Hi Dave and everyone, I have pretty much finished my study of splitting SAFE with no resistance to Selling other than "vealies" and setting all the resistance on the Buy side of SAFE.
Using long term stock and fund histories, it's interesting to note that they aren't too far apart, but that this idea isn't as good on very long term accounts. Although it conserves cash a bit at the beginning of each buy cycle, it still managed to exhaust cash overall when things got ugly. The only way I could get equal results was to start the simulations with slightly more invested and less cash reserves. Of course this was my goal in the first place.
I figured that by keeping the resistance to Buying higher than selling, I could use less total cash reserve and therefore achieve better results. This has not proved to be the case on the stocks and funds I tested with history starting in 1982. It is because AIM set up this way doesn't take as big of an advantage of the tiny dips along the way. It still does just fine when the chips are down for several months in a row, but just doesn't nibble on those juicy little morsels that appear from time to time. Those morsels, when combined over an 18 year period added up to a full course meal! Sort of like adding one pad of butter per day to your diet, eventually, if everything else stays the same, it adds up!!
So, the way I've suggested the Split Safe and "vealies" be used at the AIM pages stands as the overall winner. My attempt to conserve cash and therefore reduce risk resulted in exactly what I should have guessed - reduced risk, reduced reward. Hope I've not misled anyone here to the point that they have to undue lots of work, but that seems to be the way it works out. Thanks for your patience on this project.
Best regards, Tom |
