|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yuki,
That was a neat story, albeit anecdotal. Very interesting. I remember years
ago, when I was interested in O'Neil's CANSLIM method of trading, that he used
to recommend SOME institutional ownership, but not a huge amount. He favored
(and still does, I think) lower cap stocks with huge growth potential. You seem
to be saying the opposite: institutional ownership is good, and the more, the
better. Am I interpreting you correctly? Doesn't a high degree of institutional
ownership result in diminished volatility, to the point of being less tradeable
since the stock moves ever so slowly? Apparently not, at least in your case with
Softbank.
As always, I enjoy your provocative posts.
Al Venosa
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
Yuki
Taga
To: <A title=amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">Phsst
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [amibroker] Narrowing in on
Tradable Stocks
Hi Phsst,Saturday, July 19, 2003, 9:38:44 AM, you
wrote:P> Top % of
Avg Avg P> # of
Total BETA InstitutionalP> Issues
Vol
OwnershipP> on
List
P> 3 10%P>
20 25%
1.76 68.23%P> 100
48% 1.48
65.85%P> 200 61%
1.41 68.19%P> 300
69% 1.36
68.86%P> 400 75%
1.34 66.71%P> The top 400 issues traded a
minimum of $50 million USD each.Interesting statistics. The
institutional ownership statistic mightbe telling. Back in '98 and
'99 I used to actively trade a stockhere called Softbank. It was one
of the high tech high flyers, andfor some reason I could make money
actively trading this stock. Atthe time my account was with Nikko
Securities, and the branch managerat that branch was my broker. One
day he told me that I was the onlyretail person he knew that traded the
stock, that it was mostly onlytraded by institutions.The stock
went very high by early 2000, then imploded with the restof its ilk,
losing well over 90 percent of its value. During thisimplosion, the
stock lost institutional sponsorship, and when theprice got low enough, it
started to become a retail favorite. Aboutthat time, I lost the
ability to trade the stock profitably. Itchanged from an "orderly"
stock to one that was extremely volatile,and worst of all, no pattern or
characteristics to the volatilitythat I could see or take advantage
of. I haven't traded the stock inwell over 2 years now, and it
continues on it's erratic way. I watchit once in a great while on
one of my axillary screens.So what do we know from this? Well,
we know that a stock *can* gofrom very tradable to very difficult if not
impossible to trade. Butperhaps we can also see that heavy
institutional ownership andtrading may contribute greatly to orderliness,
as difficult as thatis going to be to arrive at a universal definition of.
Interestingstory of one stock, anyway.By the way, those betas
above are dead-on the average betas of the 5stocks I routinely
trade.Best,YukiSend
BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSend SUGGESTIONS to
suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx-----------------------------------------Post
AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Web page: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)--------------------------------------------Check
group FAQ at: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|