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: Bernie Goldberg who wrote (17065)	10/12/2001 10:58:15 AM
From: rgammon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18931

Bernie, The Morningstar graph stinks. It only shows percent performance YTD, for NAV, Market Price, and Group. I want to see absolute values, and to vary the size of the graph and the time period covered. This graph is not useful other than for the most general of comparisons. No technical analysis can be performed using this graphic. I did model the standard Lichello cycle using the AimBareS.XLS sheet from Tom's web site. My model went thru 5 complete sinusoids of the cycle from different starting points. One started at 8 and went to 10, then continued until 5 complete cycles were there. The other test started at 5, went to 4, then continued until 5 complete cycles were there. Here are the ending results and observations. Start Shares Cash PC PV 8 8589 37,876 59,084 106,588 5 8614 35,227 54,138 78,297 Both models started with $25K, 50:50 split between stock and cash. The 8 start went very nearly fully invested with the low point being just below $5k in cash. The 5 start never got below $10K in cash. What conclusions can we draw from this? Well the high start (Mkt Price > NAV) has a higher PV, stays more fully invested, and is worth 25% more than the low start. This is the Lichello model, and we have yet to find a stock or fund that conforms to the model. After this, I stand by my assertion that it is MORE important to be correct in our stock/CEF/MF selection process for our AIM instruments than it is to pick an entry price. I realize that Bernie is focused on the income that ACG (and perhaps other CEFs) generate for him, and AIM is very much secondary to that. I tend to treat CEFs like any other AIM investment, that is, it has to stand alone and be compared by the AIM activity it generates. To repeat, I focus on AIM, Bernie appears to focus on INCOME. Robert