hold by a long shot, but
closer.
Do you know why?
DJIA 1991 - 1999
Instrument rose/fell +8863.40 or +336.54%
Number of trading days: 2275
Up days: 1213, Down days: 1062 (53.32% Up days)
Average Daily Percent Change: 0.6299%
Average Up Day Percent Gain: +0.6551%
Average Down Day Percent Loss: -0.6012%
Simple Volume Reversal Strategy:
3 days declining price/volume = buy
2 days rising price/declining volume = sell
Completed 13 trades for profit/loss of +5108.00 or +78.21%
Traded 724 days total, average trade lasted 55.69 days
Final account was: 201.60
Account rose/fell +101.60%
Had 10 winning trades, 3 losing trades (76.92% winning trades)
Averaged +6.02% gain/loss per trade
Averaged 8.65% profit per winning trade
Averaged -2.78% loss per losing trade
Acheived 30.19% of gains in 31.82% of days compared to buy-hold
But now for the real shocker. Let's take that same "losing"
strategy, and trade one of the worst losing stocks during the
last horrible two years, and see what happens:
SUNW 2000 - 2002
Instrument rose/fell -31.95 or -82.52%
Number of trading days: 585
Up days: 264, Down days: 321 (45.13% Up days)
Average Daily Percent Change: 3.7970%
Average Up Day Percent Gain: +4.0129%
Average Down Day Percent Loss: -3.6195%
Simple Volume Reversal Strategy:
3 days declining price/volume = buy
2 days rising price/declining volume = sell
Completed 26 trades for profit/loss of +32.51 or +127.44%
Traded 260 days total, average trade lasted 10.00 days
Final account was: 247.96
Account rose/fell +147.96%
Had 13 winning trades, 13 losing trades (50.00% winning trades)
Averaged +4.90% gain/loss per trade
Averaged 19.12% profit per winning trade
Averaged -9.32% loss per losing trade
Reversed 179.31% of losses in 44.44% of days compared to buy-hold
Holy crap, Buttman! We reversed an 82.52% loss INTO A
147.96% FREAKIN' GAIN!!!! THIS MUST BE THE MOST
FRIGGIN' GREAT TRADING STRATEGY EVER INVENTED!!!!
SURE BEATS THAT PENNY FLIPPIN' NONSENSE!!!!!!!!
Or does it? Questions, comments? Can you explain what
happened here? I can, but I'm just a tease, not a teacher...
---
William Ernest Reid
Paul Morgan
> "yes" or "no". I would like to gauge whether anyone really gets anything
> truly useful out of Jack's posts.
>
>
No.
bb
You buy the stock and keep it as long as it keeps going up, and sell the
retracements.
Of course you need a plan for buying & selling which was the whole point.
Maybe you should start using your brain to think, instead of typing numbers
in a computer program.
bb
"Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:jlrP8.41504$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
bb
You obviously missed the point.
bb
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:W_AP8.7226$t%5.36...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
craig wisper
"bb" <bbg20...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:p6DP8.324141$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> YES!
> You obviously missed the point.
>
> bb
and the point being?
craig wisper
> I don't think that's what Jack (or his nanna) actually ment.
> You buy the stock and keep it as long as it keeps going up, and sell the
> retracements.
sell before it retraces
then buy more
bb
- Formulate a plan, or talk to someone who will help you with one.
- Keep learning more
- Keep adjusting the plan based on your learning or trading experiences.
- If you don't want to trade your plan you'll know at least how to find
someone else with a similar plan that will make the decisions for you.
You'll also be able to make better judgements on other people's plans.
bb
"craig wisper" <c.wi...@att.net> wrote in message
news:shDP8.47932$UT.32...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Arne Reil
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
.
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:W_AP8.7226$t%5.36...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Please say whether you got anything useful out of this post. Just respond
> "yes" or "no". I would like to gauge whether anyone really gets anything
> truly useful out of Jack's posts.
snip....
Arne Reil
you didn't answer it... There was a question in there for you... Actually,
more than one.
Now that you've commented on my word choice, would you like to answer the
question(s)? Use whatever words you are comfortable with...
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
.
"NoEd" <bsPo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ugtfpf2...@corp.supernews.com...
Arne Reil
a .com fellow who sold out in 1999 at 5.5 Billion dollars. Bought himself a
big house, a baseball team and a jet (then another one).
Great market timing on his part.....
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
>
David Wilkinson
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
>David Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>> A market timing strategy, if it works, would get you out of the market
>> (or short) when it goes down and keep you in it when it goes up. The
>> only argument against it is that it can't be done....
>
>Well, has it been done successfully in past static periods (what I call
>secular-bear or super-bear periods)?
>
methods are proposed and expounded, particularly in TA books, with
virtually no verification. TA men seem to rely on intuition and anecdote
rather than proof. Second hand reports of academic work in popular books
like Malkiel and Siegel usually say that detailed studies have disproved
TA, although Siegel thinks the MA200 market timing method is useful in
reducing risk if not increasing returns. There are also plenty of people
who say fundamental analysis is useless as well (the EMH faction for
instance) and that MPT is useless because gains do not correlate with
beta and you do not have the future data for returns and SDs, just
historical values which are not continued.
I do not know of any average investors from these earlier periods, what
methods they used or whether they were successful or not. Only famously
successful investors like Buffett, Graham, Lynch etc. get mentioned.
However it has to be said that Buffett is a market timer and stock
picker. I saw one report that he sold all his investments at one stage,
possibly 1969, because he thought the market was over-valued and then
bought in again later when he thought it was cheaper. Again Graham,
while usually thought of as the founding value investor, also has a
considerable element of market timing in his methods. He only buys when
stocks are cheap by his criteria and sells again when they are
expensive. There are periods when few or no stocks meet his criteria and
he would not buy at all. This is market timing by stock timing.
You could equally ask whether there are any rich index fund buyers or
asset allocators, except in bull markets of course.
>In the 20th century, we had two such periods:
>
>1930-1941
>1966-1982
>
>Can you cite some examples in which investors profited handsomely in
>either or both of these periods by market-timing?
>(For example, were there investors who used market-timing to sidestep
>the bear market of 1973-74, and then got rich by getting back into the
>market afterward?) Which market-timing strategies did best in these
>past static periods?
>
>Japan has been in a static period since 1991.
I don't think I would call a drop from 40,000 or thereabouts to 10,000
in the Nikkei a "static" period. It looks like the ultimate long term
bear market to me.
>
>Can you cite some examples in which investors profited handsomely in the
>Japanese market's static period by market-timing? If so, what
>market-timing strategy did they use?
>
>I keep looking for all the folks who succeeded at market-timing in past
>static periods. Where are they?
>Or are we repeating the same failed market-timing strategies, that have
>been done over and over in the past?
>
>
You can always go back to crashes like 1973/4 and 1987 and do back-
testing with simple TA methods and persuade yourself that if you had,
say, sold when the index broke the MA200 and bought when it rose above
it again you would have made big gains. Whether anyone did this at the
time I do not know. Doing it now can always be explained away as data
mining so you can never prove anything to people with fixed views who
don't want to believe you.
In the absence of any sort of absolute proof of anything you have to
form your own views of what you find useful and what suits your
circumstances and investing personality. In your twenties or thirties,
investing in a pension fund, you might as well DCA in for the long term.
At the other end of the age range, near or after retirement you may not
view waiting another 10 or 20 years for the market to recover with such
equanimity as you may not be around that long. Horses for courses as
they say.
--
David Wilkinson
Bill Reid
> I don't think that's what Jack (or his nanna) actually ment.
Uh, apparently you don't know Jack (or what he ment).
> You buy the stock and keep it as long as it keeps going up, and sell the
> retracements.
No, Jack says he has a magical formula that works for "quality" stox
that involves a 7-10 day holding period. He says you will make
30% a month using the formula.
> Of course you need a plan for buying & selling which was the whole point.
Jack has a plan. He says he wants to share it and make
everybody rich, then never really does.
> Maybe you should start using your brain to think, instead of typing
numbers
> in a computer program.
>
Why don't you use your brain to "curve fit" a "plan" that allows me
to beat buy and hold for CSCO in its prime appreciation years.
I let you curve fit cuz that's what I did (I choose a volume reversal
strategy with some similarities to Jack's magic formula that I knew
would fail on a meteoric rising stock). So turnabout is fair
play; give me a "plan" that beats buy'n'hold CSCO 1991-1999
(if you can't with your big brain, I can with my little one!).
---
William Ernest Reid
sam grey
David Wilkinson <da...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> I do not know. It is a peculiarity of the investment field that numerous
> methods are proposed and expounded, particularly in TA books, with
> virtually no verification. TA men seem to rely on intuition and anecdote
> rather than proof. Second hand reports of academic work in popular books
> like Malkiel and Siegel usually say that detailed studies have disproved
> TA, although Siegel thinks the MA200 market timing method is useful in
> reducing risk if not increasing returns. There are also plenty of people
> who say fundamental analysis is useless as well (the EMH faction for
> instance) and that MPT is useless because gains do not correlate with
> beta and you do not have the future data for returns and SDs, just
> historical values which are not continued.
>
<snip>
>
> In the absence of any sort of absolute proof of anything you have to
> form your own views of what you find useful and what suits your
> circumstances and investing personality. In your twenties or thirties,
> investing in a pension fund, you might as well DCA in for the long term.
> At the other end of the age range, near or after retirement you may not
> view waiting another 10 or 20 years for the market to recover with such
> equanimity as you may not be around that long. Horses for courses as
> they say.
I think this is an excellent post that we should all print out, cut out,
and paste to our monitors. David has succinctly summed up the problems with
choosing a particular investing style over another, taking into
consideration the (at least popular) theory written on the matter, on both
the FA and TA side, at least the stuff that is usually cited as reasons to
do x or y.
If there was a single sure method for making money in stocks everyone would
do it. The fact that no clear method exists points to the complexity and
perhaps reflexivity of the thing. So what you need, as David points out, is
a strategy. It might be short-term, it might be long-term, but you need a
strategy. The stock market is a lot of different things to a lot of
different people.
bb
20/20.
As for trading, Cisco is not the only stock avaliable.
I would'nt know Jack if he came up and poked me in the eye, nor his formula,
and i don't need software to trade, but i can see making 20-30% per month
cause i know people who done it. I've also seen many lose stacks after mid
2000 hanging on.
Seems also like there's something here that goes beyond this ng, of which i
have no idea.
bb
"Bill Reid" <horme...@happyhealthy.net> wrote in message
news:omGP8.42730$LC3.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
NoEd
comfortable with that word. Why don't you help me out here and tell what
you want to attend to, a.k.a. "respond to." Thanks.
"Arne Reil" <there...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dJEP8.54878$Hn4.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
Paul Morgan
news:WgJnFLA$6tD9...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk...
>
> I do not know of any average investors from these earlier periods, what
> methods they used or whether they were successful or not. Only famously
> successful investors like Buffett, Graham, Lynch etc. get mentioned.
> However it has to be said that Buffett is a market timer and stock
> picker. I saw one report that he sold all his investments at one stage,
> possibly 1969, because he thought the market was over-valued and then
> bought in again later when he thought it was cheaper. Again Graham,
> while usually thought of as the founding value investor, also has a
> considerable element of market timing in his methods. He only buys when
> stocks are cheap by his criteria and sells again when they are
> expensive. There are periods when few or no stocks meet his criteria and
> he would not buy at all. This is market timing by stock timing.
>
Yet again, you are incorrect. Buying according to valuation based on
fundamentals is not market timing. Buffett wrapped up his partnership
because he could not find anything in the market selling for fair value
based on his methods of business valuation. He passed some of his investors
on to Bill Ruane, who started the Sequoia Fund, and many others bought into
Berkshire Hathaway with Buffett a couple of years later. Far from being a
market timer, Buffett has never sold one share of Berkshire.
Graham's valuation methods rely on fundamentals and the relationship of
stock price to those fundamentals. It is not necessarily a buy and hold
strategy (at least not longer than 4 years). It requires buying a large
number of issues to work well.
None of the strategies of the investors that you mention are based on market
timing. They are based on the purchases of equities of individual companies
based on their stock price relative to the value of their specific
businesses.
In fact, Buffett says that the doesn't buy anything unless he'd be happy to
hold on to it if the stock market closed for ten years.
Jack Hershey
Jack Hershey
The normal ratio is about 1 out of 5 since about 1960. Four No's and one
yes. Add yourself and Bill Reid and you can see that times haven't changed.
craig wisper
> - Learn
> - Formulate a plan, or talk to someone who will help you with one.
> - Keep learning more
> - Keep adjusting the plan based on your learning or trading experiences.
> - If you don't want to trade your plan you'll know at least how to find
> someone else with a similar plan that will make the decisions for you.
> You'll also be able to make better judgements on other people's plans.
>
> bb
thanks for the distillation
Herb
I think David's (excellent) post makes it clear how close investment
philosophy is to religious belief. When science fails to answer your
questions you just have to make a personal decision about what you choose to
believe.
That would explain why people get so heated when their belief system is
pooh-poohed.
-herb
"sam grey" <sg...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:p3HP8.153175$Fp1.1...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
Ed
"Herb" <X...@YYY.COM> wrote in message
news:XEKP8.48464$UT.33...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Profit
Don't you have any self-respect? This zoo-ked fellow dumps on you from every
angle, and you reply with additional shoe-licking that is wearing a hole in
his leather. He's a moron. Is that what attracts you?
"Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mAJP8.24390$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> In article <3D0E4A58...@earthlink.net>, Steven Litvintchouk
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
> >David Wilkinson wrote:
> >>
> >> A market timing strategy, if it works, would get you out of the market
> >> (or short) when it goes down and keep you in it when it goes up. The
> >> only argument against it is that it can't be done....
> >
> >Well, has it been done successfully in past static periods (what I call
> >secular-bear or super-bear periods)?
> >
> I do not know. It is a peculiarity of the investment field that numerous
> methods are proposed and expounded, particularly in TA books, with
> virtually no verification.
No, it's also a "peculiarity" of quack medicine. Lots of quack cures
and remedies are proposed. No verification. What does that suggest to
you?
I would be happy to find all those billionaires who would be willing to
come forward and say that they made their fortune following a mostly TA
strategy--even if they prefer to keep the specifics a secret. Or read
about past such billionaires in the history books.
Stock markets have existed for centuries, and mathematicians have been
puzzling over the mathematics of market movements for centuries. Yet
with all the millions of people who have played the stock market, we
can't seem to find even a tiny percentage of billionaires who used TA to
get rich, suggests that TA has never been able to work yet.
> You could equally ask whether there are any rich index fund buyers or
> asset allocators, except in bull markets of course.
Correct.
In fact, I seriously question whether more than a few Americans have
truly "made it" entirely in the market. That is, starting from an
average salary and lifestyle, they invested in the market for 30 years
(using any strategy they wished), and became truly wealthy in their
retirement years. The very long-term growth of the U.S. stock market
has been about 11% annualized. Factor that out and what remains is a
zero-sum game. So for every Warren Buffett who became very wealthy,
there must have been a whole bunch of other (anonymous) folks who got
wiped out.
> You can always go back to crashes like 1973/4 and 1987 and do back-
> testing with simple TA methods and persuade yourself that if you had,
> say, sold when the index broke the MA200 and bought when it rose above
> it again you would have made big gains. Whether anyone did this at the
> time I do not know.
Believe me, if thousands of Americans had gotten very wealthy that way,
you would have heard about it. Every book on TA would be touting those
success stories.
> In the absence of any sort of absolute proof of anything you have to
> form your own views of what you find useful and what suits your
> circumstances and investing personality. In your twenties or thirties,
> investing in a pension fund, you might as well DCA in for the long term.
> At the other end of the age range, near or after retirement you may not
> view waiting another 10 or 20 years for the market to recover with such
> equanimity as you may not be around that long. Horses for courses as
> they say.
They also say, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result each time."
As an engineer, I wouldn't rely on a technology that has been tried for
100 years and hasn't been found to work reliably yet. The same
principle for investing.
What strategies really have worked for a significant percentage of
investors over the long haul?
After centuries of stock markets worldwide, we ought to know by now.
The fact that we don't, suggests strongly that for the overwhelming
majority of investors, nothing that has already been tried for enough
time (decades) has worked.
We now have a whole bunch of new ideas, like the Efficient Market
Hypothesis, indexing, etc. But these are theories. We won't know if
they work, for years yet.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
craig wisper
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message news:oZKP8.62304$uX3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Bruno R
I went today to a seminar where diverse strategies were explained on
how to trade the markets. The 4 instructors had it 'all together.' The
trading programs are excellent and the explanations, during real time
trading, left nothing to the imagination, and yet, you wouldn't belief
the stupid questions that were asked during demonstration from people
that trade with those particular programs and their real-time data feed.
I don't want to mention names for good reason. However, 90% out there
don't get it, and will probably never get it, because they'll have to
use their brain. Personally, I've come to the conclusion: If you know
how to trade, do your best for yourself, forget about convincing
anybody!! It's useless! People will not want to accept the fact that
you need to apply a modicum of thought BEFORE you place your orders.
"A BEAR!" wrote:
>
> .
Profit
zooked
skilled confidence artist can do much better than that. Having NONE of
those 20% going on the record with their performance is, in a word, TYPICAL.
As I have said before, I can assure every single reader here that you will
NEVER go on the record. Neither will anybody who follows your advice. It
simply WONT HAPPEN. It NEVER has. It NEVER will. You have too much fun
dreamweaving. Your happiness is at the expense of those here who take you
seriously. Times have not changed because the obvious answer is usually the
right answer. The answer to the question of why you don't demonstrate your
trading skill is OBVIOUS. The answer to why you do not make your trades
public is because YOU DO NOT REALLY TRADE.
"Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mAJP8.24390$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
zooked
long then Jack go wiped out. Jack hasn't mentioned the Double Bottom since
it turned out NOT TO BE THE BOTTOM. Certainly Jack will say how he deftly
outsmarted the market, and that you can too, if only you will BELIEVE and
not try to think. If only you will be one of the 1-in-5. One of those
elite few. The webboard Jack frequents has a testimonial from one of these
believers. Check it out yourself. It's not pretty.
"bb" <bbg20...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:6mHP8.327185$o66.8...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David Wilkinson
Paul Morgan <pau...@earthlink.net> writes
>"David Wilkinson" <da...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:WgJnFLA$6tD9...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> I do not know of any average investors from these earlier periods, what
>> methods they used or whether they were successful or not. Only famously
>> successful investors like Buffett, Graham, Lynch etc. get mentioned.
>> However it has to be said that Buffett is a market timer and stock
>> picker. I saw one report that he sold all his investments at one stage,
>> possibly 1969, because he thought the market was over-valued and then
>> bought in again later when he thought it was cheaper. Again Graham,
>> while usually thought of as the founding value investor, also has a
>> considerable element of market timing in his methods. He only buys when
>> stocks are cheap by his criteria and sells again when they are
>> expensive. There are periods when few or no stocks meet his criteria and
>> he would not buy at all. This is market timing by stock timing.
>>
>
>Yet again, you are incorrect. Buying according to valuation based on
>fundamentals is not market timing. Buffett wrapped up his partnership
>because he could not find anything in the market selling for fair value
>based on his methods of business valuation. He passed some of his investors
>on to Bill Ruane, who started the Sequoia Fund, and many others bought into
>Berkshire Hathaway with Buffett a couple of years later. Far from being a
>market timer, Buffett has never sold one share of Berkshire.
>
to cash and then buying in again later when the market is lower is not
market timing then I don't know what is. This is on a par with your
other comments that the extreme of investment success is typical of the
average. You really ought to think things through before commenting.
Berkshire Hathaway is his holding company and he has sold a lot of
shares in it to other investors. Hence his annual address to
shareholders. BH buys and sells shares in other companies, often taking
a major management role and controlling interest.
>Graham's valuation methods rely on fundamentals and the relationship of
>stock price to those fundamentals. It is not necessarily a buy and hold
>strategy (at least not longer than 4 years). It requires buying a large
>number of issues to work well.
>
>None of the strategies of the investors that you mention are based on market
>timing. They are based on the purchases of equities of individual companies
>based on their stock price relative to the value of their specific
>businesses.
>
>In fact, Buffett says that the doesn't buy anything unless he'd be happy to
>hold on to it if the stock market closed for ten years.
>
>--
>............................paul
>
>Everything has a Boolean value, if you stand far enough away from it
>
>
>
>
--
David Wilkinson
Paul Morgan
I wtithdraw from this thread; you continue to mischaracterize Buffett in
order to fit your preconceptions about market timing; I have no interest in
persuading you otherwise, just to point out to others the gross flaws in
your argument, which I have already done. In any case, I wish you success
in the future.
Financial Advisor
"A BEAR!" wrote:
>
> .
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hershey
> Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
> to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
> to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
The fraction for going down is 50/100.
The fraction for going up is 50/50.
Always use the value for the denominator by choosing the place you begin.
The down started at 100. The up started at 50.
The numerator is the amount of change. It was the same each time. 50.
Once you have the fraction, you can get the decimal value. Once you have
that, you multiply by 100 to get the percent that corresponds to the
fractional change.
If something goes down 30 percent, then it will have to go up about 43% to
return to the original value.
If something goes down 10% it will have to go up 11% to return to the
original value.
If something goes down 75% it will have to go up 300% to return to the
original value.
You might want to consider for stocks, how hard or easy it is for a stock
the go either direction. In terms of time the ratio of down to up is 8 to
27 according to Schwab.
As you see going up is always the greater %. I have found slight
differences between analysts and corp reports cause greater downside shifts
than upside shifts for the same difference. So I conclude that it is more
difficult to increase in values than to decrease. Sort of like gravity.
O'Neil of IBD suggests that when the situation is constant for everything
else, price will drift slowly down. He calls it a "4 O'clock" drift.
All of this forms a basis for thinking about "buy and hold" as a strategy.
It becomes very evident that for any stock that has ups and downs, it is
better to hold on the up and sideline on the down and then buy back in as
the stock goes up again. Someone here did Cisco and failed to get a result
that was more profitable than buy and hold.
It turns out that the key to this matter is timing.
Financial Analysts have what they call "determinants" for portfolio
management. They give %'s for each determinant. Asset Allocation gets 91%;
security selection gets 6%; Market timing gets 2%; and other factors gets
1%.
If financial analysts were to choose (6%) a stock to stick with and buy low
and sell high (2%) each time the stock moved up then down, then they would
have 92% of their effort unused. actually it would mean, in a reasoned way,
that they would have to change their use of effort greatly. They are not
going to do that in all probability. They are going to write books that
show timing is unimportant as is security selection all compared to asset
allocation. You can determine which of all of these things analysts get
paid for if they are commission compensated.
It is a good idea to figure out what people think who do not get commissions
or fees. The best person to check with is a person who is motivated by
profits.
My preference is to only own stocks that are increasing in value. I believe
owning a stock that is declining in value causes a loss of valuable time
when that money could be working for you to make profits. This means I
would only own Cisco when it is going up in a price trend. I can always
sell it when the trend peaks and wait until it starts another trend upward
after it has fallen for a while. Can own it 8 to 10 times a year and
average about 3 to 5 points per cycle. Average of 36 points a year on a
base price of 18 nowadays. As a % it is about 200% a year and it requires
your money for about 25% of the time so you can use the money elsewhere if
you wish.
CANSLIM.net
www.CANSLIM.net (go to "Knowledge Base" button on the green left side, and
then look in the "Investing for the New Millennium Archive" - July 2000).
Here is a quick table that shows the loss and subsequent % gain you'd need
to make it back.
Loss% Gain%
0 0.0
5 5.3
10 11.1
15 17.6
20 25.0
25 33.3
30 42.9
35 53.8
40 66.7
45 81.8
50 100.0
55 122.2
60 150.0
65 185.7
70 233.3
75 300.0
80 400.0
85 566.7
90 900.0
95 1900.0
Best regards and wishes for your financial prosperity!
www.CANSLIM.net
"Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oB1Q8.28588$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
Jack Hershey
cycle days profit per cycle # of cycles Annual ROI
What does it look like for buy and hold??
250 5% 1 5%
250 10% 1 10%
250 20% 1 20%
etc.
What happens as you do more up cycles and wait out the down cycles.
125 5% 1 5%
75 5% 2 10%
45 5% 3 16%
30 5% 4 22%
20 5% 6 34%
10 5% 10 63%
5% monthly 80%
If you have a different % per cycle you could fill it in this way.
125 1
75 2
45 3
30 4
20 6
10 10
monthly>
There is no way you can make up a table that is worse than buy and hold.
Make up a table for the way most stocks you know go up and down. I did it
in 1957 to see what is a good way to set a goal. I call the cycle I use the
natural cycle and it was the one i found the market telling me how it
worked. Why fight city hall.
the entries are:
6-8 10% 16 just use the compound
interest formula
My goal for three years is:
6-8 10% 50 just use the compound
interest formula
zooked
PROVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill Reid
tenacious lack of grip on reality and math skills...
Jack Hershey <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oB1Q8.28588$Ok1.1...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> If something goes down 10% it will have to go up 11% to return to the
> original value.
>
> If something goes down 75% it will have to go up 300% to return to the
> original value.
>
I know, you read a book by a Fella! Dr. Dewd has apparently
read as many as THREE books and colored in TWO of them!
> You might want to consider for stocks, how hard or easy it is for a stock
> the go either direction. In terms of time the ratio of down to up is 8 to
> 27 according to Schwab.
>
Hmmmphfwhhat?
> As you see going up is always the greater %. I have found slight
> differences between analysts and corp reports cause greater downside
shifts
> than upside shifts for the same difference. So I conclude that it is more
> difficult to increase in values than to decrease.
That's why the market sold down to 0 80 years ago and has been
plowing further negative ever since.
> Sort of like gravity.
Somebody should write a book.
> O'Neil of IBD suggests that when the situation is constant for everything
> else, price will drift slowly down. He calls it a "4 O'clock" drift.
>
All things being equal, they never are.
>
> All of this forms a basis for thinking about "buy and hold" as a strategy.
>
Thinkin's what yur gud at, Butch!
> It becomes very evident that for any stock that has ups and downs, it is
> better to hold on the up and sideline on the down and then buy back in as
> the stock goes up again.
The Master of the Obvious has been elevated to the Poobah of the Obvious.
> Someone here did Cisco and failed to get a result
> that was more profitable than buy and hold.
>
Well, I admitted I didn't try very hard...
> It turns out that the key to this matter is timing.
>
Now the Grand Dragon of the Obvious!!!
> If financial analysts were to choose (6%) a stock to stick with and buy
low
> and sell high (2%) each time the stock moved up then down, then they
would
> have 92% of their effort unused.
I can't imagine Henry Blodgett working less hard than he already has...
>
> It is a good idea to figure out what people think who do not get
commissions
> or fees. The best person to check with is a person who is motivated by
> profits.
>
Why, that would be me, sir!
> My preference is to only own stocks that are increasing in value.
All hail, the Imperial Wizard of the Obvious has spoken!!!
> I believe
> owning a stock that is declining in value causes a loss of valuable time
> when that money could be working for you to make profits. This means I
> would only own Cisco when it is going up in a price trend.
Woulda, coulda, DIDN'T!
> I can always
> sell it when the trend peaks and wait until it starts another trend upward
> after it has fallen for a while. Can own it 8 to 10 times a year and
> average about 3 to 5 points per cycle. Average of 36 points a year on a
> base price of 18 nowadays. As a % it is about 200% a year and it requires
> your money for about 25% of the time so you can use the money elsewhere if
> you wish.
Hmmm, it was going up 200% a year for a while without any trading.
But the challenge has been laid down: give us the strategy to beat
buy and hold for Cisco 1991-1999. You have the great advantage
of working with 20/20 hindsight, so for a man of your Dr. Dewd-like
intellect, it should be simple.
And once again, if you can't do it, I CAN...but then I've read FOUR
books!
---
William Ernest Reid
Bb
Still scares me though.
bb
"Bruno R" <p.ro...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3D0FE9CA...@att.net...
> However, 90% out there
Jack Hershey
> > differences between analysts and corp reports cause greater downside
> shifts
> > than upside shifts for the same difference. So I conclude that it is
more
> > difficult to increase in values than to decrease.
>
> That's why the market sold down to 0 80 years ago and has been
> plowing further negative ever since.
Since the market hasn't been going down, we know that there are several
factors at play. I presented an empirical observation about one
relationship of many. Your conclusion, we all see, is not valid
empirically. For anyone who is learning, one of the most difficult things
to do is to test your personnal learning and then be able to ascertain if
you have something screwed up. In this case the erroneous conclusion is
drawn by connecting dots that must not be connected. If you must make
connections, then you have to see their relative import.
Why does the market continue to go up over spans of time? Why does it go
down for spans of time? You may or may not ever determine these answers.
If you do or if you don't, you get the same financial result from the use of
your time. Neither of these questions are powerful ones for making money.
What you do not know does not have to prevent you from making money. I made
a lot of comments here in an order. The comments are derided for what looks
like a reason that is easy to see. They are comments beneath consideration
by the commentor. These factors and comments for me and for those with whom
I associate are of basic value. They also lead, as you see, to an
orientation that I hope everyone gains. The orientation that emerges below
is to excell in appreciating capital moreso than buy and hold. The first
method that was shown here before was not successful. A conclusion was
drawn from using that method; it was that buy and hold was best by a factor
of 16 times. We also could have concluded that the method offered was not
too good.
This specific method counted occurences of two kinds of simple price
formations. These were triggers for taking action to buy or to sell. What
we learned was that the unknown source of the method was not a skilled
developer of mechanical trading algorithms. Do not conclude that there are
no good mechanical methods. I track about a dozen methods of various sorts.
I also consider what might be the next iterative refinement that could be
made to improve each of them. This is a good way for anyone to spend time
because it helps improve your consciousness of market behavior.
The first 35 books you understand about the markets and investing will allow
you to cull through to an orientation of your own for appreciating capital.
Having an orientation usually leads to a plan for investing. Most plan for
investing include a trading algorithm of some sort.
> > O'Neil of IBD suggests that when the situation is constant for
everything
> > else, price will drift slowly down. He calls it a "4 O'clock" drift.
> > It becomes very evident that for any stock that has ups and downs, it is
> > better to hold on the up and sideline on the down and then buy back in
as
> > the stock goes up again.
>
> > Someone here did Cisco and failed to get a result
> > that was more profitable than buy and hold.
> >
> Well, I admitted I didn't try very hard...
It is good to try hard. Being in a place where you think buy and hold is
the best thing and trying to see if anything else is better, and failing to
do so, means that you have not tried hard to understand buy and hold and you
have not learned a better way than buy and hold. Intellectually, this is
being"stuck" in a place. The choice is to stay stuck or not.
> > It turns out that the key to this matter is timing.
> > It is a good idea to figure out what people think who do not get
> commissions or fees. The best person to check with is a person who is
motivated by
> > profits.
> >
> Why, that would be me, sir!
Tell us how you are considering improving your profits, please. You have
stated below that you can do a great job showing how trading in cycles is
better than buy and hold.
>
> > My preference is to only own stocks that are increasing in value. I
believe
> > owning a stock that is declining in value causes a loss of valuable
time
> > when that money could be working for you to make profits. This means I
> > would only own Cisco when it is going up in a price trend. I can always
> > sell it when the trend peaks and wait until it starts another trend
upward
> > after it has fallen for a while. Can own it 8 to 10 times a year and
> > average about 3 to 5 points per cycle. Average of 36 points a year on a
> > base price of 18 nowadays. As a % it is about 200% a year and it
requires
> > your money for about 25% of the time so you can use the money elsewhere
if
> > you wish.
>
> Hmmm, it was going up 200% a year for a while without any trading.
> But the challenge has been laid down: give us the strategy to beat
> buy and hold for Cisco 1991-1999. You have the great advantage
> of working with 20/20 hindsight
> And once again, if you can't do it, I CAN...but then I've read FOUR
> books!
Well then, here is your chance to give it another shot. I don't do too much
backtesting which is the common way to prove in methods. But it would be
best use same data probably. Do you have a preferred data source that we
could both use? If not, then the trades the stategy produces can be listed
from any data source.
considering buy and hold from 1991 to 1999, you say:
"Cisco rose a 54.40 "points" (you know, "dollars") from a split-adjusted
16 cents in nine years, what some might refer to as a 334-"bagger"."
So the task is to show that by holding Cisco on up cycles, selling on peaks,
and then buying in at the next trough will exceed 334 times the original
capital.
Here s an example:
2002
buy price sell price net % gain compounded gain%
date date
01/ 2 18.9 01/11 20.5 8 8
01/23 18.2 01/28 19.5 7 16
01/30 18.8 02/01 19.5 4 21
02/08 16.6 02/14 17.4 5 27
02/22 14.6 02/26 15.5 6 35
03/01 14.5 03/11 17.4 20 62
03/21 16.5 03/22 16.8 2 65
03/25 16,5 03/26 16.8 2 68
03/27 16.5 04/01 17.5 6 78
missedgap up on 7 May
05/10 15.4 05/2016.9 10 96
So this year so far we are only up 96% in six months.
20.83 was the close price of 2001 and today's close was 14.47 a drop of
6.36. So buy and hold is off a little. About a 30% loss. Most people
follow a stop loss arrangement. to go down from 80 to 15 is not too good an
idea. Cisco is now trading at where it was in 1998. In between it went to
80 or so. There is a timing question that separates this kind of investing
from any other. Buy and hold does not use any timing concepts.
We need to do this for nine years or the number of years it takes to equal
334. this year so far we only have .96 which is less than 1 even. It would
take a 1 to have double our money.
Jack Hershey
> "This means I would only own Cisco when it is going up in a price trend."
>
> PROVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually Cisco is not a particularly useful stock for making money. It's
volume is too high for much price movement. See chapter 4 of O'Neil to
understand why I have the views I do.
There is another post below where I noted the trades for 2002. It would
have made about double in the first 6 months as the price over the period
dropped 30%.
None of this proves anything to you by the way. Your needs are what they
are because of who you are. I have an easier time of it than you do.
zooked
trend."
> >
> > PROVE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Actually Cisco is not a particularly useful stock for making money. It's
> volume is too high for much price movement. See chapter 4 of O'Neil to
> understand why I have the views I do.
Maybe you should go to the library if that is where your reasoning is. Your
statement is about as honest as I saying that I only buy winning loterry
tickets. I can read other books to see where you are coming from. You
could learn from a few too.
> There is another post below where I noted the trades for 2002. It would
> have made about double in the first 6 months as the price over the period
> dropped 30%.
>
> None of this proves anything to you by the way. Your needs are what they
> are because of who you are. I have an easier time of it than you do.
No kidding it does not prove a thing, because you have no proof, as usual.
Of course I am who I am. You have the needs you do because of who you are.
You say "I would only own" and "it would have made about double". You are
now not even hiding the fact that you do not trade. That is a step in the
right direction. A few more weeks of honesty and this newsgroup will be
safe from your fantasies. Should you care to prove your claims are not
complete fabrications please provide some evidence. What is the problem with
some facts? You are still ducking this.
Jack Hershey
Some people are new to investing.
Other work at jobs so they can't monitor the market.
Others like to make lots of money but they hate to make decisions hardly at
all.
There are people who don't have a lot of money to invest and would like to
go for the long haul starting small like with just a few hundred bucks.
Finally there are older people who have had a lot of failures to make money
or even worse they made a lot and have given it back through some reasoning
method they admire.
You espouse the view that I promise whatever and then leave and don't
explain anything.
The possible buy list I sent out for Thursday was FNIS, DRS, AFCE, and ROST.
I received these from others too: ANN, ACDO, and FINL and another group:
Possible point 3:
CTEC PECS TIER SGR AMMD PPD AMHC FLIR RKT GPI NTK
Possible DU:
SKX LNY WHES SHFL
pt3 is when the trendline is set and DU means to volume yesterday was low so
it might be picking up.
I narrate through the day every day so i can suggest what is going on and
also I share my views.
I am really curious as to what a person does who thinks buy and hold is the
way to invest. Can you imagine anyone riding Cisco from over 80 down to 14?
Can you imagine a broker allowing it? Can you imagine a mutual fund doing
anything like that? Who is it that is owning Cisco as it rides into the
ground. The only possible time to own it is when it's going up.
Bill Reid
>
> For anyone who is learning, one of the most difficult things
> to do is to test your personnal learning and then be able to ascertain if
> you have something screwed up.
You are now the Exalted Klegel of the Obvious. Exhalted Klegel of
the Obvious, heal thyself.
The first step is reading comprehension. Clarity of thought leads
to clarity of expression. Little that you say makes sense, but
your first problem is that you can't read.
>
> Why does the market continue to go up over spans of time? Why does it go
> down for spans of time? You may or may not ever determine these answers.
I've got a pretty good handle on it.
> If you do or if you don't, you get the same financial result from the use
of
> your time. Neither of these questions are powerful ones for making money.
>
I know why 7 comes up so much in craps. Knowledge is power.
I have some. You have none.
> What you do not know does not have to prevent you from making money.
IBID. One of my fundamental theorums on the market is that the
observed stochastic upward drift allows even fools to "make money".
A true fool trumpets his luck as talent. Quite simply, I want to
do better. You are no help in that regard.
> We also could have concluded that the method offered was not
> too good.
>
<wasting my time>So for the thousandth frickin' time, why don't
you offer a better method?
> What
> we learned was that the unknown source of the method was not a skilled
> developer of mechanical trading algorithms.
I will aver again that I have better mechanical trading algorithms than
you will ever even dream of. You have NO trading algorithm at all,
as evidenced by your failure to provide it for the thousandth frickin'
time.
> Do not conclude that there are
> no good mechanical methods. I track about a dozen methods of various
sorts.
Reading comprehension redux. I've already stated that I've backtested
literally HUNDREDS of systems on thousands of stocks.
> I also consider what might be the next iterative refinement that could be
> made to improve each of them.
The beauty of computer programming for this lays in iterative looping.
Just loop through dozens of variables for the various strategies and
then you can quickly conclude that...well, what you'll die before
you can even comprehend.
> This is a good way for anyone to spend time
> because it helps improve your consciousness of market behavior.
>
Knock, knock, knockin' on heaven's door...here lays a dumbass
who spent his last days as a Usenet crank.
>
> It is good to try hard.
Particularly better than never trying at all. Try to comprehend this as
I repeat it: I have dozens of systems that beat buy and hold. YOU
DON'T.
> Being in a place where you think buy and hold is
> the best thing and trying to see if anything else is better, and failing
to
> do so, means that you have not tried hard to understand buy and hold and
you
> have not learned a better way than buy and hold.
You are a complete moron.
> Intellectually, this is
> being"stuck" in a place. The choice is to stay stuck or not.
>
Your head is stuck someplace.
> > The best person to check with is a person who is
> motivated by
> > > profits.
> > >
> > Why, that would be me, sir!
>
> Tell us how you are considering improving your profits, please. You have
> stated below that you can do a great job showing how trading in cycles is
> better than buy and hold.
Already showed it, you cretin. READ THE POSTS YOU JERK.
And I asked for a response as to why a system was a winner. Still
waiting. Is thinking about these things hard for you?
Apparently reading comprehension is impossible for you; witnesseth:
> > But the challenge has been laid down: give us the strategy to beat
> > buy and hold for Cisco 1991-1999. You have the great advantage
> > of working with 20/20 hindsight
>
> Well then, here is your chance to give it another shot. I don't do too
much
> backtesting which is the common way to prove in methods. But it would be
> best use same data probably. Do you have a preferred data source that we
> could both use? If not, then the trades the stategy produces can be
listed
> from any data source.
>
Stop prevaricating and get to missing the point.
>
> So the task is to show that by holding Cisco on up cycles, selling on
peaks,
> and then buying in at the next trough will exceed 334 times the original
> capital.
NO THE TASK WAS TO PROVIDE THE STRATEGY YOU
DIMWIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
>
> Here s an example:
> 2002
> buy price sell price net % gain compounded gain%
> date date
> 01/ 2 18.9 01/11 20.5 8 8
> 01/23 18.2 01/28 19.5 7 16
> 01/30 18.8 02/01 19.5 4 21
> 02/08 16.6 02/14 17.4 5 27
> 02/22 14.6 02/26 15.5 6 35
> 03/01 14.5 03/11 17.4 20 62
> 03/21 16.5 03/22 16.8 2 65
> 03/25 16,5 03/26 16.8 2 68
> 03/27 16.5 04/01 17.5 6 78
> missedgap up on 7 May
> 05/10 15.4 05/2016.9 10 96
>
>
> So this year so far we are only up 96% in six months.
>
YOU ARE ACTUALLY STUPIDER THAN DR. DEWD! THERE
I SAID IT, IT'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE, BUT YOU ARE THE
DUMBEST GUY EVER!!!
That's not:
1) 1991-1999
2) A strategy for beating buy and hold during the time period
WHICH IS WHAT I CLEARLY ASKED FOR!!!
You just cherry-picked some fantasy trades for a different time
period, NOT THE "MECHANICAL TRADING ALGORITHM"
YOU KEEP YAMMERING ABOUT!!!
The "losing" system I showed before that actually made a good
profit for SUNW 2000-2002 while the stock fell dramatically
does a decent job of limiting losses in CSCO 2002:
CSCO 2002 - 2002
Instrument rose/fell -3.81 or -21.04%
Number of trading days: 114
Up days: 58, Down days: 56 (50.88% Up days)
Average Daily Percent Change: 2.9758%
Average Up Day Percent Gain: +2.8021%
Average Down Day Percent Loss: -3.1557%
Simple Volume Reversal Strategy:
3 days declining price/volume = buy
2 days rising price/declining volume = sell
Completed 5 trades for profit/loss of -1.18 or -7.59%
Traded 53 days total, average trade lasted 10.60 days
Final account was: 91.60
Account rose/fell -8.40%
Had 3 winning trades, 2 losing trades (60.00% winning trades)
Averaged -1.52% gain/loss per trade
Averaged 3.80% profit per winning trade
Averaged -9.50% loss per losing trade
Reduced 60.06% of losses in 46.49% of days compared to buy-hold
By tweaking the parameters a little, I could actually get a gain.
You on the other hand, have no idea how to create or tune a
"mechanical trading system", even with 20/20 hindsight.
---
William Ernest Reid
Jack Hershey
happened here. Someone brought up Cisco. It is not going to work out as an
example for a variety of reasons. It is not the purpose of anyone here ate
this point to do anything substantive. The discussion was first taking a
look at buy and hold and now it crapped out because alternatives to buy and
hold can't be discussed because there are so many that are better than buy
and hold. I am sure a lot of then exceed anything I could do. They just
aren't going to be on the table. Since this is MIF it is not a priority for
anyone You do not bring up stocks or commodities; it is not your style.
You are the guardian of MIF. You are ridding the group of fakers and
frauds. You make demands to "get" whatever and when you demands are not
met. You have proven your point and revealed a faker or fraud. Case
closed.
Jack Hershey
>
> IBID. One of my fundamental theorums on the market is that the
> observed stochastic upward drift allows even fools to "make money".
> A true fool trumpets his luck as talent. Quite simply, I want to
> do better. You are no help in that regard.
>
> you offer a better method?
>
> literally HUNDREDS of systems on thousands of stocks.
>
> Just loop through dozens of variables for the various strategies and
>
> Particularly better than never trying at all. Try to comprehend this as
> I repeat it: I have dozens of systems that beat buy and hold. YOU
> DON'T.
>
> > > The best person to check with is a person who is
> > motivated by
> > > > profits.
> > > >
> > > Why, that would be me, sir!
>
> Already showed it, you cretin. READ THE POSTS YOU JERK.
>
> And I asked for a response as to why a system was a winner. Still
> waiting. Is thinking about these things hard for you?
>
> Apparently reading comprehension is impossible for you; witnesseth:
.
> >
> Stop prevaricating and get to missing the point.
> >
> > So the task is to show that by holding Cisco on up cycles, selling on
> peaks,
> > and then buying in at the next trough will exceed 334 times the original
> > capital.
>
> NO THE TASK WAS TO PROVIDE THE STRATEGY YOU
> DIMWIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
Well it looks like we have proven that I am stupid and dumb. And I am
unable to transfer to you or anyone a means of doing whatever.
I certainly didn't post here to get beat up by others, especially the
guardians of this forum. People who want to get support from me get it in a
context of cooperation and sharing. I do not need prove anything for
whatever reasons. My stuff does transfer to some people and apparently
there is some kind of criteria out there that makes it unacceptable to
people like you and your kind. That works for me.
FNIS was up about 9% today. It was a textbook stock to anticipate beginning
its up cycle in any kind of market. Two hours to go on market.
Bruno R
posts that "succinctly" outlines your personal trading strategy. I
collected many of your posts in a separate folder hoping to learn how
you do it, but so far it has escaped a simple mind (like mine) to follow
your thread. Sorry about that!
In exchange I'll give you my personal simple trading strategy. I buy,
what I estimate to be a quality stock IMO, when that stock exceeds its
200 day simple moving average. I sell that issue when it closes below
its simple 200 day moving average. So far I determined it to be for me
a profitable strategy since I'm not in any hurry to compound my money.
However, if you care to outline in simple terms what strategy to employ
to make 1.50% per day (and please don't ever mention compounding with
that strategy! ;-) I'd be a happier person, indeed.
Looking forward to see that strategy (without belaboring the obvious!!)
Thank you, Bruno
Profit
<snip>
>You are the guardian of MIF. You are ridding the group of fakers and
> frauds. You make demands to "get" whatever and when you demands are not
> met. You have proven your point and revealed a faker or fraud. Case
> closed.
It is good to see you finally fessing up to it Jack. Now you can turn it
around that it is off your chest.
Profit
>> Well it looks like we have proven that I am stupid and dumb. And I am
> unable to transfer to you or anyone a means of doing whatever.
Look on the bright side. It only took, what, 5 months for this to sink in?
zooked
> whatever reasons. My stuff does transfer to some people and apparently
You do unless you want to be known as someone who's proclaimations cannot be
backed with actual trading statements. If your goal in MIF is to help
people, you could help them a lot more by showing them some real trades you
made along with the proof that you made them. Open a demo account, make 20
trades, and publicize the results before going back into secret mode. A
guy on Don Cameron's website has lost thousands of dollars trying to follow
what you are saying. What do you say to a guy like that? That FNIS is
already up 9% and the market is open for two more hours? Let us say he runs
out and buys FNIS based on your comment, and it drops like a rock. What do
you say then? Or do you gurantee that it is going higher and with an
obvious exit point? Or will you claim you never 'predicted' it would go
higher? I could name 50 stocks that were up 10% with 2 hours left in
trading. What you call harassment I call trying to make people offer some
tiny bit of proof that their advice, that is costing others a fortune, has
one iota of credibility. Do you not understand that you are destroying
people? Why cant more than 20% of people follow you? You must not do work
for the public considering your callous disregard of the common intellect. I
can see it now, "IF THE FIRE EXTINGUISHER DOES NOT WORK INSIDE THE INFERNO,
IT IS BECUASE OF THE PLACE WHERE YOUR MIND IS STUCK. DO NOT BE ALARMED,
ONLY ONE IN FIVE CAN FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS. IF THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE
NOT CLEAR, YOU MUST BE A DEFENDER OF INGITED PEOPLE. I CANNOT HELP YOU.
CASE CLOSED."
zooked
and get one. F is for Fraud hereabouts.
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:oZKP8.62304$uX3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Jack,
>
> Don't you have any self-respect? This zoo-ked fellow dumps on you from
every
> angle, and you reply with additional shoe-licking that is wearing a hole
in
> his leather. He's a moron. Is that what attracts you?
>
> "Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
Jack Hershey
> Before you close this case, Jack, please republish one of your other
> posts that "succinctly" outlines your personal trading strategy. I
> collected many of your posts in a separate folder hoping to learn how
> you do it, but so far it has escaped a simple mind (like mine) to follow
> your thread. Sorry about that!
>
> In exchange I'll give you my personal simple trading strategy. I buy,
> what I estimate to be a quality stock IMO, when that stock exceeds its
> 200 day simple moving average. I sell that issue when it closes below
> its simple 200 day moving average. So far I determined it to be for me
> a profitable strategy since I'm not in any hurry to compound my money.
>
> However, if you care to outline in simple terms what strategy to employ
> to make 1.50% per day (and please don't ever mention compounding with
> that strategy! ;-) I'd be a happier person, indeed.
>
> Looking forward to see that strategy (without belaboring the obvious!!)
>
along with ranks that characterize their volatility in % of price change per
day during their up cycle. The values range from over 7 to less than 3.
Possible buys are selected from the universe after the market close. Their
are many ways to do this according to you interest and effort. One daily
charts do an analysis. The condition you are looking for is describable
this way: the stochastic (5, 3,3) has fallen rapidly to 20% line and is
(will be) turning up: The MACD (5, 13, 6) is on neutral and will be breaking
out up and diverging; the daily volume is at its least ambient level (Dry Up
DU)). I gave and example of a selection on Weds; it was FNIS.
As the market opens, there are many choices of what to do so things can
vary. If you can not monitor the market that is okay. There is a plan for
people who work during the day. If you are able to monitor, use a5 min bar
fractal and watch for the following to occur in a nice degree of detail:
The price will idle along and the volume will be light then begin to
accumulate. The MACD will remain on neutral. As volume accumululates on
your quote sheet and the chart displaying price, volume and the MACD, you
will notice it approach the DU value before 11:00. This means the volume
will be rising well above the DU by the end of the day. About this time the
MACD will breakout upward (BO up) and the price will begin to move up
somewhat (this is the cause of the MACD changing).
You can now buy when this happens. FNIS did this today at 12:00 NYSE time.
If you want to wait to buy as a caution to wait for more proof, then wait
until the channel of the new up trend is defined by three points. Point 1
is the start of the price rise as shown in the initial paragraph of
monitoring. If you are ate work you miss this but you see it at the end of
the day and place a buy order the next morning. because the trend takes
several days and you simply miss the lit off.
Point 2 is next; it is the first mini peak that forms as the first minor
retrace begins. FNIS did this at 1pm today. Next is point 3 which is the
end of the retrace. (For FNIS the retrace was strong meaning it did not dip
too much but moved laterally to collect itself. This ended at 2 pm. Stocks
do not move smoothly in a straight line they from channels of oscillations.
Now you have 3 points and you graphically set up the channel. connect
points 1 and 3 for the upward slope. draw the other side of the channel as a
parallel line through point 2. If you work and have to do this at the end
of the day, then you have sufficient data to know a trend has begun. Buy the
next am by calling your broker. At this time also begin to use a stop by
using a suitable parallel line offset properly from the right channel trend
line.
For strong new trends steps upward occur. FNIS has such a strong upward
trend. It closed up 10.71% today. I regard this as a good beginning.
To continue to own FNIS for about 6 to 8 days perhaps you look at it daily
or monitor it on a 30 min bar chart. You "hold" for as long as the volume
gets larger daily and as long as the MACD stays "away" above neutral. As
the trend ends, the volume lessens, then the price peaks, and then the MACD
peaks and begins it travel to the neutral.
Most people do not hold a stock until the trend is over. They usually leave
early when the stock falls through the trendline to some extent. I
recommend that this momentary lessening of profits be used as a new point 3
and just continue as before. This event is caused by people who "take
profits prematurely". O'Neil lists this as common mistake #12 in his 18
most common of Chapter 20 of his book.
That is it in a nutshell. The 'natural " cycle of 6 to 8 days can easily
net you 10%. For FNIS it did in one day. What is nice about this example
is that I posted it a day ahead of time. That is when the stock is found
for you as a possible buy. Then the next market day you just go through the
process of the timing. the natural cycle is a short term thing.
The intermediate term process is a way that is equally rewarding. HOV is an
example we are currently using. It is up 400% since NOV (no pun). But you
see this is something that is much less labor intensive so it is not as good
as the "natural" cycle compounding approach. These stock selections I call
"rockets" because they just roll along so well that bad market conditions
do not affect them.
To find a rocket you only have to have your quality universe (they are very
high quality stocks with EPS and RS at 80 to 90 percentiles each. The only
indicator that is significant is the Stochastic (5,3,3). What you look for
on your daily charts are the stochastic rising deliberately to the 80% line
and overshooting it and then critically damping on the line; perturbations
will cause it to look entwined on the line. There you have it. To nail
down 400 % in eight months fits you 1.5% a day category I believe. Here is
a list of five of these you can use as practice examples: (alphabetically
with rank in ( ))CVH (2.6), DRS (3,82), FDP (2.4), HOV ( 4.23), SIE 6.08).
Rockets kind of make the current condition of the market slightly humorous.
I have about 180 stocks in the universe now. A team of people from around
the world up date it weekly. They also do a daily scan (maths are used) for
possible buys (that's where FINS came from). The universe is redone weekly
on the weekend. E mail me for a copy.
It has many columns of data for setting stops, all the different volumes
like DUE, FRB and peaking and it has ranks, the days of the hold period and
the over all expected % gain for targeting exits, etc. there is a whole
page of data for each stock that shows all the assessment done using my
approach. This is a team effort of many people to share labor.
They are also writing all of it up as a document to be used by newcomers. We
have gone slow on commodities but I do spent time daily for six hours
narrating the market. All the narration is saved and condensed to just keep
the good examples.
Thanks for posting. It is a nice diversion from the silly types like the z
and b twins where I have to laboriously let them divulge their limitations
and hang ups at my expense. I think they have just about buried themselves.
Have fun finding some more rockets.
I am going to do for commodities "The Alternative" to Rick's and Dales stuff
before the year is out.
Jack Hershey
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
Jack Hershey
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
I really think this guy is hilarious and I am so glad you take him
seriously. Do you know the common name for his reasoning processes?
>
>
HankC
> A
>guy on Don Cameron's website has lost thousands of dollars trying to follow
>what you are saying. What do you say to a guy like that?
I'd say, "You're an idiot."
> that is costing others a fortune, has
Again, anyone trading on usenet advice is an idiot. If they weren't
being taken here, they'd be taken by Cook, Roberts, or some other
charleton.
I haven't been reading M.I.T. very long but it's already obvious that
this Hershey guy is no financial maven to base investing decisions on.
No offense intended to Hershey or anyone else here but for cripes
sake, this is usenet. Take what you read with a grain of salt.
BTW, why do you guys crosspost everything to every misc.invest.*
group?
Profit
>
> I am going to do for commodities "The Alternative" to Rick's and Dales
stuff
> before the year is out.
We can't wait. Well, actually, we have been waiting...and waiting...and
waiting. So I guess we can wait.
BTW, I came across a Decoder Ring that I think will help in communicating
with Jack.
Here goes.
Jack,
Looking at the fractal highwire for linear oppressive analysis from a 33
degree angle do you see the filiment burning hotter than usual affecting the
MACD inflection beyond ribbon manufacturing? I suppose in order of growth
potential divided by the third power of the 'Alternative' you offer that
stops are based on the weight of several units of measure, all equal but
different in most ways. Do you sense that applied directly to the moving
average of 14 prior days of highs and lows that this could be added to your
Matrix and the results dependent on outside influences such as the Butterfly
Affect? Would such affect deviate from the norm of the fractal horizon when
seen vertically against a blue chart wall? If enough volume is applied
indirectly to the front of the data set, could it result possibly in
overcooked results that produce a long string of integers useful for your
trading band?
We look forward to your consideration of this matter Jack Hershey.
;)
Profit
You are already known as an idiot of sorts. Why does it matter if he answers
your request or not?
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:gUxQ8.7447$t%5.38...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
zooked
You only make yourself look stupid. I could say you are known as a child
molester of sorts, and be as accurate as you are, perhaps more.
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:1aAQ8.93147$ks6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
zooked
hell of a fire. Instead he will just wipe out a few people here. "I only
wanted to be a hero", I can hear it now.
"Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:9uyQ8.30665$Ok1.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
Jack Hershey
future. You have the stop settings offset before you enter trade.
Doing the assessment to get all the info on the Universe data sheet is a
team effort. everyone who wishes can use it continually as a recourse.
Profit
You not only lack intelligence and proper graces, you are also sick minded.
Do not even joke about such things as child molestation. As a father of a
6-yr old daughter, I'm angered by those who would exploit these innocents,
or use the subject as a form of insult.
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:8LFQ8.7472$t%5.38...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Agapito Martinez
> .
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
> market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
> it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
>
> Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
> to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
> to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
My 2 cts. worth: Markets are unpredictable in the short term (say 5
yrs. or less), no matter what any guru says. In the longer term (say
10 yrs or more)it has generally (but not always) risen, and in the
very long run stock markets have returned about 11% average annually,
through wars, depressions, etc. Now, if you will need your money
within 10 yrs., stay out altogether. Otherwise, choose a good
broad-based index fund (there are several), and cost-average into it
by investing a fixed $ amount every week or month. Then forget about
it. Over time, this strategy has been shown to be the one that works
best, the problem is that it's boring, and doesn't give you instant
gratification.
As to your 100 to 50 to 100 comment, it reflects a widespread lack of
knowledge about how markets work. They don't go from 100 to 50
instantaneously, they compound at a certain rate to get there. If you
do the math for any large number of periods, you'll find that the rate
of increase is identical to the rate of decrease.
Hope this helps.
Dale Legan
police record.
It is not a something to joke about.
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:8FJQ8.5252$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Profit
I think you may wish to clarify this 'police record' statement so that the
MIF croonies don't turn it into something it isn't. Since you volunteered
this information, you may wish to clarify because it may sound like
something you did not mean it to.
Were you accused of molestation that you did not do, or did you mean that
you thumped the perv for his actions and was arrested for assault?
"Dale Legan" <Dale...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VeOQ8.40882$9b.74...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
zooked
"Profit" <nos...@thank.you> wrote in message
news:8FJQ8.5252$5k6....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
David Wilkinson
Martinez <agapi...@aol.com> writes>news:<ef920214.0206160431.6
>928...@posting.google.com>...
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> It seems unfair. All those books say just diversify and wait and the
>> market overall must go up. You might just have to wait. But suppose
>> it follows all that and the wait is ten years and then it goes up?
>>
>> Also, if the averages go down, you have to go up a greater percentage
>> to come out even. 100 down to 50 is a 50 percent drop, but to go back
>> to 100 is 100 percent increase. How does that figure in?
>
>My 2 cts. worth: Markets are unpredictable in the short term (say 5
>yrs. or less), no matter what any guru says. In the longer term (say
>10 yrs or more)it has generally (but not always) risen, and in the
>very long run stock markets have returned about 11% average annually,
>through wars, depressions, etc. Now, if you will need your money
>within 10 yrs., stay out altogether. Otherwise, choose a good
>broad-based index fund (there are several), and cost-average into it
>by investing a fixed $ amount every week or month. Then forget about
>it. Over time, this strategy has been shown to be the one that works
>best, the problem is that it's boring, and doesn't give you instant
>gratification.
>
>As to your 100 to 50 to 100 comment, it reflects a widespread lack of
>knowledge about how markets work. They don't go from 100 to 50
>instantaneously, they compound at a certain rate to get there. If you
>do the math for any large number of periods, you'll find that the rate
>of increase is identical to the rate of decrease.
>
>Hope this helps.
Not really. My 2ps worth instead. Look at the graph of the S&P500 since
1945 on page 70 of O'Neil's "How to make money in stocks" or, probably,
on the net somewhere. In 1945 the Index was 15 and in 1994 it was 450.
This gives an annual gain of 7.2% over 49 years. There is no allowance
for inflation, dividends, costs or taxes in this. You could probably
have made 4 or 5% in a bank account without risk over the same period so
it is not that good anyway as an average.
The point is that although this was the average it was rarely found in
any given year. Instead there were four main periods:
1) 1945-1949: "Static" market. Index from 15 to 15, zero gain.
2) 1949-1969: Bull market. Index from 15 to 100 for 10% gain p.a.
3) 1969-1982: "Static" market. Index from 100 to 110 for 0.7% gain p.a.
4) 1982-1994: Bull market. Index from 110 to 450 for 12.5% gain p.a.
Of course we know the 1982-1994 bull market went on until about 2000
before changing to what now seems to be another "Static" market. Also
the first "Static" market above dated from well before 1945.
The message is that far from getting the average every year the gain is
almost bimodal, either zero for long periods or 10 to 12% for long
periods. If you go back to the first graph in the book showing an
estimated index from 1788 onwards there are 5 alternating "Static"
markets and Bull markets. The bull markets lasted 22, 27, 25, 16 and 18
years or 108 years total over the last 200 years. This leave 92 years
for the 5 "Static" markets or 18 years each.
If the market follows historical precedent then we could be in the early
stages of the next 18 year (approx) "Static" market.
Although the "Static" markets had no overall rise they were far from
static in fact and included the great depression and the 1973/74 crash.
Although Buy and Hold, (or Buy and Hope!) would have been a dead loss in
these periods there was plenty of scope for market timing with big
swings up and down in prices.
DCA is a modest first step towards market timing and is slightly better
than B&H but could still leave you with a loss after 15 years, say. The
real object is to be in the market when it goes up and out and making
interest when it goes down, like now. Or, you could get about 7 to 7.5%
before tax by making additional payments off a mortgage, if you have
one. and without risk.
--
David Wilkinson
Arne Reil
Arne, CT, USA
.
============
.
"zooked" <zook...@d.com> wrote in message
news:ysRQ8.7888$t%5.39...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
bb
yrs ago, and them continue the bull market for another 5-6 yrs.
Would'nt now be the time to start looking for stocks with strong management
& fundamentals?
You would get an extra few years of "bull market".
bb
"David Wilkinson" <da...@quarksoft.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
Agapito Martinez
> Not really. My 2ps worth instead. Look at the graph of the S&P500 since
> 1945 on page 70 of O'Neil's "How to make money in stocks" or, probably,
> on the net somewhere. In 1945 the Index was 15 and in 1994 it was 450.
> This gives an annual gain of 7.2% over 49 years. There is no allowance
> for inflation, dividends, costs or taxes in this. You could probably
> have made 4 or 5% in a bank account without risk over the same period so
> it is not that good anyway as an average.
We may be talking about the same thing. Dividends in the early days
were quite high, and obviously they must be included in a calculation
of total return. With dividends at 3 - 4% we come up with about 11%
total return for the period
>
> The point is that although this was the average it was rarely found in
> any given year. Instead there were four main periods:
>
> 1) 1945-1949: "Static" market. Index from 15 to 15, zero gain.
>
> 2) 1949-1969: Bull market. Index from 15 to 100 for 10% gain p.a.
>
> 3) 1969-1982: "Static" market. Index from 100 to 110 for 0.7% gain p.a.
>
> 4) 1982-1994: Bull market. Index from 110 to 450 for 12.5% gain p.a.
>
> Of course we know the 1982-1994 bull market went on until about 2000
> before changing to what now seems to be another "Static" market. Also
> the first "Static" market above dated from well before 1945.
>
> The message is that far from getting the average every year the gain is
> almost bimodal, either zero for long periods or 10 to 12% for long
> periods. If you go back to the first graph in the book showing an
> estimated index from 1788 onwards there are 5 alternating "Static"
> markets and Bull markets. The bull markets lasted 22, 27, 25, 16 and 18
> years or 108 years total over the last 200 years. This leave 92 years
> for the 5 "Static" markets or 18 years each.
Markets clearly operate in "spurts" with periods of "overperformance"
offsetting periods of "underperformance" to produce the noted
long-term average. I believe if you calculate the expected returns
from random starting points you will find that in a very high
proportion of cases the return will average to 10% or better within 10
years. Of course there is no guarantees and you will certainly will
have to wait considerably longer than that to produce any profit at
all. Do you agree then, that if your funds will be needed within 5
yrs. you should stay out of it altogether?