Hi.
whilst I applaud your sharing of the system, not a single share I have ever owned that you have purchased in 35 years in the ASX. In short, a technical system alone v one that mixes fundamentals to even select with strict criteria a group of say 30 stocks you do trade I have found better. For 20 odd years and 10 live I shared my ideas on a thread at another place. The list of selections had to first be VALUE or high value fundamentally.
Without that very strict criteria, of selecting stocks that make money, or are close to it, or have extreme underlying value, the exercise of following a stock based upon a chart movement or share movement is a recipe for disaster. Having had that discussion with many, over many years, its like a Muslim trying to convert someone of the Jewish faith. A fundamental based value person, who is using a technical based enter and exit or for me a larger filter, that being the ASX 200 as it hits highs and lows, it cycles, and reaches a high, peaks, then retreats and hits a low. A normal cycle and without that overall filter along with a filter so your not buying rubbish which is technically breaking a defined chart or trading patter, your again lost.
In that, the ASX bottomed in Dec about 12% away from where it is. Even a blind person with a chart can see that. The only two filters of the overall market one needs to care about is the HIGH or the LOW, and is it going up or down. Now whilst at ASX 6,200 plus it MAY go higher, it is doubtful. In an UP market 90% plus of stocks go UP, in a down one, the opposite. Its rare for any stock to ignore the correction and in fact even the bigger stocks the biggest gainers over a period of time in a correction quite normally will go down FAR far far more than the market.
Some of the stocks say pre 2008 such as CSL I shared and miners and oilers, in an 8% overall market correction tended to go down 15% even 20% yet over time, they were the biggest gainers overall. I was for example bullish OIL pre 2008 and so to coalers, until all my stocks were eventually taken over, but the highs and lows were extreme, and whilst markets pre 2008 had a very good cycle and a correction of 8% 10% 15% or more before resuming their merry rally, post say 2010 its a lessor case. It is still for me, essential to enter when the index is DOWN, not up and when people hate stocks verse the love affair.
Other on actually pulling a company fundamentally to bits prevents buying such atrocities that go bust on the main. Some stocks, say pick one that has gone broke and I am sure technically, at some stage even extended stages they technically looked great, but were crooks, utterly worthless and even a casual look at what they did their hopes of ever making a profit were close to zero. People are attracted to the mad gamble and I have stopped on the main trying to stop or even educate. That said, one I did, or tried to, a technical guy, loved the TAS and EDE and a few others that since I did care a bit about him, knew him, looked at them and went they are so unlikely to ever prove to be of value they should have a biohazard sign around their necks. Like everyone I look for the next good thing, but with very strict fundamental signs. Now time takes care of most things and for most rubbish its sent to the bin, and in say the case of EDE and TAS and so on, similar stocks, it breaks and breaks hard UP, as it did, but the close examination of accounts, costs and in these two cases an insane fee structure to a group of lawyer more than say the COE of a company managing 50 billion plus is what they are paying themselves verses income less than 1% ... hence its not hard to call it what it is.
Good luck, and I might add, bigger stocks, whilst not guaranteeing success or in fact anything, being able to identify true and extreme value longer term, say in the case of CSL or even BHP at sub $20 and overvaluation up near $50 for BHP makes more. Buying say a $3- or $1 stock such as MFG and less than 10 years latter its $36- is what it is.
Take care and good luck
Mark K