Is 56 winners out of 64 total positions a good trading record?
- Thread starter mrmarket
- Start date
No, that's not quite it. My dad was in real estate, and the idea with fixer-uppers was to buy the cosmetically beatup house in the desirable neighborhood, not gamble on a wreck in a undesirable neighborhood on the chance it would work out. You wouldn't want to put a ton of money in a wreck, and you wouldn't want to hold that wreck for an indefinite period.
Mr market;
Might be a good trading record;
but in order to give an accurate answer more time & number info is required.
=============================================
==============================================
Actually your fixing up the ''beat up old house '' sounds even more profitable because;
certified real estate appraisers generaly have a MUCH better track record than full time or part time stock analysts.
Might be a good trading record;
but in order to give an accurate answer more time & number info is required.
=============================================
:
==============================================
Actually your fixing up the ''beat up old house '' sounds even more profitable because;
certified real estate appraisers generaly have a MUCH better track record than full time or part time stock analysts.
mrmarket,
Please tolerate my comments. Perhaps the housing market has markets within markets. Consider that in California for example it is an appreciating market and the value that you get might not seem to be the same value that you get say for example in Tennessee to use the extreme. It seems that supply and demand play a large role in this picture. Migrating populations, weather, jobs and local economies would fit in here too.
Point being: To draw the parable of buying good value and good objects and waiting for a assumed efficient market to discover your "safe entry" would be assuming that the market were not driven by short term outlooks and that you could quickly realize your goals.
Time is always a consideration, and to wait has a cost.....Entering cycles and limiting losses could vastly improve your model. Now I am not going to preach to you. Please don't throw your arms up and shake your head....I know you know what you know....ok? But consider trying to understand what others that have more experience than you are trying to explain. Just don't walk away thinking that people do not understand you. Rather than defending your position, which I know you believe in strongly ....your Huge I gather. I know your Wharton education has taught you it is impossible to time the markets and I am not suggesting to.
I urge you to just take a gander at this statement, then I will shut up....A stocks movement is 60-70% DEPENDENT upon the GENERAL MARKETS DIRECTION".
Go National (I am humming a ZZ top song, can't remember the lyrics)
Michael B.
Please tolerate my comments. Perhaps the housing market has markets within markets. Consider that in California for example it is an appreciating market and the value that you get might not seem to be the same value that you get say for example in Tennessee to use the extreme. It seems that supply and demand play a large role in this picture. Migrating populations, weather, jobs and local economies would fit in here too.
Point being: To draw the parable of buying good value and good objects and waiting for a assumed efficient market to discover your "safe entry" would be assuming that the market were not driven by short term outlooks and that you could quickly realize your goals.
Time is always a consideration, and to wait has a cost.....Entering cycles and limiting losses could vastly improve your model. Now I am not going to preach to you. Please don't throw your arms up and shake your head....I know you know what you know....ok? But consider trying to understand what others that have more experience than you are trying to explain. Just don't walk away thinking that people do not understand you. Rather than defending your position, which I know you believe in strongly ....your Huge I gather. I know your Wharton education has taught you it is impossible to time the markets and I am not suggesting to.
I urge you to just take a gander at this statement, then I will shut up....A stocks movement is 60-70% DEPENDENT upon the GENERAL MARKETS DIRECTION".
Go National (I am humming a ZZ top song, can't remember the lyrics)
Michael B.
>These two paragraphs kind of contradict each
>other. Why wouldnt you get rid of your losers and
>put your money in the stocks you mention in the
>first paragraph?
And that is the question several have asked. His response to me was that one (the still rising stock exited at 15% profit) was a "momentum" play and one (the floundering underwater stock) is a "value" play.
I didn't think the whole market thing was a word game. I thought it was about maximizing return.
And I will repeat the obvious that if you were to sell the losers and put that money into the stock you JUST SOLD at 15% profit you will likely do MUCH better overall. AND IF like you say you can do better with new entries than remain in the 15% up stock, then you can do WAY better with a new entry than in the floundering loser.
So, with your finest meat and cheese stock picking skills, I can only find one logical reason that you stick with the losers...you are more interested in trumpeting your "I'M HUGE and have XX WINNERS IN A ROW" than you are in maximizing your return.
But of course, it's your money (or not)
JB
>other. Why wouldnt you get rid of your losers and
>put your money in the stocks you mention in the
>first paragraph?
And that is the question several have asked. His response to me was that one (the still rising stock exited at 15% profit) was a "momentum" play and one (the floundering underwater stock) is a "value" play.
I didn't think the whole market thing was a word game. I thought it was about maximizing return.
And I will repeat the obvious that if you were to sell the losers and put that money into the stock you JUST SOLD at 15% profit you will likely do MUCH better overall. AND IF like you say you can do better with new entries than remain in the 15% up stock, then you can do WAY better with a new entry than in the floundering loser.
So, with your finest meat and cheese stock picking skills, I can only find one logical reason that you stick with the losers...you are more interested in trumpeting your "I'M HUGE and have XX WINNERS IN A ROW" than you are in maximizing your return.
But of course, it's your money (or not)
JB