Ive opened this thread so robusta's thread doesn't become side tracked and any other thread where
someone has something to say that the thread may become derailed-- because of its discussion.Perhaps they could be discussed
in full here with reference to the thread in question.
Maybe Joe can make it sticky in an appropriate place.
So in the interests of clarity with regard to my comments on Robusta's thread.
It was a coupling of Post 621 and Post 6 here that had me scratching my head.
Why on earth would someone buy a stock from a comment 6 mths ago
which has fallen a further 30%
Not only that but a well respected member Bought and Sold at a 10%
(Plus a div)
profit yet bought again and still holds with around a 60% loss.
Not only that but is about to avaerage down "heavily"
Sorry but I cant sit by and just let that sort of trading go without comment.
"free trade its not--that profit is YOURS--its your capital. That sort of mentality is like the
Pokie player who thinks he's playing with house winnings---he's not its HIS MONEY. Take it and RUN!
Its the only game in town...and the new players at the table are Asians.The next bull wont be exactly the same...but to suggest that there will never be another bull, that the world will never be awash with money looking for a home, that people wont get rich by borrowing money to buy stuff in order to sell it to someone else who has borrowed more money.
Clearly So Cynical believes that every stock will rise from the depths
This is just crazy and very dangerous thinking! People actually believe this!
Then the thread became entangled in semantics.
Clearly the Fund did really well when it performed 30-29.6% saw the fund rise
and its share price to new heights.
Since then under performance has been reflected in price. Its fallen another 10% in the last few days!
Ive pointed this out by saying anything will perform in a bull market just as this will.
All I can see is a punt
With no thought or planning to risk management let alone portfolio management--In Robustas thread
(Another topic one he should consider).
No mention about How I would trade it or indeed anything at all on technical analysis---not by me!The basic thesis for this one is, they are growth value investors focusing on small to mid caps who have unsurprisingly had sub par returns recently with a resultant shrinkage of funds under management. I am confident the returns will improve (they are up a bit over 11% this financial year) and the FUM will start flowing back in. Many investors in managed funds follow the most recent high performers while selling poor performers even if they have a long history of good returns - a bit like sheep really.
Just my view that I cant see why anyone would be in this---I dont rate the reasons given nor the methodology of investment.
Surely Im as entitled to air those views as those who have invested in HHL are????
To Mc Lovins "Value investor" Comments.
While "Value Investor--method" can have various ways of implication Attempting to purchase under Book value is generally accepted as Criteria.
You are correct my use of the term value in my posts is completely incorrect when relating to a value investor.There is no evidence of Value investor analysis.
However I have seen on many occasions reference to "Great Value at this price" Not specifically HHL---but in those terms correct in the context of whats been placed in the HHL thread. Its seen as cheap--cheap enough to "Average down Heavily" --- I believe So Cynical said.
Thats exactly what Im saying---and if at times that means day trading then yes absolutely.He's simply asking a question on Techs seriousness with retirees solution to learn to trade in shares in order to get ahead.
I find that a rather bizarre statement.
It would be good for the market but seriously how many of those advised to trade shares with their retirement money will lose more than they gain? Unless you've had years of experience which most retirees dont have. Bad advise imo.
Why shouldnt people learn how to control their future financially.
A well trained investor/trader should have no trouble picking up (On average ) $1000 a week from $200-250K
trading shorter term---if they know what they are doing.What retiree would mind that? (Thats only 20-25%)
Not soTechnical analysis and systems to exploit the results of that analysis with consistent results takes years to accomplish - if ever - some people never achieve a consistent system. I've been doing technical analysis for a while now and I'm still learning and will probably do so until they put me in the ground. What may work and be extremely successful for one person may fail abysmally for the next person.
If you have tested and know the results of a method then you/I or 10 others trade it
then results fall within the Range of the high and low mean averages found in testing.
But if your a discretionary Technical trader with no idea of your methods profitability
then your no better than any trader with an idea and no proven result from testing--either forward or backward tested.
A sample size of 100 trades isn't a statistically reliable test period either.
There are people who are achieving this with clients funds. They also have the ability for the client to control their trades directly with the broker.
So to the Troll label from CRAFT.
I see some really stupid trading.
Take a look at RED thread
Take a look at PEN thread.
In each Ive been called all sorts of things.
but the point is the way some in these threads trade has to be questioned and singled out.
To watch a stock fall from 16c to 2.8c and espouse how brilliant things are is just plain
stupidity in any language--fundamental/technical or Logical!
If I see it Ill comment.
If you think Im picking on something--I am.
You dont have to agree
You can ignore my posts.
What I will do though in future is be more explicit in my reasoning towards my comments
I will only be posting occasionally so no need to get your knickers in a knot!.