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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (43599)	7/29/2011 6:54:04 AM
From: badi_	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 78471

I don't see that no one would invest in 210 positions, personally I would invest in no less than 150 stocks, and to make a good coverage of the opportunities I may exceed 200. And what 21 stocks are you talking about ? The stats you read are for the entire list of 210. To explain what may not be clear for you, I made the picks in April 2010, I added a number of them to the portfolio on the market simulator around June 2010, because of the miscalculations on the market simulator I thought the 60 stocks portfolio experienced a Black Swan and that it was enough to prove my strategy, as it has been cleared on this forum it was just a miscalculation and the 60 stocks were not actually a success. The main reasons why I didn't add the entire list to a simulation portfolio is because it was a lot of work, and I didn't want to share with the public the full list that summarizes my entire work. So I opened the file that included my entire list and did the calculations by myself. I know you see no evidence that I did really make the said picks on the said period, but I have the verifiable evidence which is the property of the text file that says "Last modified on 04-15-2010". I am not talking about any weighting, normative method, I think I am very well aware of the limitations of normative calculation methods. If I did not publish the file it doesn't mean it is not true, here is a VERIFIABLE fact: I picked 210 companies in April-2010. If all was held it would have made over +350%, if the stocks that doubled were sold at their highest levels the overall growth would be +2900%. I have the text file that was not edited any time after 15-Apr-2010, which includes ONLY the 210 companies. I also have an Excel spreadsheet I made yesterday which supports the calculations. And I can't believe how many times I must answer this question: I do not predict Black Swans! Nobody can! They are unpredictable by definition. The strategy is about increasing your investments' exposure to big unexpected growth, aka Positive Black Swans. A portfolio that would make x29 in 15 months is a Black Swan! The portfolio satisfies all three conditions to be a Black Swan: 1. Unpredictable: all the companies were in the shadows and they stayed with their cheap prices until what nobody expected happened; depending on each company there was unexpected good data published and the after-effect investors started buying to drive the prices up. 2. Carries massive consequences: it is the big growth, which is theoretically unlimited or with no known limits; the said results were in only 15 months, with a number of stocks trending right now and none of us knows how far they will keep on going, or will they start their downtrend, despite what many traders might think, nobody knows what is going to happen. 3. After the event people start to make sense of what happened even though there is no sense to make: now investors look at the successful companies and they'll make their conclusions about what "factors of success" made it happen, or what is "the lesson to learn". There are no factors of success and no lessons to learn, it was all unexpected. I am very happy with my results, what is sad is that I had no money to invest, and it was not applied to anybody's investments.