Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : A.I.M Users Group Bulletin Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aptus who wrote (15490)	4/3/2001 8:37:52 AM
From: Bernie Goldberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18928

Hi Mark, That's a very good analogy. Bernie

To: aptus who wrote (15490)	4/3/2001 12:12:39 PM
From: OldAIMGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18928

Hi Mark, PP 42, HTM$1MMITSM-A; "It is possible to construct a mathematically perfect investment formula. We have done so - many times. And when we applied this formula to a stock that soars up, plunges, and then recovers to its original price, we have discovered to our dismay that we have achieved a mathematically perfect profit of 10% or so. Better than nothing, but nothing to get excited about. The major flaw here is that our mathematically perfect formula sells stock exactly when it has a profit and buys exactly when it has a loss..... Our $15 stock crashes to $4 and at the next price of $5 our mathematically perfect formula is in there yelling, "Sell, Sell, Sell!" "That, we repeat for the final time, is no way to get rich." - R. Lichello This is the problem I see in the Deep Diver discussions and any discussion that involved starting AIM with a Portfolio Control that's been lowered from one's original costs. So, it comes down to a matter of "when" the initial losses are recognized, not "if." AIM becomes a "salvage" method instead of a "profit" model. I've not asked anyone to change Mr. Lichello's AIM here, I've asked them to own up to reality and use AIM as Mr. L suggested. It's not sooped up, it's BTB. If reducing Portfolio Control is such a good idea, then why don't we all reduce Portfolio Control on all our holdings now that the market's handed our butts back to us all bruised? Heck, on some really deep divers, we could be trading for losses for years before we even get back to break-even. Like Mr. L says, that's no way to get rich. It will benefit the brokers with incurred trading costs. It will store away some capital losses for future use. If this makes the user "feel better" psychologically by ignoring previous losses, that's fine. I don't need that crutch. Why not just let AIM average down like it would have if we'd started AIM at the beginning? If we don't sell any shares for 6 months have we lost something? Have we incurred losses? Have we incurred any real costs? Nope, other than "lost opportunity" which is more difficult to calculate and less honest than the U.S. National Budget "Surplus." I'm afraid this discussion has become way out of hand. I suggest that everyone involved re-read Mr. Lichello's book. Best regards, Tom