Could it be this easy?

[Saltynuts]

I was thinking about how I tend to try and buy stocks "on sale" and how I bet if I went back and calculated every time I did that I bet my results would suck. So, why not do the opposite?

What about an investment/trading (whatever you want to call it) strategy, where you start with [30] stocks. They could be purely random, or you could have some criteria. Whatever. But once you buy your [30] stocks, once every [week] you sell your [5] biggest losers/least winners and replace them with [5] new stocks (random or that also meet your initial criteria, whatever). You keep that up forever and ever.

Does that portfolio make one a ton of money over time? Sell the losers, let the winners ride baby!!!!

 

[Specterx]

You'd probably get eaten alive on comms, trading costs and taxes.

 

[tiddlywinks]

A dart throwing monkey and a dog of the dow gives birth to a mutant!

 

[merdontv]

1. why 30 or not 34?
2. why 5 or not 8?
3. how many do your ready to lose money in 5 tickers, 1 ticker?
4. do you have historical back test?
5. why is it not mirage?

 

[Nobert]

A dart throwing monkey and a dog of the dow gives birth to a mutant!

lol.

Reminds of the dog cage scene from the 1982 ,,The Thing''

@Saltynuts , - you're wondering in the mist.
Learn fundamentals. Make sure that those 30 are a great picks. That would be quite a start.

 

[Saltynuts]

You'd probably get eaten alive on comms, trading costs and taxes.

Commissions/trading costs are almost nothing. I think they can literally be nothing if you are using Robinhood or IB light or other free shops. Taxes can be a bunch, but since you are selling your losers and letting your winners run you will be showing tax losses or small gains, at least early on. But yes, taxes are a concern with this or any other strategy that doesn't involve buy and hold until you die.

 

[Saltynuts]

A dart throwing monkey and a dog of the dow gives birth to a mutant!

LOLOL!!!

 

[El Trado]

I was thinking about how I tend to try and buy stocks "on sale" and how I bet if I went back and calculated every time I did that I bet my results would suck. So, why not do the opposite?

What about an investment/trading (whatever you want to call it) strategy, where you start with [30] stocks. They could be purely random, or you could have some criteria. Whatever. But once you buy your [30] stocks, once every [week] you sell your [5] biggest losers/least winners and replace them with [5] new stocks (random or that also meet your initial criteria, whatever). You keep that up forever and ever.

Does that portfolio make one a ton of money over time? Sell the losers, let the winners ride baby!!!!

Why not a simple trend-following system?

 

[Saltynuts]

1. why 30 or not 34?
2. why 5 or not 8?
3. how many do your ready to lose money in 5 tickers, 1 ticker?
4. do you have historical back test?
5. why is it not mirage?

1 and 2 - See how I put all those things in brackets? That's because I'm not sure what the best numbers are, just throwing some out there for discussion. All ears as to any tweaks anyone wants to suggest, numbers or otherwise!

3 - you sell and buy mechanically as I've described, nothing more, nothing less.

4 - no, this is purely a thought experiment. Like, of the kind Einstein used to come up with his relativity theories (with no "backtesting"), only in the financial world rather than physics world.

5 - not sure what you are saying lol.

 

[Saltynuts]

Why not a simple trend-following system?

Well, I think this strategy WOULD constitute a simple trend following system. You are basically selling the ones trending down or trending up less, holding the ones that are trending up the most! Let those profits run!!!