tech/a
No Ordinary Duck
- Joined
- 14 October 2004
- Posts
- 20,417
- Reactions
- 6,356
Re: Discretionary, Systematic, Mechanical which are you?
MIT.
Like you I've been developing systems for many years.
I'm interested in your comment that your method generated more signals than you could buy------.
This is true of all long term systems.As most holds in those methods I use are over 300 days and a full portfolio is 10-12 positions----there are 10's if not 100's of signals that cannot possibly be taken.
Without knowing how you develope your systems--- I cant comment on your systems developement methodology----
Point I'm making is that a well developed system will make consistant profit REGARDLESS which stock signalled makes up the portfolio.
Certaintly eyeballing is a good method for selection and one I as well have used.But if it out performs the initial method by a great deal the this should be a FILTER within the method.
This in essence could control your universe of stocks more so than your actual portolio.
Sure in the end if you had enough capital to place a meaningful trade on EVERY one triggered within the FILTERED universe then you could have an optimum method.
(I know that running EVERY stock picked in a test on my systems that the returns over 8 yrs are like the GNP of a small country!----But in practice I'd need starting capital of around $3 million.)
My current veiw is that trading by any means (Discretionary,systematically,mechanically) can be greatly enhanced by selection of stock universe--------and further enhanced by trading the composite charts of those universes (to act as a FULL portfolio entry exit mechanism).
Finally you could do better yourself IF you employed the principals that made your system profitable in the first place,you then as I have mentioned above are not restricted by those variables you have selected in your system which are rigid.
You will more than likely increase your % wins but decrease your $/trade win.
I'd be interested to hear if this was/is the case.
MIT.
Like you I've been developing systems for many years.
I'm interested in your comment that your method generated more signals than you could buy------.
This is true of all long term systems.As most holds in those methods I use are over 300 days and a full portfolio is 10-12 positions----there are 10's if not 100's of signals that cannot possibly be taken.
Without knowing how you develope your systems--- I cant comment on your systems developement methodology----
Point I'm making is that a well developed system will make consistant profit REGARDLESS which stock signalled makes up the portfolio.
Certaintly eyeballing is a good method for selection and one I as well have used.But if it out performs the initial method by a great deal the this should be a FILTER within the method.
This in essence could control your universe of stocks more so than your actual portolio.
Sure in the end if you had enough capital to place a meaningful trade on EVERY one triggered within the FILTERED universe then you could have an optimum method.
(I know that running EVERY stock picked in a test on my systems that the returns over 8 yrs are like the GNP of a small country!----But in practice I'd need starting capital of around $3 million.)
My current veiw is that trading by any means (Discretionary,systematically,mechanically) can be greatly enhanced by selection of stock universe--------and further enhanced by trading the composite charts of those universes (to act as a FULL portfolio entry exit mechanism).
Finally you could do better yourself IF you employed the principals that made your system profitable in the first place,you then as I have mentioned above are not restricted by those variables you have selected in your system which are rigid.
You will more than likely increase your % wins but decrease your $/trade win.
I'd be interested to hear if this was/is the case.