Boho
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Messages
- 1,844
Thanks.
I thought you figured you'd outperform in a down market? The total market B&H (nunnun) is down -3.69% in FEB, you were down more, -3.90%.
You went from about 15% behind the market a few months back, to 18% behind the market currently. Are you learning anything?
I'm still somewhat surprised that we continue to see about 70% of the pickers behind the Total Market. Blindfolded, dart throwing monkeys would be expected to do better on average.
-ERD50
what is in the rest of your portfolio at this point?
I don't think I've been this fully invested before, as of a couple of days ago. One benefit of how I traded was that in a down market I had a lot of cash. That wasn't the case in the end of February when the market took a hit. And I stopped trading since buying NLSN. Too much invested, too crazy a market. I hope to get back to frequent trading again before too long.
I still fail to see anything in what you say or have said that could be thought of as any sort of a cohesive strategy/plan.
Are you really serious about this? It just seems like a random bunch of "throw stuff against a wall and see what (if anything) sticks". And it shows in the results.
"One benefit of how I traded..."? What? There is no benefit - your trading objectively stinks!
-ERD50
It just seems like a random bunch of "throw stuff against a wall and see what (if anything) sticks".
What I consider when looking at those stocks would be slightly complicated if I tried explaining it in exact terms.
No need. Results will speak for themselves.
89% success rate with hundreds of trades in a bull market. I'll leave it to you to decide whether being down is a fluke or preventable in the future. I've decided yes.
... What I consider when looking at those stocks would be slightly complicated if I tried explaining it in exact terms.
It was way low for the year ( http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?$SPX,$INDU,nlsn ) and I read Nielsen Announces Data And Technology Deal With IPG Mediabrandsâ (which I took as good news). It had dropped a lot recently (in addition to throughout the year) and I normally try to research why but I don't remember if I did. Turns out it's undervalued but I don't remember if I cared (about analyst opinions - I formed my own).
It also got a neutral "Equity Summary Score" which I usually look at. It probably doesn't reflect news from within the hour so I consider the score lower than it should be when I read good company news.
An 89% success rate on trades means nothing if you keep losing on average weighting. You can play roulette and cover all even/odd or all red/black and you will have a 94.7% success rate... and lose money on average.
Fermion is winning that contest with BOTH of those players.Maybe we should make the next contest more challenging and call it "Try End Up Below Boho in the Ranking" .
They say value investors do better than broad index investors over a period of decades. ...
... You don't even understand what I'm doing or why I lost big on a few stocks despite my explanations. If you did you may see some potential for a successful strategy.
Got a link to a credible study on that? "They say" isn't very compelling.
Trying to redefine "success" is a sure sign of failure!
...
Don't bother. Why would I want the details of a losing system? I only ask in the hopes a light might come on for you.
Value Investing Under Siege For More Than A Decade
"For the last 10 years, growth has significantly outperformed value. Yet long-term data show that value eventually outperforms. For example, in Rethinking Conventional Wisdom: Why Not a Value Bias?, Research Affiliates looks at data from 1962 to 2015 and shows that a "value" portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 by 1.8% annualized over that full period...value-investing works - it outperforms, but it comes at a cost: years of underperformance relative to an index (e.g. the S&P 500) and other styles (e.g. growth). Value investing requires a long (sometimes very long) time horizon."
Arnott, Hsu, and Moore suggest an innovative fix. Rather than decapitate the cap-weighted universe, they "shape it up" by including the 1,000 largest companies, then weight them according to their "economic footprint," as measured by parameters such as aggregate earnings, sales, book value, dividends, and employees.
Value Investing Under Siege For More Than A Decade
"For the last 10 years, growth has significantly outperformed value. Yet long-term data show that value eventually outperforms. For example, in Rethinking Conventional Wisdom: Why Not a Value Bias?, Research Affiliates looks at data from 1962 to 2015 and shows that a "value" portfolio outperformed the S&P 500 by 1.8% annualized over that full period...value-investing works - it outperforms, but it comes at a cost: years of underperformance relative to an index (e.g. the S&P 500) and other styles (e.g. growth). Value investing requires a long (sometimes very long) time horizon."
I didn't mean that I'm a value investor. Just that it's a known strategy and it takes a long time to pay off so needing over a year doesn't indicate failure. I try to buy low, "on dips," which I define as...well, I don't define it because it's hard and it's a bit of a secret that you people don't care about anyway, but value ratings are sometimes one consideration.
If your method worked, it should be working. It's not.
-ERD50
But you aren't holding stocks for long, right? You try to identify a drop, and turn for a quick run up after the drop, right?
That's fine, and it absolutely can work - after a fashion. The problem is that a bunch of small gains are wiped out by the occasional dog. This is exactly what you have experienced, from what I've gathered. From sengsational's table...biggest gain was ANW $25K 4%, biggest loss was RAD $-163K -26%. One loser wipes out almost 7 of your best winners.