Some people say, "I can't sell that stock because I'd be taking a loss." If the stock is below the price you paid for it, selling doesn't give you a loss; you already have it - William O'Neill.
It's nice to see somebody else speak your language. I was reading this week's BRW and there was an interview (pg.78-82) with a hedge fund manager named Karl Siegling. Below are some of the things he had to say about the way he trades. His fund's gross return is up 75.98% over the last 15 months (inception) and about 32% for the last 6 months for Australian shares.
"A falling share price is not a buying opportunity, but a clear warning from the market that something is wrong. Repeated new highs for a stock are not evidence of a missed opportunity or an overpriced company, but rather an invitation to buy more shares."
"I believe that there is no sense, no matter how compelling our fundamental belief may be, in buying into a stock as it is falling in value."
"I believe that the words "contrarian investor" are often used out of context, and that a contrarian strategy of constantly buying and adding to a falling position and constantly selling or shorting a rising market leads an inexperienced investor into making costly mistakes."
"The market can be irrational and sell down a stock for no reason - no reason based on the fundamentals of a business. But it's not for us to say when the market will stop being irrational."
"I will buy shares at, for example, $1, then $1.10, and then $1.12, but if I have just paid $1.12 for a stock then I will not pay $1.10 if the price falls a few days later. That's because I like buying shares that are going up."
So do I, Karl!
Based on these sounds principles, his strong performance comes as no surprise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm enjoying following your blog. Very interesting article, he sure has performed nicely. I'm currently working on my own weekly system, but it sure didn't perform that well in the last 6 months. How would yours of performed if you started 6 months ago?
Hi buggalug,
Since your system is run on a weekly timeframe, I wouldn't expect it to have performed well in ANY 6-month period. That's because the average winning trade, at least for my system, is 6 or 7 months, with the real champion trades running for much longer.
The first 12 months are generally difficult for longterm systems as the trades closed first are the losers. I don't expect much in way of closed profits the first 12 months. In backtesting I often got single digits either positive or negative for the first year.
That said, I would expect some nice open profits at this stage.
But, as requested, I have run my system the last 6 months, from 01-04-2007 until 30-09-2007 and i instructed tradeSim to close all trades on the last day (so open profits are closed).
The results (with trade ranking by price & no slippage)
# trades: 40 (25 full and 15 partial).
10 winners: 40%
15 losers: 60%
Profit factor: 1.5544
MaxDd: 4.77%
Monte carlo analysis of 10,000 runs (with slippage) shows average return of 3.31% with 68% of runs being profitable and 7.43% max.DD.
Hardly staggering.
(Note that the market was hugely volatile during this time with the return on XAO almost bang on 0%)
The average trade time for a winner here in the single simulation above is 85 days and 66 days for a loser. In longer term testing periods, the average trade length for a winner is about 200 days with 60-70 days for a loser. Profit factor increases with longer holding times for winners. That's why you can't expect longterm systems to show a profit over a short time frame. They weren't designed to make money in the short term!
Thanks for dropping by.
Nizar.
Hi Nizar,
Thanks for the reply. My system gives very similar numbers, we'd probably find our systems are pretty similar.
Good luck with your trades.
Post a Comment